newswars--2020-01-06--Lock Her Up! Donald Trump Jr. Sports AR-15 Showing Hillary Behind Bars

Donald Trump Jr. posted a set of pictures to his Instagram account on Sunday showing off a new AR-15 rifle equipped with a magazine showing a picture of Hillary Clinton in prison .
“ Nice day at the range .
Rare Breed Firearms and Spikes Tactical adding a little extra awesome to my AR and that mag… 🔥 , ” Don Jr. said in his caption .
Unsurprisingly , liberals on Twitter freaked out and had to put their two cents in on the matter .
One blue checkmark user said , “ I can ’ t wait til that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in prison.
” Author and mainstream media commentator Ruth Ben-Ghiat called Don Jr. , “ a far right extremist and thug.
” Democratic strategist Peter Daou wrote , “ These are loathsome people .
Fake warriors .
Weaklings .
Cowards .
In Lebanon , the real fighters I grew up with would have choice Arabic words to describe him.
” Daily Beast columnist Dean Obeidallah asked Trump Jr. , “ instead of showing off how you can kill animals or shoot at the range why not join US military so you can fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A writer for the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post named Brian Klaas called the post , “ So insane & appalling.
” Akil N. Awan , a Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Policy , compared the Crusader imagery on the rifle to “ propaganda used by Far-Right terrorists.
” Also , take advantage of the final day of our Mega Blowout Sale with free shipping and up to 75 % off our hottest items !

Donald Trump Jr. posted a set of pictures to his Instagram account on Sunday showing off a new AR-15 rifle equipped with a magazine showing a picture of Hillary Clinton in prison.
“Nice day at the range. Rare Breed Firearms and Spikes Tactical adding a little extra awesome to my AR and that mag… 🔥,” Don Jr. said in his caption.
Unsurprisingly, liberals on Twitter freaked out and had to put their two cents in on the matter.
One blue checkmark user said, “I can’t wait til that treasonous little motherfucker Donald Trump Jr is in prison.”
Donald Trump Jr just posted a photo of himself holding an assault weapon with Hillary Clinton’s picture on the side of it. I can’t wait til that treasonous little motherfucker Donald Trump Jr is in prison. — Palmer Report (@PalmerReport) January 6, 2020
Author and mainstream media commentator Ruth Ben-Ghiat called Don Jr., “a far right extremist and thug.”
Trump Jr is a far right extremist and thug. The medieval fetish, part of global right culture, goes from Italy’s League led by Salvini to Bolsonaro’s Brazil and is about defending white European “Christendom.” https://t.co/Mr5UYXzTC0 — Ruth Ben-Ghiat (@ruthbenghiat) January 6, 2020
Democratic strategist Peter Daou wrote, “These are loathsome people. Fake warriors. Weaklings. Cowards. In Lebanon, the real fighters I grew up with would have choice Arabic words to describe him.”
These are loathsome people. Fake warriors. Weaklings. Cowards. In Lebanon, the real fighters I grew up with would have choice Arabic words to describe him.https://t.co/EVKVcrijgD — Peter Daou (@peterdaou) January 6, 2020
Daily Beast columnist Dean Obeidallah asked Trump Jr., “instead of showing off how you can kill animals or shoot at the range why not join US military so you can fight your dad’s war?”
Hey @DonaldJTrumpJr instead of showing off how you can kill animals or shoot at the range why not join US military so you can fight your dad’s war? We know why-wealthy children like you prefer to send the poor to die for them. https://t.co/QqfCmtn3EM — (((DeanObeidallah))) (@DeanObeidallah) January 6, 2020
Right Wing Watch’s Jared Holt questioned Donald Jr.’s sanity.
Is Donald Trump Jr doing OK? pic.twitter.com/ymsYUk6olm — Jared Holt (@jaredlholt) January 6, 2020
A writer for the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post named Brian Klaas called the post, “So insane & appalling.”
In today’s totally normal news for a democracy, the president’s son—who a significant percentage of Republicans favor as his successor—posted photos of himself shooting a gun featuring an image of a crusader’s cross & his father’s former opponent in jail. So insane & appalling. pic.twitter.com/zYvHnOZL6Z — Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) January 6, 2020
Akil N. Awan, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Policy, compared the Crusader imagery on the rifle to “propaganda used by Far-Right terrorists.”
Don Jr posted photos of himself brandishing a modified assault rifle with CRUSADER etched on it, lower receiver modelled after a medieval Crusader hemet & mag printed with Hillary’s face.
Crusader imagery on weapons & propaganda has been used by Far-Right terrorists since Breivik pic.twitter.com/hLdgUAL7au — Akil N Awan (@Akil_N_Awan) January 6, 2020
Tea Pain nominates @DonaldJTrumpJr to lead our ground assault into Iran. Who seconds that motion?https://t.co/uEuV1AwZ8D — Tea Pain (@TeaPainUSA) January 6, 2020
All right. Let’s talk about Donald Trump, Jr posing with a gun adorned with crusader iconography as America teeters on the brink of a religious war, why the imprisoned Hillary Clinton image plays into apocalyptic white identity Christianity, and how this country got so screwed up pic.twitter.com/dcCB9VW0eC — Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) January 6, 2020
@DonaldJTrumpJr is the personification of a micro penis with erectile dysfunction pic.twitter.com/MzMs372nE2 — Owen Mulvaney (@OwenMulvaney3) January 6, 2020
@DonaldJTrumpJr Where’d you get those horses teeth? You and Ivanka get a two for one? Oh and the weapon. You’re probably going to need it for your daddy’s new war! pic.twitter.com/UjMNZoKjFW — Fishin’ Bill (@billfishon) January 6, 2020
Fight through the bone spurs pic.twitter.com/hjMuiKzuc2 — Mike lillibridge (@LillibridgeMike) January 6, 2020
One Twitter user photoshopped a massive black dildo into Trump Jr.’s hands.
Donald Trump Jr shows off the present he got his girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle – for their 1st anniversary together. pic.twitter.com/WCbk0Y4DwX — Paul Lidicul (@PaulLidicul) January 6, 2020
Also, take advantage of the final day of our Mega Blowout Sale with free shipping and up to 75% off our hottest items!


newswars--2020-01-06--Scientists Develop New Method to Detect Oxygen on Exoplanets

Scientists have developed a new method for detecting oxygen in exoplanet atmospheres that may accelerate the search for life .
One possible indication of life , or biosignature , is the presence of oxygen in an exoplanet ’ s atmosphere .
Oxygen is generated by life on Earth when organisms such as plants , algae , and cyanobacteria use photosynthesis to convert sunlight into chemical energy .
UC Riverside helped develop the new technique , which will use NASA ’ s James Webb Space Telescope to detect a strong signal that oxygen molecules produce when they collide .
This signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonliving planets .
Since exoplanets , which orbit stars other than our sun , are so far away , scientists can not look for signs of life by visiting these distant worlds .
Instead , they must use a cutting-edge telescope like Webb to see what ’ s inside the atmospheres of exoplanets .
“ Before our work , oxygen at similar levels as on Earth was thought to be undetectable with Webb , ” said Thomas Fauchez of NASA ’ s Goddard Space Flight Center and lead author of the study .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the early 1980s from Earth ’ s atmospheric studies but has never been studied for exoplanet research.
” UC Riverside astrobiologist Edward Schwieterman originally proposed a similar way of detecting high concentrations of oxygen from nonliving processes and was a member of the team that developed this technique .
Their work was published today in the journal Nature Astronomy .
“ Oxygen is one of the most exciting molecules to detect because of its link with life , but we don ’ t know if life is the only cause of oxygen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This technique will allow us to find oxygen in planets both living and dead.
” For those of you that have ingested this information through countless interviews and analysis at Infowars , this report serves as a refresher .
When oxygen molecules collide with each other , they block parts of the infrared light spectrum from being seen by a telescope .
By examining patterns in that light , they can determine the composition of the planet ’ s atmosphere .
Schwieterman helped the NASA team calculate how much light would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some researchers propose oxygen can also make an exoplanet appear to host life when it does not , because it can accumulate in a planet ’ s atmosphere without any life activity at all .
If an exoplanet is too close to its host star or receives too much star light , the atmosphere becomes very warm and saturated with water vapor from evaporating oceans .
This water could then be broken down by strong ultraviolet radiation into atomic hydrogen and oxygen .
Hydrogen , which is a light atom , escapes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oxygen behind .
Over time , this process may cause entire oceans to be lost while building up a thick oxygen atmosphere — more even , than could be made by life .
So , abundant oxygen in an exoplanet ’ s atmosphere may not necessarily mean abundant life but may instead indicate a history of water loss .
Schwieterman cautions that astronomers are not yet sure how widespread this process may be on exoplanets .
“ It is important to know whether and how much dead planets generate atmospheric oxygen , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet is alive or not , ” he said .
Schwieterman is a visiting postdoctoral fellow at UCR who will soon start as assistant professor of astrobiology in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences .
The research received funding from Goddard ’ s Sellers Exoplanet Environments Collaboration , which is funded in part by the NASA Planetary Science Division ’ s Internal Scientist Funding Model .
This project has also received funding from the European Union ’ s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant , the NASA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NExSS Virtual Planetary Laboratory .
Webb will be the world ’ s premier space science observatory when it launches in 2021 .
It will allow scientists to solve mysteries in our solar system , look to distant worlds around other stars , and probe the mysterious structures and origins of our universe and our place in it .
Bill Steigerwald and Nancy Jones of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center made significant contributions to this article .
Tom Pappert joins The Alex Jones Show to break down the Deep State plan to trigger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring in U.N. troops .
Also , take advantage of the final day of our Mega Blowout Sale with free shipping and up to 75 % off our hottest items !

Scientists have developed a new method for detecting oxygen in exoplanet atmospheres that may accelerate the search for life.
One possible indication of life, or biosignature, is the presence of oxygen in an exoplanet’s atmosphere. Oxygen is generated by life on Earth when organisms such as plants, algae, and cyanobacteria use photosynthesis to convert sunlight into chemical energy.
UC Riverside helped develop the new technique, which will use NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope to detect a strong signal that oxygen molecules produce when they collide. This signal could help scientists distinguish between living and nonliving planets.
Since exoplanets, which orbit stars other than our sun, are so far away, scientists cannot look for signs of life by visiting these distant worlds. Instead, they must use a cutting-edge telescope like Webb to see what’s inside the atmospheres of exoplanets.
“Before our work, oxygen at similar levels as on Earth was thought to be undetectable with Webb,” said Thomas Fauchez of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and lead author of the study. “This oxygen signal is known since the early 1980s from Earth’s atmospheric studies but has never been studied for exoplanet research.”
UC Riverside astrobiologist Edward Schwieterman originally proposed a similar way of detecting high concentrations of oxygen from nonliving processes and was a member of the team that developed this technique. Their work was published today in the journal Nature Astronomy.
“Oxygen is one of the most exciting molecules to detect because of its link with life, but we don’t know if life is the only cause of oxygen in an atmosphere,” Schwieterman said. “This technique will allow us to find oxygen in planets both living and dead.”
Ignore The Eugenics Plan At Your Own Peril
For those of you that have ingested this information through countless interviews and analysis at Infowars, this report serves as a refresher.
When oxygen molecules collide with each other, they block parts of the infrared light spectrum from being seen by a telescope. By examining patterns in that light, they can determine the composition of the planet’s atmosphere.
Schwieterman helped the NASA team calculate how much light would be blocked by these oxygen collisions.
Intriguingly, some researchers propose oxygen can also make an exoplanet appear to host life when it does not, because it can accumulate in a planet’s atmosphere without any life activity at all.
If an exoplanet is too close to its host star or receives too much star light, the atmosphere becomes very warm and saturated with water vapor from evaporating oceans. This water could then be broken down by strong ultraviolet radiation into atomic hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen, which is a light atom, escapes to space very easily, leaving the oxygen behind.
Over time, this process may cause entire oceans to be lost while building up a thick oxygen atmosphere — more even, than could be made by life. So, abundant oxygen in an exoplanet’s atmosphere may not necessarily mean abundant life but may instead indicate a history of water loss.
Schwieterman cautions that astronomers are not yet sure how widespread this process may be on exoplanets.
“It is important to know whether and how much dead planets generate atmospheric oxygen, so that we can better recognize when a planet is alive or not,” he said.
Schwieterman is a visiting postdoctoral fellow at UCR who will soon start as assistant professor of astrobiology in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences.
The research received funding from Goddard’s Sellers Exoplanet Environments Collaboration, which is funded in part by the NASA Planetary Science Division’s Internal Scientist Funding Model. This project has also received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant, the NASA Astrobiology Institute Alternative Earths team, and the NExSS Virtual Planetary Laboratory.
Webb will be the world’s premier space science observatory when it launches in 2021. It will allow scientists to solve mysteries in our solar system, look to distant worlds around other stars, and probe the mysterious structures and origins of our universe and our place in it.
Bill Steigerwald and Nancy Jones of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center made significant contributions to this article.
RED ALERT! Deep State Plan To Trigger Civil War In Virginia Discovered
Tom Pappert joins The Alex Jones Show to break down the Deep State plan to trigger a civil war in Virginia, and bring in U.N. troops.
Also, take advantage of the final day of our Mega Blowout Sale with free shipping and up to 75% off our hottest items!


newswars--2020-01-06--In a nearby galaxy, a fast radio burst unravels more questions than answers

For more than a decade , astronomers across the globe have wrestled with the perplexities of fast radio bursts—intense , unexplained cosmic flashes of energy , light years away , that pop for mere milliseconds .
Despite the hundreds of records of these enigmatic sources , researchers have only pinpointed the precise location of four such bursts .
Now there ’ s a fifth , detected by a team of international scientists that includes West Virginia University researchers .
The finding , which relied on eight telescopes spanning locations from the United Kingdom to China , was published Monday ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are two primary types of fast radio bursts , explained Kshitij Aggarwal , a physics graduate student at WVU and a co-author of the paper : repeaters , which flash multiple times , and non-repeaters , one-off events .
This observation marks only the second time scientists have determined the location of a repeating fast radio burst .
But the localization of this burst is not quite as important as the type of galaxy it was found in , which is similar to our own , said Sarah Burke-Spolaor , assistant professor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Identifying the host galaxy for FRBs is critical to tell us about what kind of environments FRBs live in , and thus what might actually be producing FRBs , ” Burke-Spolaor said .
“ This is a question for which scientists are still grasping at straws.
” Burke-Spolaor and her student , Aggarwal , used the Very Large Array observatory in New Mexico to seek pulsations and a persistent radio glow from this burst .
Meanwhile , Kevin Bandura , assistant professor of computer science and electrical engineering , and third WVU co-author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment team that initially detected the repeating fast radio burst .
“ What ’ s very interesting about this particular repeating FRB is that it is in the arm of a Milky Way-like spiral galaxy , and is the closest to Earth thus far localized , ” Bandura said .
“ The unique proximity and repetition of this FRB might allow for observation in other wavelengths and the potential for more detailed study to understand the nature of this type of FRB.
” Using a technique known as Very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a level of resolution high enough to localize the burst to a region approximately seven light years across—a feat comparable to an individual on Earth being able to distinguish a person on the moon , according to CHIME .
With that level of precision , the researchers could analyze the environment from which the burst emanated through an optical telescope .
What they found has added a new chapter to the mystery surrounding the origins of fast radio bursts .
This particular burst existed in a radically different environment from previous studies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a tiny “ dwarf ” galaxy that contained metals and formed stars , Burke-Spolaor said .
“ That encouraged a lot of publications saying that repeating FRBs are likely produced by magnetars ( neutron stars with powerful magnetic fields ) , ” she said .
“ While that is still possible , the fact that this FRB breaks the uniqueness of that previous mold means that we have to consider perhaps multiple origins or a broader range of theories to understand what creates FRBs.
” At half-a-billion light years from Earth , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ FRB 180916 , ” is seven times closer than the only other repeating burst to have been localized , and more than 10 times closer than any of the few non-repeating bursts scientists have managed to pinpoint .
Researchers are hopeful that this latest observation will enable further studies that unravel the possible explanations behind fast radio bursts , according to CHIME .
WVU has remained at the research forefront of fast radio bursts since they were first discovered in 2007 by a team right here at the University that included Duncan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then-student David Narkevic .
The trio discovered fast radio bursts from scouring archived data from Australia ’ s Parkes Radio Telescope .
Alex Jones clarifies his take on Iran and discusses the $ 80 million bounty that they ’ ve put on President Trump ’ s head .
Also , start your year right with free shipping and up to 75 % off our hottest items during the Mega Blowout Sale !

For more than a decade, astronomers across the globe have wrestled with the perplexities of fast radio bursts—intense, unexplained cosmic flashes of energy, light years away, that pop for mere milliseconds.
Despite the hundreds of records of these enigmatic sources, researchers have only pinpointed the precise location of four such bursts.
Now there’s a fifth, detected by a team of international scientists that includes West Virginia University researchers. The finding, which relied on eight telescopes spanning locations from the United Kingdom to China, was published Monday (Jan. 6) in Nature.
There are two primary types of fast radio bursts, explained Kshitij Aggarwal, a physics graduate student at WVU and a co-author of the paper: repeaters, which flash multiple times, and non-repeaters, one-off events. This observation marks only the second time scientists have determined the location of a repeating fast radio burst.
But the localization of this burst is not quite as important as the type of galaxy it was found in, which is similar to our own, said Sarah Burke-Spolaor, assistant professor of physics and astronomy and co-author.
“Identifying the host galaxy for FRBs is critical to tell us about what kind of environments FRBs live in, and thus what might actually be producing FRBs,” Burke-Spolaor said. “This is a question for which scientists are still grasping at straws.”
Burke-Spolaor and her student, Aggarwal, used the Very Large Array observatory in New Mexico to seek pulsations and a persistent radio glow from this burst. Meanwhile, Kevin Bandura, assistant professor of computer science and electrical engineering, and third WVU co-author of the article, worked on the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment team that initially detected the repeating fast radio burst.
“What’s very interesting about this particular repeating FRB is that it is in the arm of a Milky Way-like spiral galaxy, and is the closest to Earth thus far localized,” Bandura said. “The unique proximity and repetition of this FRB might allow for observation in other wavelengths and the potential for more detailed study to understand the nature of this type of FRB.”
Using a technique known as Very Long Baseline Interferometry, the team achieved a level of resolution high enough to localize the burst to a region approximately seven light years across—a feat comparable to an individual on Earth being able to distinguish a person on the moon, according to CHIME.
With that level of precision, the researchers could analyze the environment from which the burst emanated through an optical telescope.
What they found has added a new chapter to the mystery surrounding the origins of fast radio bursts.
This particular burst existed in a radically different environment from previous studies, as the first repeating burst was discovered in a tiny “dwarf” galaxy that contained metals and formed stars, Burke-Spolaor said.
“That encouraged a lot of publications saying that repeating FRBs are likely produced by magnetars (neutron stars with powerful magnetic fields),” she said. “While that is still possible, the fact that this FRB breaks the uniqueness of that previous mold means that we have to consider perhaps multiple origins or a broader range of theories to understand what creates FRBs.”
At half-a-billion light years from Earth, the source of this burst, named “FRB 180916,” is seven times closer than the only other repeating burst to have been localized, and more than 10 times closer than any of the few non-repeating bursts scientists have managed to pinpoint. Researchers are hopeful that this latest observation will enable further studies that unravel the possible explanations behind fast radio bursts, according to CHIME.
WVU has remained at the research forefront of fast radio bursts since they were first discovered in 2007 by a team right here at the University that included Duncan Lorimer and Maura McLaughlin, physics professors, and then-student David Narkevic. The trio discovered fast radio bursts from scouring archived data from Australia’s Parkes Radio Telescope.
Alex Jones clarifies his take on Iran and discusses the $80 million bounty that they’ve put on President Trump’s head.
Also, start your year right with free shipping and up to 75% off our hottest items during the Mega Blowout Sale!


newswars--2020-01-06--Young Women Still Getting Unnecessary Pelvic Exams

Pelvic examinations and cervical cancer screenings are no longer recommended for most females under age 21 during routine health visits , but a new study has found that millions of young women are unnecessarily undergoing the tests , which can lead to false-positive testing , over-treatment , anxiety and needless cost .
Researchers at UC San Francisco and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) estimated that 1.4 million pelvic examinations and 1.6 million Pap tests performed on U.S. females 15 to 20 years old in a single year may have been medically unnecessary .
The findings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against routine pelvic examinations and Pap tests in this age group , there ’ s a critical lag in clinical practice .
The estimated cost of these unnecessary exams was approximately $ 123 million a year .
“ Recent media reports have called attention to inappropriate gynecologic examinations in young women , ” said senior author George F. Sawaya , MD , professor of Obstetrics , Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at UCSF and director of the UCSF Center for Healthcare Value .
“ Parents of adolescents and young women should be aware that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this age group .
Pelvic exams are not necessary prior to getting most contraceptives and are often not needed to screen for sexually transmissible infections , ” Sawaya said .
For those of you that have ingested this information through countless interviews and analysis at Infowars , this report serves as a refresher .
Cervical cancer screening is not recommended for individuals under age 21 , according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , and the American Cancer Society .
Additionally , leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in asymptomatic women who are not pregnant .
The new analysis was intended to estimate how often pelvic examinations and Pap tests occurred among young women in the U.S. , as well as the proportion that were potentially unnecessary .
The population-based study used data from 2011 to 2017 .
Researchers classified the pelvic examination into two types : medically indicated or potentially unnecessary .
Pelvic examinations were considered medically indicated if performed during pregnancy or in association with use of an intrauterine device , or in the context of treatment for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that of approximately 2.6 million young women who received a pelvic exam during the previous year , more than half ( 54.4 percent ) were potentially unnecessary , representing an estimated 1.4 million young women .
Additionally , the researchers found that nearly a fifth of females younger than the recommended age had a Pap test within the past year .
Because 72 percent were performed as “ part of a routine exam , ” they were potentially unnecessary , representing an estimated 1.6 million young women .
Almost all of the pelvic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Pap test .
Young women who had been screened for a sexually transmitted infection were 3.8 times more likely to receive a Pap test and 60 percent more likely to receive a pelvic examination , compared with those who had not been screened .
Similarly , young women who used a hormonal contraception other than IUD were 75 percent more likely to receive a Pap test and 31 percent more likely to receive a pelvic examination , compared with those who did not use those contraception methods .
“ This study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to communicate clearly and often about the best time for these tests , ” said first author Jin Qin , ScD , an epidemiologist with the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
“ We want to ensure that guidelines are followed , and lives are saved.
” Watch & share this emergency public service announcement by the people for the people .
Also , take advantage of the final day of our Mega Blowout Sale with free shipping and up to 75 % @ @ @ @ @

University of California - San Francisco

Pelvic examinations and cervical cancer screenings are no longer recommended for most females under age 21 during routine health visits, but a new study has found that millions of young women are unnecessarily undergoing the tests, which can lead to false-positive testing, over-treatment, anxiety and needless cost.
Researchers at UC San Francisco and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that 1.4 million pelvic examinations and 1.6 million Pap tests performed on U.S. females 15 to 20 years old in a single year may have been medically unnecessary.
The findings suggest that despite professional guidelines and recommendations against routine pelvic examinations and Pap tests in this age group, there’s a critical lag in clinical practice. The estimated cost of these unnecessary exams was approximately $123 million a year.
The study appears Jan. 6, 2020 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“Recent media reports have called attention to inappropriate gynecologic examinations in young women,” said senior author George F. Sawaya, MD, professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at UCSF and director of the UCSF Center for Healthcare Value.
“Parents of adolescents and young women should be aware that cervical cancer screening is not recommended routinely in this age group. Pelvic exams are not necessary prior to getting most contraceptives and are often not needed to screen for sexually transmissible infections,” Sawaya said.
Ignore The Eugenics Plan At Your Own Peril
For those of you that have ingested this information through countless interviews and analysis at Infowars, this report serves as a refresher.
Cervical cancer screening is not recommended for individuals under age 21, according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Cancer Society. Additionally, leading professional organizations recommend against performing pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women who are not pregnant.
The new analysis was intended to estimate how often pelvic examinations and Pap tests occurred among young women in the U.S., as well as the proportion that were potentially unnecessary. The population-based study used data from 2011 to 2017.
Researchers classified the pelvic examination into two types: medically indicated or potentially unnecessary. Pelvic examinations were considered medically indicated if performed during pregnancy or in association with use of an intrauterine device, or in the context of treatment for a sexually transmitted disease.
The investigators estimated that of approximately 2.6 million young women who received a pelvic exam during the previous year, more than half (54.4 percent) were potentially unnecessary, representing an estimated 1.4 million young women.
Additionally, the researchers found that nearly a fifth of females younger than the recommended age had a Pap test within the past year. Because 72 percent were performed as “part of a routine exam,” they were potentially unnecessary, representing an estimated 1.6 million young women. Almost all of the pelvic examinations were performed at the same time as the Pap test.
Young women who had been screened for a sexually transmitted infection were 3.8 times more likely to receive a Pap test and 60 percent more likely to receive a pelvic examination, compared with those who had not been screened.
Similarly, young women who used a hormonal contraception other than IUD were 75 percent more likely to receive a Pap test and 31 percent more likely to receive a pelvic examination, compared with those who did not use those contraception methods.
“This study suggests that healthcare providers and young women need to communicate clearly and often about the best time for these tests,” said first author Jin Qin, ScD, an epidemiologist with the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “We want to ensure that guidelines are followed, and lives are saved.”
WARNING! The Vaccines Are A Trojan Horse
Watch & share this emergency public service announcement by the people for the people.
Also, take advantage of the final day of our Mega Blowout Sale with free shipping and up to 75% off our hottest items!


newswars--2020-01-06--5G: Next Gen Health Dangers (Documentary)

This mini-documentary exposes the health dangers of 5G and why this dangerous technology is a new source of “ electromagnetic @ @ @ @ @ lives .
The tech industry is fully aware of these dangers , but pushed 5G @ @ @ @ @ the technology and trying to silence the science that exposes the public health risks associated @ @ @ @ @ Also , take advantage of the final day of our Mega Blowout Sale with free @ @ @ @ @ % off our hottest items !

This mini-documentary exposes the health dangers of 5G and why this dangerous technology is a new source of “electromagnetic pollution” that endangers human lives.
The tech industry is fully aware of these dangers, but pushed 5G anyway, censoring critics of the technology and trying to silence the science that exposes the public health risks associated with this extreme technology.
Also, take advantage of the final day of our Mega Blowout Sale with free shipping and up to 75% off our hottest items!


newswars--2020-01-06--Conservation in the Free Market

Conservation in the Free Market

It should be no news by this time that intellectuals are fully as subject to the vagaries of fashion as are the hemlines of women ’ s skirts .
Apparently , intellectuals tend to be victims of a herd mentality .
Thus , when John Kenneth Galbraith published his best-selling The Affluent Society in 1958 , every intellectual and his brother was denouncing America as suffering from undue and excessive affluence ; yet , only two or three years later , the fashion suddenly changed , and the very same intellectuals were complaining that America was rife with poverty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sprees , capitalism is blamed for whatever illness is being focused on at the moment ; the same capitalism supposedly responsible for making us all surfeited with material goods in 1958 was to be equally guilty for rendering the nation poverty-stricken in 1961 .
Another leading example was the “ stagnation thesis , ” propounded by many economists in the late thirties and early forties .
The stagnation thesis held that capitalism had come to the end of its rope , since there was no room for any further technological inventions and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was therefore doomed to perpetual and growing mass unemployment .
After this notion had faded away , the early and mid-sixties produced precisely the opposite damning indictment of the capitalist system .
Numerous intellectuals , including the self-same proclaimers of the stagnation thesis , now asserted that imminent automation and cybernation were going to lead quickly to permanent and growing mass unemployment for practically everyone because there would be no work for any mere men to do .
Happily , the automation hysteria has faded away in the intellectual fashions of recent years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of these cases , through the rampant contradictions , there runs one crucial thread : whatever the problem , the market economy is held to be the culprit .
The latest intellectual craze , which has taken on the proportions of a deluge in a very short time , is The Environment , otherwise known as Ecology or the Quality of Life .
In the last two months , it has been impossible to pick up a newspaper or magazine without being bombarded by the Ravaged Environment Problem .
Whatever the dimensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to believe that it has escalated from negligible to endemic proportions within one or two months ’ time .
And , yet , there it is .
On the Left , acutely pressing questions which have been properly agitating them for several years , such as Vietnam and the draft , have suddenly and magically disappeared , as leftists and student protesters now picket and demonstrate on behalf of the environment and clean air .
Conservatives have happily seized on the issue in order to draw the teeth of dissent ; after all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , right , or center — is going to come out squarely in favor of ugliness , garbage or air pollution ?
Establishment organs happily proclaim that The Environment will be the political “ issue ” of the 1970s .
President Nixon eagerly scrambled to make the “ quality of life ” the major theme of his State of the Union Address .
Thus : The great question of the seventies is : Shall we surrender to our surroundings or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air , to our land , and to our water ?
Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond … factions .
It has become a common cause of all the people of this country .
… The program I shall propose to Congress will be the most comprehensive and costly program in this field in America ’ s history .
… Each of us must resolve that each day he will leave his home , his property , the public places of the city or town a little cleaner , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that before these problems become insoluble the nation develop a national growth policy .
… We will carry our concern with the quality of life in America to the farm as well as the suburb , to the village as well as the city .
What are we , then , to make of this Environment Question ?
The first thing we must do is to isolate and distinguish the different problems raised ; we must , above all , resist the exhortations of the environment hysterics to throw a whole slew of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bag .
We must , in short , do the opposite of what Fortune magazine tells us to do in its special issue on the environment ( February 1970 ) : Looked at one by one , many of our present depredations seem relatively easy to correct .
But when we put the horrors in a row — the drab and clumsy cities , the billboards , the scum-choked lakes , the noise , the poisoned air and water , the clogged highways , the mountainous and reeking dumps — their cumulative effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single deep-seated flaw .
… The Left , of course , has found — surprise — its single deep-seated flaw : capitalism , in this case “ capitalist greed , ” which has ravaged and destroyed our resources , etc .
That capitalism is not the problem should be evident from the fact that the Soviet Union has created a far more “ ravaged ” environment , certainly in proportion to its industrial activity , than the United States .
The famous poisoning of the Soviet ’ s Lake Baikal is a sharp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinguish the very different problems involved .
There is , first , the esthetic question .
Countless “ environmentalists ” have been complaining bitterly about the “ ugliness ” of life in the United States , about the “ ugly ” cities , “ hideous ” buildings , etc .
In the first place , esthetics brings us adrift without a rudder on a sea of diverse individual values and tastes .
One man ’ s “ ugliness ” is another ’ s “ beauty , ” and vice versa .
My own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the ugliness of our cities and singers of paeans to the unspoiled wilderness , stubbornly remain ensconced in these very cities .
Why don ’ t they leave ?
There are , even today , plenty of rural and even wilderness areas for them to live in and enjoy .
Why don ’ t they go there and leave those of us who like and enjoy the cities in peace ?
Furthermore , if they got out , it would help relieve the urban “ overcrowding ” which they also complain about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the buildings and the landscape , by most esthetic definitions , has been created by such governmental programs as urban renewal , with its wanton destruction of urban homes , stores , and community neighborhoods , to be replaced by barracks-like developments built through subsidies and the confiscatory power of eminent domain .
Furthermore , what buildings in this country are typically more ugly than those housing the organs of government , from the Pentagon to your local post office ?
Or what of such government programs as the proliferating highways and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tear down neighborhoods along the way ?
Another charge against the cities is that they are terribly “ overcrowded.
” Here again , we have an unsupported value judgment by the critics .
How much crowding is “ overcrowding ” ?
As Jane Jacobs points out , high concentration of dwelling units per acre and high land coverage are essential to the diversity , growth , and vitality of the best and most generally liked areas of the big cities .
She notes that it is in the lower-density suburban areas where stores @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic demand and which lead to a flat sameness of life and neighborhood ; it is the high-density areas that make profitable a large spectrum of stores and services catering to a wide range of minority tastes .
And , once more , there is nothing to prevent the critics of crowds from hightailing it to the wilderness .
The environmental critics are also sadly deficient in historical knowledge .
They fail to realize that the cities of a century and several centuries ago were far more crowded and unpleasant than they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In those olden days , streets were far narrower , cobblestone pavements were far noisier , modern sewage was nonexistent so that rank odors and epidemics were rampant , dogs and sometimes livestock roamed the streets , heat was overpowering with no refuge in air conditioning , etc .
Our environmentalists place their greatest blame on modern technology , and yet it is precisely modern technology that has permitted the growth of the far more populous cities of today with far greater health , ease , and comfort for each inhabitant .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for compulsory birth control as their means of checking population growth .
And yet far too much has been made of the population question .
South America and Africa are , by any criteria of density , highly underpopulated , and yet they are largely poverty-stricken and living on a bare subsistence level .
By the same mechanical criteria , Japan , like India , would be highly “ over-populated , ” and yet Japan , unlike India , with great ingenuity and enterprise has the highest industrial growth rate in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ features of the environmentalist movement is its evident abhorrence of modern technology and its Romanticist back-to-nature philosophy .
Technology and civilization are responsible , they say , for crowding , pollution , despoliation of resources , so let us therefore return to unspoiled nature , to Walden Pond , to contemplation in a far-off glade .
None of these critics of modern culture and civilization seem to realize that the back-to-nature path would not only mean shuffling off the benefits of civilization , but would also mean starvation and death for the vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the capital and the division of labor of the modern industrial market economy .
Or are our modern Romantics operating on a death , as opposed to a life , premise ?
It very much looks that way .
Take , for example , the standard conservationist complaints about the “ destruction ” of natural resources by the modern economy .
It is true that if the American continent had never been populated and settled , many millions of square miles of forest would have remained intact .
But so what ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ trees ?
For if a flourishing conservationist lobby in 1600 had insisted that the existing wilderness remain intact , the American continent would not have had room for more than a handful of fur trappers .
If man had not been allowed to use these forests , then these resources would have been truly wasted , because they could not be used .
What good are resources if man is barred from using them to achieve his ends ?
Furthermore , it is little realized that growing technology not only uses up , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources .
Before the development of the automobile and of modern machinery , the vast pools of petroleum under the earth were totally valueless to man ; they were useless , black liquid .
With the development of modern technology and industry , they suddenly became useful resources .
Then there is the common argument that any time a natural resource is used , any time a tree is chopped down , we are depriving future generations of its use .
And yet this argument proves far too much .
For if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tree because some future generation is deprived of doing so , then this future generation , when it becomes “ present , ” also can not use the tree for fear of its future generations , and so on to prove that the resource can never be used by man at all — surely a profoundly “ antihuman ” thesis , since man in general is kept in subservience to a resource which he can never use .
Furthermore , even if the future is allowed to use the resources , if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one generation to the next , this means that we must hobble ourselves for the sake of a future which will be richer than we are .
But surely the idea that the relatively poorer must sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the richer is a peculiar kind of ethic by anyone ’ s ethical standard .
If , then , every present generation may properly use resources , we reduce the whole conservation question to a far more sober and less hysterical dimension .
How much , then , of any resource @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how much conserved for posterity ?
The environmentalists and conservationists totally fail to realize that the free-market economy contains within itself an automatic principle for deciding the proper degree of conservation .
Let us consider , for example , a typical copper mine .
We do not find copper miners , once they have found and opened a vein of ore , rushing to mine all the copper immediately ; instead , the copper mine is conserved and used gradually , from year to year .
Why is that ?
Because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , triple this year ’ s production of copper , they will indeed triple this year ’ s revenue , but they will also deplete the mine and therefore lower the monetary value of the mine as a whole .
The monetary value of the mine is based on the expected future income to be earned from the production of copper , and if the mine is unduly depleted , the value of the mine , and therefore the selling price of the shares of stock in the mine , will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has to weigh the advantages of immediate income from copper production against the loss of capital value of the mine as a whole .
Their decision is determined by their expectation of future yields and demands for their product , the prevailing and expected rates of interest , etc .
If , for example , copper is expected to be rendered obsolete in a few years by a new synthetic metal , they will rush to produce more copper now when it is more highly valued and save far less for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — thus benefitting the consumers and the economy as a whole .
If , on the other hand , various veins of copper are expected to run out soon in the world as a whole , and copper is , therefore , expected to have a higher value in the future , less will be produced now and more withheld for future mining — again benefitting the consumers and the overall economy .
Thus , we see that the market economy contains a marvelous built-in mechanism whereby the resource owners ’ decision on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only their own income and wealth , but also that of the mass of consumers and of the national and world economy .
We find , in fact , no one complaining about capitalism ’ s “ ravaging ” of copper or iron resources .
What , then , is the problem in such cases as forests ?
Why are the forests or the fisheries “ ravaged ” but not minerals ?
The problem is that the areas where overproduction does exist are precisely those where the built-in market mechanism has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
Specifically , these are the areas where private property has not been allowed in the resource itself , but only in their daily or annual use .
Suppose , for example , that the government had decreed , from the beginning of iron or copper mining , that private property can not exist in the mines themselves but that instead the government or the “ public ” retained ownership of the mines and that private business could only lease them and use them from month to month .
Clearly , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being able to own the capital value of the mines themselves , would try to use up these mines as rapidly as possible , since they would earn only present but not future income .
Private mine owners would try to use up the mines quickly , for if they did not , other miners would gain the benefit of future copper ore. As private copper miners rushed to produce as much copper as possible immediately , leftists would begin to point to “ greedy ” capitalism ’ s unconscionable ravaging of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would lie , not in the market economy , but precisely in the fact that the government had prevented the market , and private property rights , from functioning in the copper resources as a whole .
This is precisely what has happened in those areas : forests , fisheries , petroleum , where overproduction and wastage of resources have actually occurred .
The bulk of the forests in the United States has been reserved to the ownership of the federal government ; private firms can only lease the forests for current use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that business firms have every incentive to use the forests as rapidly as possible and to conserve nothing for future use .
Furthermore , if forests as a whole were owned by private firms , these firms would have every economic incentive — none of which now exists — to develop techniques for increasing the resource and for enhancing its long-run productivity , so that current annual production and the resource as a whole could both increase at the same time .
As things now stand , there is no such incentive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same situation , in even more aggravated form , exists in the case of ocean fisheries .
Governments have never allowed private property rights in parts of the ocean ; they have only allowed private persons and firms to use the fish resource by catching and capturing the fish , but never to own the fish resource — the waters themselves .
Is it any wonder that there is grave danger of depletion of the fisheries ?
Let us consider the analogy of property and use in the land .
In primitive times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself ; in the primitive hunting and gathering economy , he only used the fruits of the natural soil or land : hunting wild animals , picking wild fruits or seeds for food .
In this hunting and gathering stage , and with the population low in relation to the resources , the land itself was not scarce and so the concept of private property in the land did not arise .
Only after man began to transform the land ( agriculture ) did the concept and the institution of private property in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s use of fish has begun to make this resource scarce , and it will continue to be more and more scarce so long as private property is not allowed to exist in the parts of the ocean itself .
For since no one can own any part of the ocean , no one will have the incentive to conserve it ; furthermore , there is now no economic incentive to develop the great untapped resource of aquaculture .
If private property rights existed in the ocean , there would be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which would not only use the enormous untapped resources of the ocean , but also would enormously increase the resources through such techniques as fertilizing , “ fencing ” off parts of the ocean , etc .
Thus , the supply of fish could be increased enormously by simple fertilizing techniques ( just as fertilizers led to an incredible increase in the supply of agricultural food ) .
But no one person or firm is going to fertilize a part of the ocean when the fruits of this investment can be captured by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to respect the first man ’ s property rights .
Even now , in our present primitive stage of aqua-culture technique , electronic fencing of parts of the ocean which segregated fish by size could greatly increase the supply of fish simply by preventing big fish from eating little ones .
And if private property in the ocean were permitted , an advanced technology of aquaculture would soon develop which could increase the long-range as well as immediate productivity of the sea in numerous ways which we can not now even foresee .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fish and the sea is not to put further shackles on the profit motive , the technology , and the economic growth ; rather , the proper path is the reverse : to free man ’ s energies to use , multiply , and develop the vast untapped resources of the ocean through an extension of private property rights from land to the sea .
This brings us to the area where the environmentalists indeed have their strongest case , but a case which they do not really understand , the whole field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , food ( pesticides ) , and noise .
Of course , there is a grave problem of the befouling of our air and water resources .
But the root of the problem does not lie in capitalist greed , modern technology , or in private property and the free market ; on the contrary , it lies , once again , in the fact that government has failed to apply or protect the rights of private property .
Rivers are , in essence , owned by no one ; and so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and government alike have poured poisons into those rivers .
Clean water and clean air have become scarce resources , and yet , as in the case of fisheries , they still may not be owned by private persons .
If there were full private property rights on the rivers , for example , the owners would not permit their pollution .
As to the seemingly insoluble question of the air , it needs to be recognized that factories , automobiles and incinerators that pour poisons into the air are damaging the private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only the orchards of the farmers and the buildings of real estate owners , but the lungs and bodies of everyone .
Surely every man ’ s private property in his own body is his most precious resource ; and the fact that air pollutants injure that private property should be enough for us to obtain court injunctions preventing that pollution from taking place .
The question to ask , then , is why haven ’ t the courts applied the common-law defense of property rights to an air pollution that injures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of us .
The reason is that , from the beginnings of modern air pollution , the courts made a conscious decision not to protect , for example , the orchards of farmers from the smoke of nearby factories or locomotives .
They said , in effect , to the farmers : yes , your private property is being invaded by this smoke , but we hold that “ public policy ” is more important than private property , and public policy holds factories and locomotives to be good things .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of property rights resulting in pollution disaster .
The remedy is both “ radical ” and crystal clear , and it has nothing to do with multibilliondollar palliative programs at the expense of the taxpayers which do not even meet the real issue .
The remedy is simply to enjoin anyone from injecting pollutants into the air , and thereby invading the rights of persons and property .
Period .
The argument that such an injunction prohibition would add to the cost of industrial production is as reprehensible as the pre–Civil War argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the costs of growing cotton , and therefore , should not take place .
For this means that the polluters are able to impose the high costs of pollution upon those whose property rights they are allowed to invade with impunity .
Furthermore , the cost argument overlooks the crucial fact that if air pollution is allowed to proceed with impunity , there again is no economic incentive to develop a technology which would either prevent or cure air pollution .
If , however , industry and government were prohibited from pollution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whereby production could proceed without polluting the air .
Even now , at our necessarily primitive stage in antipollution technology , techniques exist for the recycling of wastes which would preclude pollution of the air .
Thus , sulfur dioxide , one of the major pollutants , could even now be captured and recycled to produce the economically valuable sulfuric acid .
The highly pollutant spark ignition automobile engine could well be replaced by a diesel , gas turbine or steam engine , or by an electric car , especially when the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to replace the existing engine .
Noise , too , is an invasion of private property ; for noise is the creation of sound waves which invade and bombard the property and persons of others .
Here , too injunctions to prohibit excessive noise would spur the development and installation of antinoise devices , such as mufflers , acoustical materials , and even equipment which would create opposing and , therefore , canceling waves of sound to the noise-polluting machinery .
Thus , when we peel away the hysteria , the confusions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we find an important bedrock case against the existing system ; but the case turns out to be not against capitalism , private property , or modern technology .
It is a case against the failure of government to allow and defend the rights of private property against invasion .
Pollution and overuse of resources stem directly from the failure of government to defend private property .
If property rights were to be defended adequately , we would find that here , as in other areas of our economy and society , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not as a curse to mankind but as its salvation .
Alex Jones clarifies his take on Iran and discusses the $ 80 million bounty that they ’ ve put on President Trump ’ s head .
Also , start your year right with free shipping and up to 75 % off our hottest items during the Mega Blowout Sale !

It should be no news by this time that intellectuals are fully as subject to the vagaries of fashion as are the hemlines of women’s skirts.
Apparently, intellectuals tend to be victims of a herd mentality. Thus, when John Kenneth Galbraith published his best-selling The Affluent Society in 1958, every intellectual and his brother was denouncing America as suffering from undue and excessive affluence; yet, only two or three years later, the fashion suddenly changed, and the very same intellectuals were complaining that America was rife with poverty. In all too many of these ideological sprees, capitalism is blamed for whatever illness is being focused on at the moment; the same capitalism supposedly responsible for making us all surfeited with material goods in 1958 was to be equally guilty for rendering the nation poverty-stricken in 1961.
Another leading example was the “stagnation thesis,” propounded by many economists in the late thirties and early forties. The stagnation thesis held that capitalism had come to the end of its rope, since there was no room for any further technological inventions and, therefore, for capital investment. Capitalism was therefore doomed to perpetual and growing mass unemployment. After this notion had faded away, the early and mid-sixties produced precisely the opposite damning indictment of the capitalist system. Numerous intellectuals, including the self-same proclaimers of the stagnation thesis, now asserted that imminent automation and cybernation were going to lead quickly to permanent and growing mass unemployment for practically everyone because there would be no work for any mere men to do. Happily, the automation hysteria has faded away in the intellectual fashions of recent years. But we can see that in many of these cases, through the rampant contradictions, there runs one crucial thread: whatever the problem, the market economy is held to be the culprit.
The latest intellectual craze, which has taken on the proportions of a deluge in a very short time, is The Environment, otherwise known as Ecology or the Quality of Life. In the last two months, it has been impossible to pick up a newspaper or magazine without being bombarded by the Ravaged Environment Problem. Whatever the dimensions of that problem, it is hard to believe that it has escalated from negligible to endemic proportions within one or two months’ time. And, yet, there it is.
On the Left, acutely pressing questions which have been properly agitating them for several years, such as Vietnam and the draft, have suddenly and magically disappeared, as leftists and student protesters now picket and demonstrate on behalf of the environment and clean air. Conservatives have happily seized on the issue in order to draw the teeth of dissent; after all, who in the world — left, right, or center — is going to come out squarely in favor of ugliness, garbage or air pollution? Establishment organs happily proclaim that The Environment will be the political “issue” of the 1970s. President Nixon eagerly scrambled to make the “quality of life” the major theme of his State of the Union Address. Thus:
The great question of the seventies is: Shall we surrender to our surroundings or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, to our land, and to our water? Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond … factions. It has become a common cause of all the people of this country. … The program I shall propose to Congress will be the most comprehensive and costly program in this field in America’s history. … Each of us must resolve that each day he will leave his home, his property, the public places of the city or town a little cleaner, a little better. … I propose that before these problems become insoluble the nation develop a national growth policy. … We will carry our concern with the quality of life in America to the farm as well as the suburb, to the village as well as the city.
What are we, then, to make of this Environment Question? The first thing we must do is to isolate and distinguish the different problems raised; we must, above all, resist the exhortations of the environment hysterics to throw a whole slew of totally different problems into one overall grab bag. We must, in short, do the opposite of what Fortune magazine tells us to do in its special issue on the environment (February 1970):
Looked at one by one, many of our present depredations seem relatively easy to correct. But when we put the horrors in a row — the drab and clumsy cities, the billboards, the scum-choked lakes, the noise, the poisoned air and water, the clogged highways, the mountainous and reeking dumps — their cumulative effect drives us toward the conclusion that some single deep-seated flaw. …
The Left, of course, has found — surprise — its single deep-seated flaw: capitalism, in this case “capitalist greed,” which has ravaged and destroyed our resources, etc. That capitalism is not the problem should be evident from the fact that the Soviet Union has created a far more “ravaged” environment, certainly in proportion to its industrial activity, than the United States. The famous poisoning of the Soviet’s Lake Baikal is a sharp case in point.
Let us then distinguish the very different problems involved. There is, first, the esthetic question. Countless “environmentalists” have been complaining bitterly about the “ugliness” of life in the United States, about the “ugly” cities, “hideous” buildings, etc. In the first place, esthetics brings us adrift without a rudder on a sea of diverse individual values and tastes. One man’s “ugliness” is another’s “beauty,” and vice versa. My own observation is that most of the bellyachers about the ugliness of our cities and singers of paeans to the unspoiled wilderness, stubbornly remain ensconced in these very cities. Why don’t they leave? There are, even today, plenty of rural and even wilderness areas for them to live in and enjoy. Why don’t they go there and leave those of us who like and enjoy the cities in peace? Furthermore, if they got out, it would help relieve the urban “overcrowding” which they also complain about. Second, much of the ugliness of the buildings and the landscape, by most esthetic definitions, has been created by such governmental programs as urban renewal, with its wanton destruction of urban homes, stores, and community neighborhoods, to be replaced by barracks-like developments built through subsidies and the confiscatory power of eminent domain. Furthermore, what buildings in this country are typically more ugly than those housing the organs of government, from the Pentagon to your local post office? Or what of such government programs as the proliferating highways and expressways, which gut the landscape and tear down neighborhoods along the way?
Another charge against the cities is that they are terribly “overcrowded.” Here again, we have an unsupported value judgment by the critics. How much crowding is “overcrowding”? As Jane Jacobs points out, high concentration of dwelling units per acre and high land coverage are essential to the diversity, growth, and vitality of the best and most generally liked areas of the big cities. She notes that it is in the lower-density suburban areas where stores and businesses must cater only to majority economic demand and which lead to a flat sameness of life and neighborhood; it is the high-density areas that make profitable a large spectrum of stores and services catering to a wide range of minority tastes. And, once more, there is nothing to prevent the critics of crowds from hightailing it to the wilderness.
The environmental critics are also sadly deficient in historical knowledge. They fail to realize that the cities of a century and several centuries ago were far more crowded and unpleasant than they are today by anyone’s esthetic standards. In those olden days, streets were far narrower, cobblestone pavements were far noisier, modern sewage was nonexistent so that rank odors and epidemics were rampant, dogs and sometimes livestock roamed the streets, heat was overpowering with no refuge in air conditioning, etc. Our environmentalists place their greatest blame on modern technology, and yet it is precisely modern technology that has permitted the growth of the far more populous cities of today with far greater health, ease, and comfort for each inhabitant.
The critics seem also to be reaching for compulsory birth control as their means of checking population growth. And yet far too much has been made of the population question. South America and Africa are, by any criteria of density, highly underpopulated, and yet they are largely poverty-stricken and living on a bare subsistence level. By the same mechanical criteria, Japan, like India, would be highly “over-populated,” and yet Japan, unlike India, with great ingenuity and enterprise has the highest industrial growth rate in the world today.
One of the most disquieting features of the environmentalist movement is its evident abhorrence of modern technology and its Romanticist back-to-nature philosophy. Technology and civilization are responsible, they say, for crowding, pollution, despoliation of resources, so let us therefore return to unspoiled nature, to Walden Pond, to contemplation in a far-off glade. None of these critics of modern culture and civilization seem to realize that the back-to-nature path would not only mean shuffling off the benefits of civilization, but would also mean starvation and death for the vast bulk of mankind, who are dependent on the capital and the division of labor of the modern industrial market economy. Or are our modern Romantics operating on a death, as opposed to a life, premise? It very much looks that way.
Take, for example, the standard conservationist complaints about the “destruction” of natural resources by the modern economy. It is true that if the American continent had never been populated and settled, many millions of square miles of forest would have remained intact. But so what? Which are more important, people or trees? For if a flourishing conservationist lobby in 1600 had insisted that the existing wilderness remain intact, the American continent would not have had room for more than a handful of fur trappers. If man had not been allowed to use these forests, then these resources would have been truly wasted, because they could not be used. What good are resources if man is barred from using them to achieve his ends?
Furthermore, it is little realized that growing technology not only uses up, but also adds to, usable natural resources. Before the development of the automobile and of modern machinery, the vast pools of petroleum under the earth were totally valueless to man; they were useless, black liquid. With the development of modern technology and industry, they suddenly became useful resources.
Then there is the common argument that any time a natural resource is used, any time a tree is chopped down, we are depriving future generations of its use. And yet this argument proves far too much. For if we are to be prohibited from felling a tree because some future generation is deprived of doing so, then this future generation, when it becomes “present,” also cannot use the tree for fear of its future generations, and so on to prove that the resource can never be used by man at all — surely a profoundly “antihuman” thesis, since man in general is kept in subservience to a resource which he can never use. Furthermore, even if the future is allowed to use the resources, if we consider that living standards usually rise from one generation to the next, this means that we must hobble ourselves for the sake of a future which will be richer than we are. But surely the idea that the relatively poorer must sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the richer is a peculiar kind of ethic by anyone’s ethical standard.
If, then, every present generation may properly use resources, we reduce the whole conservation question to a far more sober and less hysterical dimension. How much, then, of any resource should be used in any given generation and how much conserved for posterity? The environmentalists and conservationists totally fail to realize that the free-market economy contains within itself an automatic principle for deciding the proper degree of conservation.
Let us consider, for example, a typical copper mine. We do not find copper miners, once they have found and opened a vein of ore, rushing to mine all the copper immediately; instead, the copper mine is conserved and used gradually, from year to year. Why is that? Because the mine owners realize that if they, for example, triple this year’s production of copper, they will indeed triple this year’s revenue, but they will also deplete the mine and therefore lower the monetary value of the mine as a whole. The monetary value of the mine is based on the expected future income to be earned from the production of copper, and if the mine is unduly depleted, the value of the mine, and therefore the selling price of the shares of stock in the mine, will fall. Every mine owner, then, has to weigh the advantages of immediate income from copper production against the loss of capital value of the mine as a whole. Their decision is determined by their expectation of future yields and demands for their product, the prevailing and expected rates of interest, etc. If, for example, copper is expected to be rendered obsolete in a few years by a new synthetic metal, they will rush to produce more copper now when it is more highly valued and save far less for the future when it will have little value — thus benefitting the consumers and the economy as a whole. If, on the other hand, various veins of copper are expected to run out soon in the world as a whole, and copper is, therefore, expected to have a higher value in the future, less will be produced now and more withheld for future mining — again benefitting the consumers and the overall economy. Thus, we see that the market economy contains a marvelous built-in mechanism whereby the resource owners’ decision on present as against future production will benefit not only their own income and wealth, but also that of the mass of consumers and of the national and world economy.
We find, in fact, no one complaining about capitalism’s “ravaging” of copper or iron resources. What, then, is the problem in such cases as forests? Why are the forests or the fisheries “ravaged” but not minerals? The problem is that the areas where overproduction does exist are precisely those where the built-in market mechanism has been prevented from operating by the force of government. Specifically, these are the areas where private property has not been allowed in the resource itself, but only in their daily or annual use.
Suppose, for example, that the government had decreed, from the beginning of iron or copper mining, that private property cannot exist in the mines themselves but that instead the government or the “public” retained ownership of the mines and that private business could only lease them and use them from month to month. Clearly, this would mean that private business, not being able to own the capital value of the mines themselves, would try to use up these mines as rapidly as possible, since they would earn only present but not future income. Private mine owners would try to use up the mines quickly, for if they did not, other miners would gain the benefit of future copper ore. As private copper miners rushed to produce as much copper as possible immediately, leftists would begin to point to “greedy” capitalism’s unconscionable ravaging of our precious copper supply. But the fault would lie, not in the market economy, but precisely in the fact that the government had prevented the market, and private property rights, from functioning in the copper resources as a whole.
This is precisely what has happened in those areas: forests, fisheries, petroleum, where overproduction and wastage of resources have actually occurred. The bulk of the forests in the United States has been reserved to the ownership of the federal government; private firms can only lease the forests for current use. This means, of course, that business firms have every incentive to use the forests as rapidly as possible and to conserve nothing for future use. Furthermore, if forests as a whole were owned by private firms, these firms would have every economic incentive — none of which now exists — to develop techniques for increasing the resource and for enhancing its long-run productivity, so that current annual production and the resource as a whole could both increase at the same time. As things now stand, there is no such incentive to develop resource-enhancing and sustaining technology.
The same situation, in even more aggravated form, exists in the case of ocean fisheries. Governments have never allowed private property rights in parts of the ocean; they have only allowed private persons and firms to use the fish resource by catching and capturing the fish, but never to own the fish resource — the waters themselves. Is it any wonder that there is grave danger of depletion of the fisheries?
Let us consider the analogy of property and use in the land. In primitive times, man did not transform the land itself; in the primitive hunting and gathering economy, he only used the fruits of the natural soil or land: hunting wild animals, picking wild fruits or seeds for food. In this hunting and gathering stage, and with the population low in relation to the resources, the land itself was not scarce and so the concept of private property in the land did not arise. Only after man began to transform the land (agriculture) did the concept and the institution of private property in the land arise. But now man’s use of fish has begun to make this resource scarce, and it will continue to be more and more scarce so long as private property is not allowed to exist in the parts of the ocean itself. For since no one can own any part of the ocean, no one will have the incentive to conserve it; furthermore, there is now no economic incentive to develop the great untapped resource of aquaculture. If private property rights existed in the ocean, there would be a fantastic flowering of aquaculture, a flowering which would not only use the enormous untapped resources of the ocean, but also would enormously increase the resources through such techniques as fertilizing, “fencing” off parts of the ocean, etc. Thus, the supply of fish could be increased enormously by simple fertilizing techniques (just as fertilizers led to an incredible increase in the supply of agricultural food). But no one person or firm is going to fertilize a part of the ocean when the fruits of this investment can be captured by some competing fisherman who does not have to respect the first man’s property rights. Even now, in our present primitive stage of aqua-culture technique, electronic fencing of parts of the ocean which segregated fish by size could greatly increase the supply of fish simply by preventing big fish from eating little ones. And if private property in the ocean were permitted, an advanced technology of aquaculture would soon develop which could increase the long-range as well as immediate productivity of the sea in numerous ways which we cannot now even foresee.
Thus, the problem of resources in fish and the sea is not to put further shackles on the profit motive, the technology, and the economic growth; rather, the proper path is the reverse: to free man’s energies to use, multiply, and develop the vast untapped resources of the ocean through an extension of private property rights from land to the sea.
This brings us to the area where the environmentalists indeed have their strongest case, but a case which they do not really understand, the whole field of pollution: of air, water, food (pesticides), and noise. Of course, there is a grave problem of the befouling of our air and water resources. But the root of the problem does not lie in capitalist greed, modern technology, or in private property and the free market; on the contrary, it lies, once again, in the fact that government has failed to apply or protect the rights of private property. Rivers are, in essence, owned by no one; and so, of course, industry, farmers, and government alike have poured poisons into those rivers. Clean water and clean air have become scarce resources, and yet, as in the case of fisheries, they still may not be owned by private persons. If there were full private property rights on the rivers, for example, the owners would not permit their pollution. As to the seemingly insoluble question of the air, it needs to be recognized that factories, automobiles and incinerators that pour poisons into the air are damaging the private property of each one of us: not only the orchards of the farmers and the buildings of real estate owners, but the lungs and bodies of everyone. Surely every man’s private property in his own body is his most precious resource; and the fact that air pollutants injure that private property should be enough for us to obtain court injunctions preventing that pollution from taking place.
The question to ask, then, is why haven’t the courts applied the common-law defense of property rights to an air pollution that injures material property and the persons of every one of us. The reason is that, from the beginnings of modern air pollution, the courts made a conscious decision not to protect, for example, the orchards of farmers from the smoke of nearby factories or locomotives. They said, in effect, to the farmers: yes, your private property is being invaded by this smoke, but we hold that “public policy” is more important than private property, and public policy holds factories and locomotives to be good things. These goods were allowed to override the defense of property rights resulting in pollution disaster. The remedy is both “radical” and crystal clear, and it has nothing to do with multibilliondollar palliative programs at the expense of the taxpayers which do not even meet the real issue. The remedy is simply to enjoin anyone from injecting pollutants into the air, and thereby invading the rights of persons and property. Period. The argument that such an injunction prohibition would add to the cost of industrial production is as reprehensible as the pre–Civil War argument that the abolition of slavery would add to the costs of growing cotton, and therefore, should not take place. For this means that the polluters are able to impose the high costs of pollution upon those whose property rights they are allowed to invade with impunity.
Furthermore, the cost argument overlooks the crucial fact that if air pollution is allowed to proceed with impunity, there again is no economic incentive to develop a technology which would either prevent or cure air pollution. If, however, industry and government were prohibited from pollution invasion, they would soon develop techniques whereby production could proceed without polluting the air. Even now, at our necessarily primitive stage in antipollution technology, techniques exist for the recycling of wastes which would preclude pollution of the air. Thus, sulfur dioxide, one of the major pollutants, could even now be captured and recycled to produce the economically valuable sulfuric acid. The highly pollutant spark ignition automobile engine could well be replaced by a diesel, gas turbine or steam engine, or by an electric car, especially when the economic incentive would exist to develop their technologies to replace the existing engine.
Noise, too, is an invasion of private property; for noise is the creation of sound waves which invade and bombard the property and persons of others. Here, too injunctions to prohibit excessive noise would spur the development and installation of antinoise devices, such as mufflers, acoustical materials, and even equipment which would create opposing and, therefore, canceling waves of sound to the noise-polluting machinery.
Thus, when we peel away the hysteria, the confusions, and the unsound philosophy of the environmentalists, we find an important bedrock case against the existing system; but the case turns out to be not against capitalism, private property, or modern technology. It is a case against the failure of government to allow and defend the rights of private property against invasion. Pollution and overuse of resources stem directly from the failure of government to defend private property. If property rights were to be defended adequately, we would find that here, as in other areas of our economy and society, private enterprise and modern technology would come not as a curse to mankind but as its salvation.
Alex Jones clarifies his take on Iran and discusses the $80 million bounty that they’ve put on President Trump’s head.
Also, start your year right with free shipping and up to 75% off our hottest items during the Mega Blowout Sale!


newswars--2020-01-06--Mexican Gunmen Kill Oklahoma Teen During Ambush of Family’s Vehicle

A 13-year-old boy from Oklahoma was killed and his family members badly injured when armed men ambushed their vehicle on a Mexican highway just south of Texas , according to reports .
The family was returning to the U.S. after visiting relatives in Mexico when their convoy was attacked by Cartel del Noreste operatives in Nueva Guerrero City in the border state of Tamaulipas , El Diario reports .
Reports indicate the family , along with other relatives , were traveling in two vehicles with Oklahoma licenses plates when gunmen in a van demanded they stop .
When the convoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rammed the family ’ s SUV and forced them off the road before opening fire , wounding both parents and a 10-year-old child , and killing the teen .
“ Investigating officers and military personnel who responded to the scene found three cars with ‘ crash impacts , ’ one abandoned with Tamaulipas plates , and two belonging to the family with Oklahoma plates , ” the Daily Mail reports .
The teen was a U.S. citizen , while his parents are Mexican citizens with permanent resident status in the U.S. , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the New York Post .
Alex Jones clarifies his take on Iran and discusses the $ 80 million bounty that they ’ ve put on President Trump ’ s head .
Also , take advantage of the final day of our Mega Blowout Sale with free shipping and up to 75 % off our hottest items !

A 13-year-old boy from Oklahoma was killed and his family members badly injured when armed men ambushed their vehicle on a Mexican highway just south of Texas, according to reports.
The family was returning to the U.S. after visiting relatives in Mexico when their convoy was attacked by Cartel del Noreste operatives in Nueva Guerrero City in the border state of Tamaulipas, El Diario reports.
Reports indicate the family, along with other relatives, were traveling in two vehicles with Oklahoma licenses plates when gunmen in a van demanded they stop.
When the convoy did not stop, the cartel operatives rammed the family’s SUV and forced them off the road before opening fire, wounding both parents and a 10-year-old child, and killing the teen.
“Investigating officers and military personnel who responded to the scene found three cars with ‘crash impacts,’ one abandoned with Tamaulipas plates, and two belonging to the family with Oklahoma plates,” the Daily Mail reports.
The teen was a U.S. citizen, while his parents are Mexican citizens with permanent resident status in the U.S., the Tamaulipas state attorney general’s office told the New York Post.
Alex Jones clarifies his take on Iran and discusses the $80 million bounty that they’ve put on President Trump’s head.
Also, take advantage of the final day of our Mega Blowout Sale with free shipping and up to 75% off our hottest items!
Dan Lyman: Follow @CitizenAnalyst


newswars--2020-01-06--First Austin Homicide of 2020 Attributed to Homeless Man

Police in Austin , Texas , over the weekend revealed the first homicide of the new decade was attributed to a homeless man , as the city struggles to cope with swelling homeless numbers .
The incident began at a popular coffee bar last Friday , where a man assaulted a customer with an object .
“ He had an object in his hand .
This guy just out of nowhere just hit him in the back of his head with something , and people tried to restrain him and stop him from leaving the store , ” a witness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The man , later identified as a 27-year-old white male , next made his way to Freebirds World Burrito where he stabbed 34-year-old kitchen manager John Aguilar , killing him before climbing to the roof of the building and jumping off head-first .
The man , whose identity has not been revealed , sustained serious injuries and is currently hospitalized in critical condition .
Police did confirm on Saturday , however , that the man was homeless .
In a tweet Friday , Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott laid blame on the Austin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ When all facts are revealed I bet you ’ ll learn that the killer was a homeless man with prior arrests , ” Abbott tweeted .
“ If so Austin ’ s reckless homeless policy puts lives in danger to murders like this .
Austin leaders must answer for their perilous policies.
” Austin City Councilmember Delia Garza responded to Abbott ’ s tweet – claiming the governor was attempting to distract people “ from his poor leadership ” – prior to police confirming the governor ’ s speculation was actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Garza wrote on Twitter .
“ But the governor suggesting that ATX Council has the authority to change laws on violent attacks/homicide is more of his scapegoating and a distraction from his poor leadership and the failure to fund the mental health and housing resources Texans need.
” Austin Mayor Steve Adler also took issue with Abbott ’ s tweet , and accused the governor of attempting to demonize the entire homeless community .
“ It ’ s misleading and it ’ s harmful to equate people experiencing homelessness with being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s like saying that immigrants are rapists .
There ’ s a real damage to society when we demonize people in ways that are simply not true.
” Abbott shot back that his criticism was directed toward the city council .
“ This murder must be condemned by Austin leaders , ” the governor wrote .
“ An innocent person lost their life this morning at a restaurant & others injured The City of Austin must ensure its homeless policy doesn ’ t endanger the lives of innocent people—AND the lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his wife and a teenage son .
A GoFundMe fundraiser has raised over $ 10,000 for the family .
A new report by Kelen McBreen exposes the shocking level of filth now becoming common in Austin as even Owen Shroyer now has footage of the homeless epidemic affecting Austin city streets .
Also , take advantage of the final day of our Mega Blowout Sale with free shipping and up to 75 % off our hottest items !

Police in Austin, Texas, over the weekend revealed the first homicide of the new decade was attributed to a homeless man, as the city struggles to cope with swelling homeless numbers.
The incident began at a popular coffee bar last Friday, where a man assaulted a customer with an object.
“He had an object in his hand. This guy just out of nowhere just hit him in the back of his head with something, and people tried to restrain him and stop him from leaving the store,” a witness described, according to CBS Austin.
The man, later identified as a 27-year-old white male, next made his way to Freebirds World Burrito where he stabbed 34-year-old kitchen manager John Aguilar, killing him before climbing to the roof of the building and jumping off head-first.
The man, whose identity has not been revealed, sustained serious injuries and is currently hospitalized in critical condition.
Police did confirm on Saturday, however, that the man was homeless.
In a tweet Friday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott laid blame on the Austin City Council over their disastrous homeless policy.
When all facts are revealed I bet you’ll learn that the killer was a homeless man with prior arrests. If so Austin’s reckless homeless policy puts lives in danger to murders like this. Austin leaders must answer for their perilous policies.https://t.co/LftWzOAaKg — Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) January 3, 2020
“When all facts are revealed I bet you’ll learn that the killer was a homeless man with prior arrests,” Abbott tweeted. “If so Austin’s reckless homeless policy puts lives in danger to murders like this. Austin leaders must answer for their perilous policies.”
Austin City Councilmember Delia Garza responded to Abbott’s tweet – claiming the governor was attempting to distract people “from his poor leadership” – prior to police confirming the governor’s speculation was actually accurate.
Events today were tragic. But the governor suggesting that ATX Council has the authority to change laws on violent attacks/homicide is more of his scapegoating and a distraction from his poor leadership and the failure to fund the mental health and housing resources Texans need. — Delia Garza (@DGarzaforD2) January 4, 2020
“Events today were tragic,” Garza wrote on Twitter. “But the governor suggesting that ATX Council has the authority to change laws on violent attacks/homicide is more of his scapegoating and a distraction from his poor leadership and the failure to fund the mental health and housing resources Texans need.”
Austin Mayor Steve Adler also took issue with Abbott’s tweet, and accused the governor of attempting to demonize the entire homeless community.
“It’s misleading and it’s harmful to equate people experiencing homelessness with being criminals,” Adler stated. “It’s like saying that immigrants are rapists. There’s a real damage to society when we demonize people in ways that are simply not true.”
Abbott shot back that his criticism was directed toward the city council.
“This murder must be condemned by Austin leaders,” the governor wrote. “An innocent person lost their life this morning at a restaurant & others injured The City of Austin must ensure its homeless policy doesn’t endanger the lives of innocent people—AND the lives of the homeless.”
Exactly. This murder must be condemned by Austin leaders. An innocent person lost their life this morning at a restaurant & others injured The City of Austin must ensure its homeless policy doesn’t endanger the lives of innocent people—AND the lives of the homeless. https://t.co/pza3KoD4OG — Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) January 4, 2020
Aguilar left behind his wife and a teenage son. A GoFundMe fundraiser has raised over $10,000 for the family.
Follow the author on Gab: https://gab.ai/adansalazar
On Twitter: Follow @AdanSalazarWins
On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/adan.salazar.735
On Minds: https://www.minds.com/adan_infowars
A new report by Kelen McBreen exposes the shocking level of filth now becoming common in Austin as even Owen Shroyer now has footage of the homeless epidemic affecting Austin city streets.
Also, take advantage of the final day of our Mega Blowout Sale with free shipping and up to 75% off our hottest items!


newswars--2020-01-06--Trump 4D Genius: U.S. Military Says It Will Withdraw from Iraq

Also catch the streams at infowars.com/show and Banned.video .
Alex Jones Show : Emperor Trump ?
45 Threatens to Keep @ @ @ @ @ in Ransom Paid Alex Jones is live on air right now breaking down this shocking @ @ @ @ @ Aussies ravaged by the fires What is President Trump doing ?
Tune in as Alex @ @ @ @ @ s against an expanded war in Iraq .
Also , Jones breaks down the Australia @ @ @ @ @ tax cult is seizing the tragedy to push for more planetary government and taxation : @ @ @ @ @ on Telegram .
David Knight Show : The Future Of Iran And The Unmasking Of @ @ @ @ @ Monday transmission of The David Knight Show , guest host Greg Reese will break down @ @ @ @ @ and Iran , Ricky Gervais ’ verbal assault on Hollywood and much more .
Remember @ @ @ @ @ than ever to share this link with Infowars being censored by Big Tech .

Owen Shroyer hosts this LIVE edition of War Room, weekdays 3-6 p.m. CT.
Also catch the streams at infowars.com/show and Banned.video.
Follow Owen on Tik Tok:
Also, follow Owen on Telegram:
Alex Jones Show: Emperor Trump? 45 Threatens to Keep Troops in Iraq Unless Billions in Ransom Paid
Alex Jones is live on air right now breaking down this shocking development & talking calls from Aussies ravaged by the fires
What is President Trump doing? Tune in as Alex Jones reveals why he’s against an expanded war in Iraq. Also, Jones breaks down the Australia wildfires and how the carbon tax cult is seizing the tragedy to push for more planetary government and taxation:
Be sure to follow Infowars on Telegram.
David Knight Show: The Future Of Iran And The Unmasking Of The Hollywood Elite
Ricky Gervais obliterated America’s top entertainers
On this Monday transmission of The David Knight Show, guest host Greg Reese will break down the tense situation between America and Iran, Ricky Gervais’ verbal assault on Hollywood and much more.
Remember, it is more important than ever to share this link with Infowars being censored by Big Tech.