thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-17--Failing To Drain The Swamp:  Slap On The Wrist For Deep State Criminal?

This week , a former top Treasury Department official pleaded guilty in federal court on conspiracy charges for leaking confidential banking reports associated with members of the 2016 Trump campaign .
Prior to October 2018 – when she was arrested with a government-issued flash drive chock-full of sensitive documents – Natalie Edwards , 41 , was a senior adviser at Treasury ’ s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network .
According to prosecutors , beginning in October 2017 , Edwards sent a series of communications to a BuzzFeed News reporter containing numerous confidential reports on the financial activity of Paul Manafort and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mueller ’ s investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interests .
Federal prosecutors revealed that the flash drive with which Edwards was arrested also contained “ highly sensitive material relating to Russia , Iran , and the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
” Let ’ s put aside for a moment our knowledge of the fact that the Russia collusion investigation was a politically-driven sham and acknowledge that legitimate whistleblowers do have a duty and every right to reveal sensitive information in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Federal Bureau of Investigation Associate Director Mark Felt provided information to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein : key details about the involvement of President Richard Nixon ’ s cabinet in the Watergate scandal .
The ensuing investigation ultimately led to Nixon ’ s resignation , and Felt – who had been given the designation “ Deep Throat ” by the reporters – remained anonymous for decades afterward .
We may never know what was in Mark Felt ’ s mind or heart when he decided to act as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than taking his concerns to the Justice Department or the House Judiciary Committee ( which is charged with investigating presidential wrongdoing ) .
In that climate , he may indeed have been concerned that any evidence of wrongdoing on the president ’ s part would be quashed by those loyal to Nixon , or that making waves internally would have put his own career at risk .
In any case – even if Felt ’ s agenda was political – it would have been evident to someone in his position that Nixon and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity that was of a criminal nature .
Had he been asked , Felt could have easily recited the relevant legal statutes supporting his actions .
What Mark Felt did not do was to share a “ data dump ” with a journalist , including reams of sensitive and confidential information , much of it involving private citizens who may or may not have been involved in actions that could not definitively be construed as criminal .
I have previously shared the story of an acquaintance who was one of two prosecutors in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which I live .
These two prosecutors were absolutely certain that the 25 year-old defendant had committed the sexual mutilation and murder of a young woman , and they got their conviction in 1997 .
In 2008 , a judge overturned the conviction after DNA evidence pointed to another suspect .
The defendant became the first person freed from prison in the state due to DNA evidence ; later , he received a $ 4.1 million settlement from the county in a federal lawsuit .
It was also revealed that during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence – evidence which would have thrown the defendant ’ s culpability into question .
So , what happened to the prosecutors ’ certainty ?
While I have the utmost respect for law enforcement and our criminal justice system , the above evidences why I will never , for example , support the death penalty .
Prosecutors are human beings and , as such , are subject to making mistakes like the rest of us .
Factor in the pressure to close cases , concern over their conviction rates and future career aspirations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals in such positions to determine that the ends justify the means , especially when they are “ sure ” that a given defendant is guilty .
This is leaving aside the unfortunate – if small – percentage of prosecutors in America who don ’ t care about guilt or innocence as long as they do get a conviction .
So … was Natalie Edwards a government employee who thought she was acting as a legitimate whistleblower , but who drifted unknowingly into the realm of criminal activity in her zeal to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Deep State operative acting in accordance with hidden directives and a twisted ideology ?
Considering her position at Treasury , I ’ m going to vote for the latter .
As a senior adviser at Treasury ’ s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network , like Mark Felt , Ms. Edwards knew what constituted criminal activity and what did not constitute criminal activity .
So , she knew exactly what she was doing .
Given the political climate in Washington at present , I ’ d wager that Edwards was every bit as committed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an incomprehensibly evil scumbag who must be removed from office as Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff .
What really disturbs me here is that with a conspiracy charge that carried the potential for imprisonment of up to five years , Edwards has already signed a plea deal with prosecutors that recommended a prison sentence of zero to six months .
It isn ’ t so much that the punishment doesn ’ t fit the crime – lives , fortunes and careers were destroyed during the course of the Russia collusion investigation – it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Natalie Edwards represents a business-as-usual , zero-accountability modality in dealing with entrenched government operatives who cavalierly conduct their agenda-driven business with complete impunity , up to and including criminal conduct .
Bear in mind that the Natalie Edwardses in our federal government enjoyed carte blanche during the Obama administration ( the weaponization of federal agencies and the illegal surveillance of private citizens spring to mind ) , and positions such as theirs proliferated dramatically within government .
This means that there are still tons of them running around .
If the Trump Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who represent the most insidious threats to our liberties , what does that say about Trump ’ s commitment to “ draining the Swamp ” or dismantling the Deep State ?

This week, a former top Treasury Department official pleaded guilty in federal court on conspiracy charges for leaking confidential banking reports associated with members of the 2016 Trump campaign.
Prior to October 2018 – when she was arrested with a government-issued flash drive chock-full of sensitive documents – Natalie Edwards, 41, was a senior adviser at Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. According to prosecutors, beginning in October 2017, Edwards sent a series of communications to a BuzzFeed News reporter containing numerous confidential reports on the financial activity of Paul Manafort and other figures in former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interests.
Federal prosecutors revealed that the flash drive with which Edwards was arrested also contained “highly sensitive material relating to Russia, Iran, and the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.”
Let’s put aside for a moment our knowledge of the fact that the Russia collusion investigation was a politically-driven sham and acknowledge that legitimate whistleblowers do have a duty and every right to reveal sensitive information in the cause of justice.
In 1972, Federal Bureau of Investigation Associate Director Mark Felt provided information to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein: key details about the involvement of President Richard Nixon’s cabinet in the Watergate scandal. The ensuing investigation ultimately led to Nixon’s resignation, and Felt – who had been given the designation “Deep Throat” by the reporters – remained anonymous for decades afterward.
We may never know what was in Mark Felt’s mind or heart when he decided to act as a confidential informant for Woodward and Bernstein rather than taking his concerns to the Justice Department or the House Judiciary Committee (which is charged with investigating presidential wrongdoing). In that climate, he may indeed have been concerned that any evidence of wrongdoing on the president’s part would be quashed by those loyal to Nixon, or that making waves internally would have put his own career at risk.
In any case – even if Felt’s agenda was political – it would have been evident to someone in his position that Nixon and his surrogates had most certainly engaged in activity that was of a criminal nature. Had he been asked, Felt could have easily recited the relevant legal statutes supporting his actions.
What Mark Felt did not do was to share a “data dump” with a journalist, including reams of sensitive and confidential information, much of it involving private citizens who may or may not have been involved in actions that could not definitively be construed as criminal.
I have previously shared the story of an acquaintance who was one of two prosecutors in a capital murder case in the city in which I live. These two prosecutors were absolutely certain that the 25 year-old defendant had committed the sexual mutilation and murder of a young woman, and they got their conviction in 1997.
In 2008, a judge overturned the conviction after DNA evidence pointed to another suspect. The defendant became the first person freed from prison in the state due to DNA evidence; later, he received a $4.1 million settlement from the county in a federal lawsuit.
It was also revealed that during the original trial, the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence – evidence which would have thrown the defendant’s culpability into question.
So, what happened to the prosecutors’ certainty?
While I have the utmost respect for law enforcement and our criminal justice system, the above evidences why I will never, for example, support the death penalty.
Prosecutors are human beings and, as such, are subject to making mistakes like the rest of us. Factor in the pressure to close cases, concern over their conviction rates and future career aspirations, and it is very easy for individuals in such positions to determine that the ends justify the means, especially when they are “sure” that a given defendant is guilty.
This is leaving aside the unfortunate – if small – percentage of prosecutors in America who don’t care about guilt or innocence as long as they do get a conviction.
So … was Natalie Edwards a government employee who thought she was acting as a legitimate whistleblower, but who drifted unknowingly into the realm of criminal activity in her zeal to do the right thing, or was she a Deep State operative acting in accordance with hidden directives and a twisted ideology?
Considering her position at Treasury, I’m going to vote for the latter. As a senior adviser at Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, like Mark Felt, Ms. Edwards knew what constituted criminal activity and what did not constitute criminal activity. So, she knew exactly what she was doing. Given the political climate in Washington at present, I’d wager that Edwards was every bit as committed to the notion that Donald Trump is an incomprehensibly evil scumbag who must be removed from office as Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff.
What really disturbs me here is that with a conspiracy charge that carried the potential for imprisonment of up to five years, Edwards has already signed a plea deal with prosecutors that recommended a prison sentence of zero to six months.
It isn’t so much that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime – lives, fortunes and careers were destroyed during the course of the Russia collusion investigation – it’s that a light sentence for Natalie Edwards represents a business-as-usual, zero-accountability modality in dealing with entrenched government operatives who cavalierly conduct their agenda-driven business with complete impunity, up to and including criminal conduct.
Bear in mind that the Natalie Edwardses in our federal government enjoyed carte blanche during the Obama administration (the weaponization of federal agencies and the illegal surveillance of private citizens spring to mind), and positions such as theirs proliferated dramatically within government. This means that there are still tons of them running around.
If the Trump Justice Department isn’t going to prosecute those who represent the most insidious threats to our liberties, what does that say about Trump’s commitment to “draining the Swamp” or dismantling the Deep State?
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-17--The Iron Triangle: Inside The Liberal Democrat Plan

Why do the vast majority of Christian Black Americans vote for the Atheist/ Anti-Christian Liberal Democrat Party ?
Author Vince Ellison has written a book that unmasks the three agents of betrayal employed by the Democrat Party and answers this question .
These three agents : most Black Preachers , most Black Civic Organizers , and most Black Politicians ( aka the Iron Triangle ) are utilized by Democrats to consummate their wicked plan to control America by inciting continuous race hatred in an effort to divide Black and White Christians .
The Democrat Party is the evilest organization operating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consists of a cabal of psychopaths consumed with socialism , slaughter , and sex who have pledged to drive GOD from the face of this Earth .
And Christian Black Americans are their staunchest supports .
Have you learned from history ?
Do you believe your Bible ?
Are you willing to fight ?
If the answer is yes , arm yourself & tune in !
Support us monthly as a Son or Daughter of Liberty : https : //thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/membership Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media SonsOfLibertyMedia.com , Minds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com .
He is husband to his `` more precious than rubies '' wife , father of 10 `` mighty arrows '' , jack of all trades , Christian and lover of liberty .
He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina .
.
Follow Tim on Twitter .
Also check him out on Gab Mumbl It and Steemit

Why do the vast majority of Christian Black Americans vote for the Atheist/ Anti-Christian Liberal Democrat Party? Author Vince Ellison has written a book that unmasks the three agents of betrayal employed by the Democrat Party and answers this question. These three agents: most Black Preachers, most Black Civic Organizers, and most Black Politicians (aka the Iron Triangle) are utilized by Democrats to consummate their wicked plan to control America by inciting continuous race hatred in an effort to divide Black and White Christians. The Democrat Party is the evilest organization operating in the world today. Their leadership consists of a cabal of psychopaths consumed with socialism, slaughter, and sex who have pledged to drive GOD from the face of this Earth. And Christian Black Americans are their staunchest supports. Have you learned from history? Do you believe your Bible? Are you willing to fight? If the answer is yes, arm yourself & tune in!

https://sonsoflibertyradio.com
https://sonsoflibertymedia.com
Sons of Liberty Store: https://thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/
Support us through a donation: https://thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/donate
Support us monthly as a Son or Daughter of Liberty: https://thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/membership
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-16--Baltimore: Church Hired Illegal Alien As Van Driver – Now, He Faces 19 Charges Related To Molesting

Baltimore : Church Hired Illegal Alien As Van Driver – Now , He Faces 19 Charges Related To Molesting 13-Year-Old Girl It seems that the arrest of Jose Argueta has now grown into 19 criminal charges , all related to molesting a 13-year-old girl .
WJZ posted this video a little less than a week ago .
Here ’ s more from Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review : Support of criminals and illegal aliens by many wayward churches is touted as the ultimate expression of compassion rooted in Biblical values .
But it ’ s merely virtue-signaling – and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evident than in the harboring of criminal aliens .
On Thursday , police in Annapolis , Maryland , arrested Jose Argueta , 44 , an illegal alien from El Salvador , on 19 child sex assault charges .
He is accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl on four occasions and taking pornographic images of her during several of those incidents since mid-December .
“ It was obvious that there was a lot of information confirming that this had happened and also photographs unfortunately–pornographic images of this child , ” said Sgt .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an interview with reporters .
ICE lodged a detainer with the Anne Arundel County Detention Center on the day of the arrest , but for now Argueta is being held without bail .
How did Argueta have access to her ?
According to police , he met her while serving as a van driver for a local church , transporting the victim and her family to their church in Glen Burnie , Maryland , where Argueta also lived .
Glen Burnie is a suburb of Baltimore on the south side in Anne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influx of Central Americans in recent years , just like neighboring Montgomery and Prince George ’ s counties .
What is further troubling is that , according to court records , Argueta had a history of traffic violations and a DUI .
Yet he had a valid Maryland trucking license .
How was someone like this able to remain in the country and openly drive for a church ?
The entire purpose of the 1986 amnesty deal was to make it illegal for someone here unlawfully to work .
This alleged crime was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the church has not been publicized , but one has to wonder whether the church even cared to verify his immigration status or if church authorities actually knew he was an illegal alien .
Harboring criminals tends to lead to more criminal activity – in this case , the terrible crime of child molestation .
El Salvador , like many South and Central American countries , is harsh .
• Local News Source Concludes & Admits TRUMP IS RIGHT ‘ Baltimore does have more murders per capita than Honduras , Guatemala and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have enough murderers and rapists without importing more ?
It ’ s not the women and children we are afraid of .
There are violent elements south of our border that we absolutely do not need here .
Many of them have made it through already .
Let ’ s finish the wall and keep as many of them out as we can .
• Worst Serial Killer EVER ?
— Illegal Alien From Kenya Now Being Investigated in 750 Deaths • Fifth Illegal Alien Accused of Rape Arrested in Maryland County in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Americans Have An “ Obligation ” To Pay For Illegal Aliens Healthcare Again , there are enough bad guys here already .
Why do we continue to let more in ?
Our country is in no position to keep helping these people .
We need a wall and a moratorium for now .
We can revisit the situation later .

Baltimore: Church Hired Illegal Alien As Van Driver – Now, He Faces 19 Charges Related To Molesting 13-Year-Old Girl
It seems that the arrest of Jose Argueta has now grown into 19 criminal charges, all related to molesting a 13-year-old girl.
WJZ posted this video a little less than a week ago.
Here’s more from Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review:
Support of criminals and illegal aliens by many wayward churches is touted as the ultimate expression of compassion rooted in Biblical values. But it’s merely virtue-signaling – and not of virtues. Nowhere is this more evident than in the harboring of criminal aliens.
On Thursday, police in Annapolis, Maryland, arrested Jose Argueta, 44, an illegal alien from El Salvador, on 19 child sex assault charges. He is accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl on four occasions and taking pornographic images of her during several of those incidents since mid-December.
“It was obvious that there was a lot of information confirming that this had happened and also photographs unfortunately–pornographic images of this child,” said Sgt. Amy Miguez of the Annapolis Police Department in an interview with reporters.
ICE lodged a detainer with the Anne Arundel County Detention Center on the day of the arrest, but for now Argueta is being held without bail.
How did Argueta have access to her? According to police, he met her while serving as a van driver for a local church, transporting the victim and her family to their church in Glen Burnie, Maryland, where Argueta also lived. Glen Burnie is a suburb of Baltimore on the south side in Anne Arundel County and has seen a massive influx of Central Americans in recent years, just like neighboring Montgomery and Prince George’s counties.
What is further troubling is that, according to court records, Argueta had a history of traffic violations and a DUI. Yet he had a valid Maryland trucking license. How was someone like this able to remain in the country and openly drive for a church? The entire purpose of the 1986 amnesty deal was to make it illegal for someone here unlawfully to work. This alleged crime was therefore 100 percent preventable.
The name of the church has not been publicized, but one has to wonder whether the church even cared to verify his immigration status or if church authorities actually knew he was an illegal alien. Harboring criminals tends to lead to more criminal activity – in this case, the terrible crime of child molestation.
Read the rest…
#####
El Salvador, like many South and Central American countries, is harsh.
Doesn’t America have enough murderers and rapists without importing more?
It’s not the women and children we are afraid of.
There are violent elements south of our border that we absolutely do not need here.
Many of them have made it through already.
Let’s finish the wall and keep as many of them out as we can.
Again, there are enough bad guys here already.
Why do we continue to let more in?
Our country is in no position to keep helping these people.
We need a wall and a moratorium for now.
We can revisit the situation later.
It’s simple common sense.
Article posted with permission from Dean Garrison


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-16--2A Group & Virginia Citizens Defense League File Emergency Injunction Against Governor: “Governor’s

2A Group & Virginia Citizens Defense League File Emergency Injunction Against Governor : “ Governor ’ s Action Is Illegitimate & Can not Be Allowed To Stand ” Following the cowardly and tyrannical actions of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam do declare a “ state of emergency ” because he is propagandizing the people by saying “ armed militia groups plan to storm the capitol , ” Gun Owners of America ( GOA ) and the Virginia Citizens Defense League ( VCDL ) have filed an emergency injunction against Northam ahead of Monday ’ s Lobby Day saying that his actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to stand.
” According to GOA ’ s Erich Pratt , “ His action infringes on both the First and Second Amendment rights of Virginians who wish to peaceably assemble to petition their government , while at the same time not surrendering their right to self-defense.
” • Northam Declares State of Emergency in Virginia Because “ Armed Militia Groups Plan to Storm the Capitol ” • Watch Virginia ’ s “ Representatives ” Conspire Against The People They Serve ( Video ) • Virginia Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties Invited To Join @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the rally has been held annually for years without any such incident .
“ This rally is held annually with thousands of participants and without incident , ” he wrote .
“ The only difference this year is that , in response to the Democrats ’ attempt to eviscerate the Second Amendment , a much larger crowd is expected.
” Incredibly , Northam is using the 2017 rally in Charlottesville , Virginia , in support of his ban on firearms , ignoring the fact that the unfortunate death that day was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this gun ban could have only negative consequences .
If there are , in fact , any bad actors who would attempt to hijack the rally , they would simply ignore the law .
Over the next 24 hours , GOA and VCDL lawyers will be in court fighting the ban .
“ We are determined not to let this governor run roughshod over our gun rights , ” Pratt said .
Pratt also points out the criminal nature of the governor ’ s declaration of a state of emergency .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ability to ban gun in a state of emergency , and a political rally falls way outside his reach , ” said Pratt .
“ We will fight this power grab and hope you will stand with us.
” • The General Assembly Of Virginia Isn ’ t Done Trampling The Second Amendment Yet • Virginia Gun Grabbers Are On The Move – President Donald Trump Silent • Moms Demands Action Will Share Responsibility For Government Actions In Virginia The Virginia legislature and this tyrannical governor have learned nothing from history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to the same point the British did prior to the shot heard round the world due to the British attempt to confiscate the arms of the colonists .
They may just find out the hard way what happens to tyrants when they awaken patriots .
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

2A Group & Virginia Citizens Defense League File Emergency Injunction Against Governor: “Governor’s Action Is Illegitimate & Cannot Be Allowed To Stand”
Following the cowardly and tyrannical actions of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam do declare a “state of emergency” because he is propagandizing the people by saying “armed militia groups plan to storm the capitol,” Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) have filed an emergency injunction against Northam ahead of Monday’s Lobby Day saying that his actions are “illegitimate and cannot be allowed to stand.”
According to GOA’s Erich Pratt, “His action infringes on both the First and Second Amendment rights of Virginians who wish to peaceably assemble to petition their government, while at the same time not surrendering their right to self-defense.”
Pratt reminds people that the rally has been held annually for years without any such incident.
“This rally is held annually with thousands of participants and without incident,” he wrote. “The only difference this year is that, in response to the Democrats’ attempt to eviscerate the Second Amendment, a much larger crowd is expected.”
Guns in the News reports:
Incredibly, Northam is using the 2017 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in support of his ban on firearms, ignoring the fact that the unfortunate death that day was a vehicular homicide.
Northam hasn’t made any attempt to ban cars.
Like all gun control, this gun ban could have only negative consequences. If there are, in fact, any bad actors who would attempt to hijack the rally, they would simply ignore the law.
Over the next 24 hours, GOA and VCDL lawyers will be in court fighting the ban.
“We are determined not to let this governor run roughshod over our gun rights,” Pratt said.
Pratt also points out the criminal nature of the governor’s declaration of a state of emergency.
“A 2012 law strictly limits the governor’s ability to ban gun in a state of emergency, and a political rally falls way outside his reach,” said Pratt. “We will fight this power grab and hope you will stand with us.”
The Virginia legislature and this tyrannical governor have learned nothing from history and continue to seek to oppress the people to the same point the British did prior to the shot heard round the world due to the British attempt to confiscate the arms of the colonists.
They may just find out the hard way what happens to tyrants when they awaken patriots.
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-16--“Atoms For Peace”:  When It Comes To A Nuclear Iran, Was The US Responsible For Giving Them Nuclear

“ Atoms For Peace ” : When It Comes To A Nuclear Iran , Was The US Responsible For Giving Them Nuclear Technology ?
Just as in most things in the Middle East that the US tends to involve itself in , the reality is that we usually are the ones that provide the very things when siding with a country that we later accuse them of using in order to invade them .
For instance , the US provided chemical weapons to Iraq to use against Iran and later claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for which we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerning the issue of Iran ’ s nuclear program ?
The evidence suggests that we just may have provided them with that foundation for nuclear technology via President Dwight Eisenhower ’ s “ Atoms for Peace.
” In looking up some information on the history of Iran and the US , along with the issue of nuclear technology , I ran across an article that spoke about what I mentioned above .
This actually came from History.com .
For several decades , the U.S. has sought to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the technology to build these weapons in the first place is because the U.S. gave it to Iran between 1957 and 1979 .
This nuclear assistance was part of a Cold War strategy known as “ Atoms for Peace.
” The strategy ’ s name comes from Dwight Eisenhower ’ s “ Atoms for Peace ” speech , given before the United Nations General Assembly in 1953 .
In it , he suggested that promoting the non-military use of nuclear technology could discourage countries from using it to create nuclear weapons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech came only eight years after the invention of the atomic bomb , at a time when the U.S. was anxious to keep these new and frightening weapons from proliferating around the world .
Strange as it sounds , President Eisenhower viewed his “ Atoms for Peace ” strategy partly as a form of arms control .
“ He thought that sharing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes would reduce the incentives of countries to want to make nuclear bombs , ” says Matthew Fuhrmann , a political science professor at Texas A & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : How “ Atoms for Peace ” Programs Cause Nuclear Insecurity .
For example , countries can use nuclear technology to generate electricity through nuclear power plants or produce radioisotopes for medical purposes .
“ The alternative , of course , was to just try and set up an international embargo that would restrict the transfer of any nuclear technology to any state that didn ’ t already possess it , ” Fuhrmann says .
However , Eisenhower feared an embargo would “ make other countries want the technology more , ” possibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it and maybe use it for more sinister purposes.
” Keep in mind , President Eisenhower is the same president that warned the American people of the military industrial complex .
Here ’ s Eisenhower ’ s “ Atoms for Peace ” address to the United Nations General Assembly on December 8 , 1953 .
The full text of the speech can be read here .
However , as History.com points out , there was another dimension to “ Atoms for Peace.
” Nuclear technology was something valuable and new , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had it .
The U.S. viewed providing other countries with the technology as a means of gaining influence over those states and achieving political goals .
To that end , the U.S. provided nuclear assistance to countries it wanted to influence , such as Israel , India , Pakistan , and Iran .
At the time , the U.S. was closely allied with Iran ’ s Shah , Mohammad Reza Pahlavi .
So closely , in fact , that when Iran toppled the Shah ’ s monarchy and democratically elected a prime minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d ’ état that put the Shah back in power .
Part of the reason the U.S. valued Iran as an ally was because of its strategic location bordering the Soviet Union .
During the early part of the Cold War , the U.S. set up a base in Iran to monitor Soviet activity .
In this context , the United States ’ nuclear cooperation with Iran “ was , in part , a means to shore up the relationship between those countries , ” Fuhrmann says .
The cooperation lasted until 1979 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shah and the U.S. lost the country as an ally .
All of the nuclear technology the U.S. provided Iran during those years was supposed to be for peaceful nuclear development .
But the “ Atoms for Peace ” strategy ended up having some unintended consequences .
You see ?
That 1953 CIA coup did have consequences .
The 1953 CIA-Backed Coup : The One Thing That Never Comes Up When The War Drums Beat Against Iran While the mainstream media and conservative talking heads ignore virtually anything before 1979 , the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide nuclear technology to Iran , but today it wants to invade and go to war with Iran over it .
“ A lot of that infrastructure could also be used to produce plutonium or weapons-grade , highly-enriched uranium , which are the two critical materials you need to make nuclear bombs , ” Fuhrmann says .
In effect , the U.S. laid the foundations for the Iranian nuclear weapons program .
The Atoms for Peace program provided the foundations for Iran ’ s nuclear program by providing key nuclear technology and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began under Mohamed Reza Shah ’ s rule in 1957 , after the United States and Iran agreed to a civilian nuclear cooperation arrangement , known as the Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Atoms , through the Atoms for Peace program .
Two years later , the Shah established the Tehran Nuclear Research Center ( TNRC ) , located at the University of Tehran , and began to negotiate with the United States to provide Iran with nuclear technology and materials .
In 1967 , the United States supplied Iran with a 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enriched uranium to fuel the reactor , housed at the TRNC .
The reactor , under safeguards , had the capability to produce up to 600 grams of plutonium per year in spent fuel .
Akbar Etemad , deemed the father of Iran ’ s nuclear program , later revealed that the TNRC was the site of experiments with chemically extracting plutonium .
Iran also admitted to using the reactor in the early 1990s for the production of small amounts of Polonium-210 , a radioactive substance that can be used to start a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , Iran states the production of Polonium-210 was used for research on production of neutron sources to be used in radio isotopic thermoelectric generators , not nuclear weapons .
Moreover , the TRNC is thought to be the location of earlier Iranian experiments on enriching uranium through laser isotope separation , a method that Iran appears to have been researching since the mid-1970s .
Whatever Iran ’ s true intentions with the TRNC , it seems clear that the technology provided by the United States allowed Iran to further its nuclear program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originally intended .
In addition to providing technology , the Atoms for Peace program provided the opportunity for Iranians to receive scientific and technological education in the United States .
This educational training was crucial to the development of Iran ’ s nuclear energy program .
For example , because Iran lacked large numbers of individuals trained in nuclear engineering and physics , the Tehran research reactor sat idle for nearly a decade , as it did not have adequate manpower to run .
The Shah also needed manpower to meet his lofty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 1974 , he announced his desire to construct 20 nuclear power reactors in the following 20 years .
Subsequently , he called for the establishment of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran ( AEOI ) to control and monitor nuclear energy .
To meet these rising demands , the AEOI concluded an agreement with MIT in 1975 to provide a specialized master ’ s program to provide Iranians with scientific and technological training on nuclear energy .
This program provided Iran with its first set of professional nuclear engineers .
In 1976 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the AEOI from $ 31 million to $ 1 billion , in part because he recognized the significance of the training provided to Iranians .
Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution , the United States abruptly ended its civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Iran and ended its supply of highly enriched uranium .
Despite the termination of Atoms for Peace assistance to Iran , Iran still received support from different sources .
While the United States exerted its influence to limit Iran ’ s collaboration with other states , Iran was still able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including in areas applicable to the military use of nuclear energy .
Particularly influential for the development of Iran ’ s nuclear program in those areas were Pakistan ’ s AQ Khan , China and Russia .
Iran ’ s nuclear program began in 1959 with a small reactor given by the United States to Tehran University as part of the “ Atoms for Peace ” program announced by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in December 1953 .
But that only whetted the Iranian monarch ’ s appetite : With his increased oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iran as the hegemonic force in the region , a nuclear program became for Shah Pahlavi the symbol of progress and power .
He summoned Akbar Etemad , a trained nuclear physicist , to the royal court in 1973 , told him of his desire to launch a nuclear program , and asked Etemad to develop a master plan .
Two weeks later , the shah met with Etemad again .
He quickly read the 13-page draft document Etemad had prepared , then turned to the prime minister and ordered him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most expensive projects undertaken by his regime .
There was no prior discussion in the Majlis , where the constitutional power of the purse lay , or in any other governmental body or council .
Like every major policy decision in those days , it was a one-man act .
Thus was launched Iran ’ s nuclear program .
The shah ’ s plans called for a “ full-fledged nuclear power industry ” with the capacity to produce 23,000 megawatts of electricity .
By 1977 , the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees ( who were , on the shah ’ s orders , allowed to become the highest-paid government employees ) .
Pahlavi had arranged for the training of Iranian nuclear experts around the world ( including a $ 20 million endowment at MIT ) , engaged in an intensive search for uranium mines in Iran and all over the planet , and launched several nuclear research centers across the country .
AEOI was in those days one of the most heavily funded programs in the country .
In 1976 , its budget was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the country ’ s oil company , the single biggest public economic institution in the country .
While Germany and France showed immediate eagerness to sell Iran its desired reactors , the United States was initially reluctant to sell any , “ without conditions limiting [ the shah ’ s ] freedom of action , ” according to the text of a U.S. governmental memo .
The German company Kraftwerk signed the first agreement to build the now-famous Bushehr reactor with an initial completion date of 1981 and an estimated cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ located in a dangerous zone that was prone to frequent and strong seismic activity , extra funds were set aside to protect the site against the dangers of an earthquake .
It was said at the time that the German government was so eager to find a foothold in the Iranian market that it guaranteed Kraftwerk ’ s investment against any loss .
U.S. companies , on the other hand , were barred from these contracts until Washington ’ s concerns about the shah ’ s intentions were addressed .
The shah was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full rights , ” as he put it at the time , within the NPT — an agreement Iran had immediately signed upon its formulation and that calls for non-nuclear states to forfeit the search for a nuclear bomb in return for easy access to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy .
But Iran not only insisted on the right to have the full fuel cycle , it also was interested in processing plutonium — a faster way to a nuclear bomb than enriched uranium .
Whatever you think of Iran or them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or otherwise , it was the united States that provided it to them while seeking to undermine the government of Iran on various occasions .
While Eisenhower certainly recognized the destructive nature of nuclear weapons and thus the reasoning behind his “ Atoms for Peace ” platform , that has not deterred the US from having them or developing more of them since his time in office , although we have seen nuclear technology turned into energy .
For more on the history of Iran , check out my interview with Victor Porlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Told About Iran & The Middle East Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

“Atoms For Peace”: When It Comes To A Nuclear Iran, Was The US Responsible For Giving Them Nuclear Technology?
Just as in most things in the Middle East that the US tends to involve itself in, the reality is that we usually are the ones that provide the very things when siding with a country that we later accuse them of using in order to invade them. For instance, the US provided chemical weapons to Iraq to use against Iran and later claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for which we invaded them. Is the same true concerning the issue of Iran’s nuclear program? The evidence suggests that we just may have provided them with that foundation for nuclear technology via President Dwight Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace.”
In looking up some information on the history of Iran and the US, along with the issue of nuclear technology, I ran across an article that spoke about what I mentioned above.
This actually came from History.com.
For several decades, the U.S. has sought to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But ironically, the reason Iran has the technology to build these weapons in the first place is because the U.S. gave it to Iran between 1957 and 1979. This nuclear assistance was part of a Cold War strategy known as “Atoms for Peace.”
The strategy’s name comes from Dwight Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech, given before the United Nations General Assembly in 1953. In it, he suggested that promoting the non-military use of nuclear technology could discourage countries from using it to create nuclear weapons, or “Atoms for War.”
The speech came only eight years after the invention of the atomic bomb, at a time when the U.S. was anxious to keep these new and frightening weapons from proliferating around the world. Strange as it sounds, President Eisenhower viewed his “Atoms for Peace” strategy partly as a form of arms control.
“He thought that sharing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes would reduce the incentives of countries to want to make nuclear bombs,” says Matthew Fuhrmann, a political science professor at Texas A&M University and author of Atomic Assistance: How “Atoms for Peace” Programs Cause Nuclear Insecurity . For example, countries can use nuclear technology to generate electricity through nuclear power plants or produce radioisotopes for medical purposes.
“The alternative, of course, was to just try and set up an international embargo that would restrict the transfer of any nuclear technology to any state that didn’t already possess it,” Fuhrmann says. However, Eisenhower feared an embargo would “make other countries want the technology more,” possibly increasing “their resolve to eventually get it and maybe use it for more sinister purposes.”
Keep in mind, President Eisenhower is the same president that warned the American people of the military industrial complex.
Here’s Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” address to the United Nations General Assembly on December 8, 1953. The full text of the speech can be read here.
However, as History.com points out, there was another dimension to “Atoms for Peace.”
Nuclear technology was something valuable and new, and it conferred a certain status on countries that had it. The U.S. viewed providing other countries with the technology as a means of gaining influence over those states and achieving political goals. To that end, the U.S. provided nuclear assistance to countries it wanted to influence, such as Israel, India, Pakistan, and Iran.
At the time, the U.S. was closely allied with Iran’s Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. So closely, in fact, that when Iran toppled the Shah’s monarchy and democratically elected a prime minister, the CIA staged a 1953 coup d’état that put the Shah back in power. Part of the reason the U.S. valued Iran as an ally was because of its strategic location bordering the Soviet Union. During the early part of the Cold War, the U.S. set up a base in Iran to monitor Soviet activity.
In this context, the United States’ nuclear cooperation with Iran “was, in part, a means to shore up the relationship between those countries,” Fuhrmann says. The cooperation lasted until 1979, when the Iranian Revolution ousted the Shah and the U.S. lost the country as an ally.
All of the nuclear technology the U.S. provided Iran during those years was supposed to be for peaceful nuclear development. But the “Atoms for Peace” strategy ended up having some unintended consequences.
You see? That 1953 CIA coup did have consequences.
While the mainstream media and conservative talking heads ignore virtually anything before 1979, the reality is that the US seemed to want to provide nuclear technology to Iran, but today it wants to invade and go to war with Iran over it.
“A lot of that infrastructure could also be used to produce plutonium or weapons-grade, highly-enriched uranium, which are the two critical materials you need to make nuclear bombs,” Fuhrmann says. In effect, the U.S. laid the foundations for the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Brookings.edu substantiates History.com’s claims.
The Atoms for Peace program provided the foundations for Iran’s nuclear program by providing key nuclear technology and education. Iran’s nuclear program began under Mohamed Reza Shah’s rule in 1957, after the United States and Iran agreed to a civilian nuclear cooperation arrangement, known as the Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Atoms, through the Atoms for Peace program. Two years later, the Shah established the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC), located at the University of Tehran, and began to negotiate with the United States to provide Iran with nuclear technology and materials.
In 1967, the United States supplied Iran with a 5 megawatt nuclear research reactor along with highly enriched uranium to fuel the reactor, housed at the TRNC. The reactor, under safeguards, had the capability to produce up to 600 grams of plutonium per year in spent fuel. Akbar Etemad, deemed the father of Iran’s nuclear program, later revealed that the TNRC was the site of experiments with chemically extracting plutonium. Iran also admitted to using the reactor in the early 1990s for the production of small amounts of Polonium-210, a radioactive substance that can be used to start a chain reaction inside a nuclear weapon.
However, Iran states the production of Polonium-210 was used for research on production of neutron sources to be used in radio isotopic thermoelectric generators, not nuclear weapons. Moreover, the TRNC is thought to be the location of earlier Iranian experiments on enriching uranium through laser isotope separation, a method that Iran appears to have been researching since the mid-1970s. Whatever Iran’s true intentions with the TRNC, it seems clear that the technology provided by the United States allowed Iran to further its nuclear program in ways that went beyond what was originally intended.
In addition to providing technology, the Atoms for Peace program provided the opportunity for Iranians to receive scientific and technological education in the United States. This educational training was crucial to the development of Iran’s nuclear energy program. For example, because Iran lacked large numbers of individuals trained in nuclear engineering and physics, the Tehran research reactor sat idle for nearly a decade, as it did not have adequate manpower to run. The Shah also needed manpower to meet his lofty ambition of rapidly expanding nuclear energy. In 1974, he announced his desire to construct 20 nuclear power reactors in the following 20 years. Subsequently, he called for the establishment of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) to control and monitor nuclear energy.
To meet these rising demands, the AEOI concluded an agreement with MIT in 1975 to provide a specialized master’s program to provide Iranians with scientific and technological training on nuclear energy. This program provided Iran with its first set of professional nuclear engineers. In 1976, the Shah raised the budget of the AEOI from $31 million to $1 billion, in part because he recognized the significance of the training provided to Iranians.
Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the United States abruptly ended its civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Iran and ended its supply of highly enriched uranium. Despite the termination of Atoms for Peace assistance to Iran, Iran still received support from different sources. While the United States exerted its influence to limit Iran’s collaboration with other states, Iran was still able to find partners to expand its nuclear program, including in areas applicable to the military use of nuclear energy. Particularly influential for the development of Iran’s nuclear program in those areas were Pakistan’s AQ Khan, China and Russia.
Additionally, Foreign Policy adds:
Iran’s nuclear program began in 1959 with a small reactor given by the United States to Tehran University as part of the “Atoms for Peace” program announced by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in December 1953. But that only whetted the Iranian monarch’s appetite: With his increased oil revenues, and with his new vision of Iran as the hegemonic force in the region, a nuclear program became for Shah Pahlavi the symbol of progress and power. He summoned Akbar Etemad, a trained nuclear physicist, to the royal court in 1973, told him of his desire to launch a nuclear program, and asked Etemad to develop a master plan.
Two weeks later, the shah met with Etemad again. He quickly read the 13-page draft document Etemad had prepared, then turned to the prime minister and ordered him to fund what turned out be one of the most expensive projects undertaken by his regime. There was no prior discussion in the Majlis, where the constitutional power of the purse lay, or in any other governmental body or council. Like every major policy decision in those days, it was a one-man act. Thus was launched Iran’s nuclear program.
The shah’s plans called for a “full-fledged nuclear power industry” with the capacity to produce 23,000 megawatts of electricity. By 1977, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) had more than 1,500 employees (who were, on the shah’s orders, allowed to become the highest-paid government employees). Pahlavi had arranged for the training of Iranian nuclear experts around the world (including a $20 million endowment at MIT), engaged in an intensive search for uranium mines in Iran and all over the planet, and launched several nuclear research centers across the country. AEOI was in those days one of the most heavily funded programs in the country. In 1976, its budget was $1.3 billion, making it, after the country’s oil company, the single biggest public economic institution in the country.
While Germany and France showed immediate eagerness to sell Iran its desired reactors, the United States was initially reluctant to sell any, “without conditions limiting [the shah’s] freedom of action,” according to the text of a U.S. governmental memo. The German company Kraftwerk signed the first agreement to build the now-famous Bushehr reactor with an initial completion date of 1981 and an estimated cost of $3 billion. As Bushehr was located in a dangerous zone that was prone to frequent and strong seismic activity, extra funds were set aside to protect the site against the dangers of an earthquake. It was said at the time that the German government was so eager to find a foothold in the Iranian market that it guaranteed Kraftwerk’s investment against any loss. U.S. companies, on the other hand, were barred from these contracts until Washington’s concerns about the shah’s intentions were addressed.
The shah was adamant that Iran should enjoy its “full rights,” as he put it at the time, within the NPT — an agreement Iran had immediately signed upon its formulation and that calls for non-nuclear states to forfeit the search for a nuclear bomb in return for easy access to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. But Iran not only insisted on the right to have the full fuel cycle, it also was interested in processing plutonium — a faster way to a nuclear bomb than enriched uranium.
Whatever you think of Iran or them possessing nuclear technology whether for nuclear energy or otherwise, it was the united States that provided it to them while seeking to undermine the government of Iran on various occasions.
While Eisenhower certainly recognized the destructive nature of nuclear weapons and thus the reasoning behind his “Atoms for Peace” platform, that has not deterred the US from having them or developing more of them since his time in office, although we have seen nuclear technology turned into energy.
For more on the history of Iran, check out my interview with Victor Porlier.
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-16--Canada Government Sanctioned Murder By Physician Going Deeper With Latest Legislative Bill

No one has to wonder how this writer feels about Canada ’ s government-sanctioned murder by physician .
Truly , Canadians have achieved a new low along with the four States in the united States of America who have partaken of the Kool-Aid leading them to think it ’ s okay for government to make murder legal as long as it is directed and performed by a physician .
Wonder how Canadians and some Americans would feel about a modern-day Josef Mengele being in charge of government-sanctioned murder by physician ?
Before anyone gets their hair in a kink , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government sanctioned murder by physician might have you looking seriously at that as a possibility .
LifeSite News has the story .
The pertinent information driving the postulation of a modern-day Josef Mengele is bolded .
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ’ s Liberal government announced Monday it has accepted a Quebec court ruling striking down the “ near death ” requirement for euthanasia as unconstitutional .
The Liberals are now rushing to overhaul Canada ’ s euthanasia law by the court ’ s imposed deadline of March 11 , 2020 and have launched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The federal consultation asks about advance consent , something the Quebec government is also considering , says Alex Schadenberg , executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition .
Advance consent would allow individuals with degenerative diseases such as dementia to issue an advance directive asking to be killed by lethal injection at a future date when they are no longer able to actively consent .
“ That ’ s a serious problem because , of course , it then denies your ability to change your mind , ” Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re killing doesn ’ t even have the right or the ability to confirm that they want you to inject them.
” Does anyone else see the problem with this ?
It ’ s the government saying , “ no one needs to be ‘ near death ’ in order for government sanctioned murder by physician to take place ” .
Moreover , this unethical , immoral law allows individuals with degenerative mental diseases like dementia to consent , in advance , to a future date when they may not can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealt with someone with dementia or any organic degenerative brain disease , you know they can ’ t remember sometimes one minute to the next .
It locks individuals into a decision made prior to the later stages of dementia when the individual might not want to participate in the atrocious practice .
But , too late ; there is no turning back since the “ right ” to change one ’ s mind regardless of good memory or not is denied .
But all this dances around the issue that no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is murder , plain and simple .
It is government sanctioned murder by physician .
Canada might as well get rid of medical malpractice and negligence laws since the law states physicians can murder patients as long as all the rules are followed .
But , wait .
It gets even better .
It ’ s essential that Canadians who oppose euthanasia answer the Liberal online survey despite its “ very problematic ” questions that presume support for euthanasia , Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews .
LifeSiteNews and Campaign Life Coalition , Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political lobbying group , are likewise urging supporters to participate in the questionnaire .
“ Silence is not golden in this case .
Silence does not help us , ” Schadenberg stressed .
“ Even if the question is awkward , it ’ s better to express your opposition to something than to be silent.
” Most importantly , participants can write 500-word comments after three sections , he said .
“ At least it gives us an opportunity to say ‘ I ’ m absolutely opposed to this , ’ ” Schadenberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth something .
And then I have hope that there ’ ll be enough of a response that the government will say , ‘ Hold on.
’ ” There ’ s now a questionnaire to answer problematic questions assuming support for government-sanctioned murder by physician .
Seriously ?
What kind of moron would support government-sanctioned murder by physician ?
Oh yeah , the lady that called into the David Webb show to champion “ putting people to sleep ” under strict government regulation .
This is what society in Canada and some places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – one has to voice opposition to government-sanctioned murder by physician or government assumes citizens support it .
Even if an overwhelming number of Canadian subjects oppose government-sanctioned murder by physician , don ’ t think King Trudeau , the IN-justice system of Canada , or brainwashed , government Kool-Aid sipping sycophants are going to change anything .
It doesn ’ t stop there either as LifeSite News reported : The Liberal online consultation also asks about the 10-day minimum wait between requesting and receiving a medically assisted death , but the question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law allows a doctor or nurse practitioner to waive this period , Schadenberg said .
The consultation asks if the law should require both the medical practitioner and patient to agree that other reasonable treatment options have been tried without success ; that psychological or psychiatric assessments be done to determine capacity to consent ; and that in addition to the current mandatory two medical assessments , a consultation with an expert in a person ’ s medical condition be done .
Schadenberg has published released a guide to answering the current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
Canada legalized euthanasia in June 2016 at the direction of the Supreme Court , which in February 2015 struck down the Criminal Code prohibition against euthanasia as unconstitutional .
The fact that someone has to write out a guide to answering the online consultation is telling in and of itself .
But , the Supreme Court of Canada decided it was unconstitutional to prohibit government-sanctioned murder by physician .
So , if an individual has the “ right ” to determine when they die by suicide , where does that individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone else to participate ?
Why is this not even being discussed ?
These individuals wanting to end their own life , but are too cowardly to do it alone , are using government to force physicians and nurses to use their skill that no one else has a “ right ” to receive to engage in murder .
What about the rights of the physician and nurse not to participate ?
Well , they don ’ t have any .
A person ’ s decision to commit suicide and their perceived “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not trump anyone else ’ s “ right ” to not participate in murder .
But , here ’ s the kicker .
The problematic areas are emphasized .
Bill C-14 currently allows euthanasia for individuals 18 years of age or older who are capable of giving informed consent , make a voluntary request that does not result from external pressure , and have a grievous and irremediable medical condition .
The law defines a “ grievous and irremediable medical condition ” as a “ serious and incurable illness , disease or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being in “ an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability ” and enduring “ physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to the person and can not be relieved in a manner that they consider acceptable.
” Bill C-14 also required that a person ’ s natural death be “ reasonably foreseeable , ” but Quebec Superior Court judge Christine Baudouin struck down that provision September 11 , 2019 , as well as the Quebec law ’ s “ end of life ” requirement .
Baudouin gave the federal and the Quebec @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Liberals reported in the online consultation that 6,700 Canadians have been killed by euthanasia or assisted suicide since Canada legalized the practice .
They also promised a “ fuller ” review of the euthanasia law this summer , as C-14 mandated that the government look into allowing euthanasia for children , or “ mature minors , ” for mental illness alone and allowing advance consent .
Courts have no force behind the decisions made .
Trudeau could have told the court to pound sand ; but , he didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the population is UN Agenda 21/2030 approved .
Does anyone else see the problem with the wording of this immoral , fake law ?
How does the murderous practitioner determine a “ request ” is voluntary and not a result of any external pressure ?
Oh yeah , they ask ; and , certainly , everyone is going to be honest .
It isn ’ t difficult to see the problem with the rest of the criteria , if one is being honest with one ’ s self .
The most egregious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government-sanctioned murder by physician for children or “ mature minors ” for mental illness with advance consent .
Seriously ?
This harkens back to the days of Nazi Germany when Hitler had the mentally ill of all ages murdered .
And , how does one determine mental illness since the psychiatric profession doesn ’ t consider homosexuality , transgenderism or other sexual deviance as a mental illness any longer ?
Anyone in Canada who supports this is as bad as Hitler and Josef Mengele .
Yes , this writer went there and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When these tyrants use politically acceptable terminology like “ euthanasia ” , “ medically assisted suicide ” , “ medical aid in dying ” , and/or “ putting people to sleep ” to describe the actual act of government-sanctioned murder by physician , these people know it ’ s wrong and use fancy , fluffy descriptions to make an abomination more palatable .
A friend who is Canadian had to be schooled on all of this .
At first , she supported this abominable pseudo-law until she had to defend how this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back that the government authorized it so it ’ s legal .
Her tune changed when she was reminded that government is not authorized to sanction murder by any means .
FYI , self-defense is not murder .
And , she had to be reminded that there is no “ assistance ” in suicide ; there is no “ right ” of another to force someone to use their skills .
It is always done at the threat of force by government .
Anytime government is involved , it is always a matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctions or the barrel of a gun .
Some time back a prediction was made that if murdering babies in the womb continued to stand in violation of the law – Courts can not make law , the progressive murder of individuals would continue to include newborns , the elderly , and others government deemed appropriate to murder .
This is what is being seen in this government-sanctioned murder by physician false legislation .
Anyone who supports this start calling it what it is and stop using the fancy , fluffy , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s long overdue to stand up for life – life at any point from conception forward .
Unfortunately , there is no hope for Canada .
However , this abomination of government-sanctioned murder by physician can be quashed here in the united States .
Represent , people !
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

No one has to wonder how this writer feels about Canada’s government-sanctioned murder by physician. Truly, Canadians have achieved a new low along with the four States in the united States of America who have partaken of the Kool-Aid leading them to think it’s okay for government to make murder legal as long as it is directed and performed by a physician. Wonder how Canadians and some Americans would feel about a modern-day Josef Mengele being in charge of government-sanctioned murder by physician? Before anyone gets their hair in a kink, the latest information coming from Canada regarding government sanctioned murder by physician might have you looking seriously at that as a possibility.
LifeSite News has the story. The pertinent information driving the postulation of a modern-day Josef Mengele is bolded.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government announced Monday it has accepted a Quebec court ruling striking down the “near death” requirement for euthanasia as unconstitutional.
The Liberals are now rushing to overhaul Canada’s euthanasia law by the court’s imposed deadline of March 11, 2020 and have launched an online consultation that closes January 27.
The federal consultation asks about advance consent, something the Quebec government is also considering, says Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Advance consent would allow individuals with degenerative diseases such as dementia to issue an advance directive asking to be killed by lethal injection at a future date when they are no longer able to actively consent.
“That’s a serious problem because, of course, it then denies your ability to change your mind,” Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.
It also “means that the person you’re killing doesn’t even have the right or the ability to confirm that they want you to inject them.”
Does anyone else see the problem with this? It’s the government saying, “no one needs to be ‘near death’ in order for government sanctioned murder by physician to take place”. Moreover, this unethical, immoral law allows individuals with degenerative mental diseases like dementia to consent, in advance, to a future date when they may not can consent. If you’ve ever dealt with someone with dementia or any organic degenerative brain disease, you know they can’t remember sometimes one minute to the next. It locks individuals into a decision made prior to the later stages of dementia when the individual might not want to participate in the atrocious practice. But, too late; there is no turning back since the “right” to change one’s mind regardless of good memory or not is denied.
But all this dances around the issue that no one will even acknowledge due to cognitive dissonance. This is murder, plain and simple. It is government sanctioned murder by physician. Canada might as well get rid of medical malpractice and negligence laws since the law states physicians can murder patients as long as all the rules are followed.
But, wait. It gets even better.
LifeSite News continued:
It’s essential that Canadians who oppose euthanasia answer the Liberal online survey despite its “very problematic” questions that presume support for euthanasia, Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.
LifeSiteNews and Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s largest pro-life, pro-family national political lobbying group, are likewise urging supporters to participate in the questionnaire.
“Silence is not golden in this case. Silence does not help us,” Schadenberg stressed. “Even if the question is awkward, it’s better to express your opposition to something than to be silent.”
Most importantly, participants can write 500-word comments after three sections, he said.
“At least it gives us an opportunity to say ‘I’m absolutely opposed to this,’” Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews. “It might be worth something. And then I have hope that there’ll be enough of a response that the government will say, ‘Hold on.’”
There’s now a questionnaire to answer problematic questions assuming support for government-sanctioned murder by physician. Seriously? What kind of moron would support government-sanctioned murder by physician? Oh yeah, the lady that called into the David Webb show to champion “putting people to sleep” under strict government regulation. This is what society in Canada and some places in the united States have come to – one has to voice opposition to government-sanctioned murder by physician or government assumes citizens support it.
Even if an overwhelming number of Canadian subjects oppose government-sanctioned murder by physician, don’t think King Trudeau, the IN-justice system of Canada, or brainwashed, government Kool-Aid sipping sycophants are going to change anything.
It doesn’t stop there either as LifeSite News reported:
The Liberal online consultation also asks about the 10-day minimum wait between requesting and receiving a medically assisted death, but the question is unclear and neglects to mention that the law allows a doctor or nurse practitioner to waive this period , Schadenberg said.
The consultation asks if the law should require both the medical practitioner and patient to agree that other reasonable treatment options have been tried without success; that psychological or psychiatric assessments be done to determine capacity to consent; and that in addition to the current mandatory two medical assessments, a consultation with an expert in a person’s medical condition be done.
Schadenberg has published released a guide to answering the current online consultation, which can be found here.
Canada legalized euthanasia in June 2016 at the direction of the Supreme Court, which in February 2015 struck down the Criminal Code prohibition against euthanasia as unconstitutional.
The fact that someone has to write out a guide to answering the online consultation is telling in and of itself. But, the Supreme Court of Canada decided it was unconstitutional to prohibit government-sanctioned murder by physician. So, if an individual has the “right” to determine when they die by suicide, where does that individual claim a “right” to force someone else to participate? Why is this not even being discussed? These individuals wanting to end their own life, but are too cowardly to do it alone, are using government to force physicians and nurses to use their skill that no one else has a “right” to receive to engage in murder.
What about the rights of the physician and nurse not to participate? Well, they don’t have any. A person’s decision to commit suicide and their perceived “right” or choice to do so do not trump anyone else’s “right” to not participate in murder.
But, here’s the kicker. The problematic areas are emphasized.
Bill C-14 currently allows euthanasia for individuals 18 years of age or older who are capable of giving informed consent, make a voluntary request that does not result from external pressure, and have a grievous and irremediable medical condition.
The law defines a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” as a “serious and incurable illness, disease or disability” that results in the person being in “an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability” and enduring “physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to the person and cannot be relieved in a manner that they consider acceptable.”
Bill C-14 also required that a person’s natural death be “reasonably foreseeable,” but Quebec Superior Court judge Christine Baudouin struck down that provision September 11, 2019, as well as the Quebec law’s “end of life” requirement.
Baudouin gave the federal and the Quebec governments six months to amend their legislation.
The Liberals reported in the online consultation that 6,700 Canadians have been killed by euthanasia or assisted suicide since Canada legalized the practice.
They also promised a “fuller” review of the euthanasia law this summer, as C-14 mandated that the government look into allowing euthanasia for children, or “mature minors,” for mental illness alone and allowing advance consent.
Courts have no force behind the decisions made. Trudeau could have told the court to pound sand; but, he didn’t. It’s because this murdering of the population is UN Agenda 21/2030 approved. Does anyone else see the problem with the wording of this immoral, fake law?
How does the murderous practitioner determine a “request” is voluntary and not a result of any external pressure? Oh yeah, they ask; and, certainly, everyone is going to be honest. It isn’t difficult to see the problem with the rest of the criteria, if one is being honest with one’s self. The most egregious portion of the bill being considered is the government-sanctioned murder by physician for children or “mature minors” for mental illness with advance consent. Seriously? This harkens back to the days of Nazi Germany when Hitler had the mentally ill of all ages murdered. And, how does one determine mental illness since the psychiatric profession doesn’t consider homosexuality, transgenderism or other sexual deviance as a mental illness any longer?
Anyone in Canada who supports this is as bad as Hitler and Josef Mengele. Yes, this writer went there and will defend that statement to the ground. When these tyrants use politically acceptable terminology like “euthanasia”, “medically assisted suicide”, “medical aid in dying”, and/or “putting people to sleep” to describe the actual act of government-sanctioned murder by physician, these people know it’s wrong and use fancy, fluffy descriptions to make an abomination more palatable.
A friend who is Canadian had to be schooled on all of this. At first, she supported this abominable pseudo-law until she had to defend how this is different than murder. She came back that the government authorized it so it’s legal. Her tune changed when she was reminded that government is not authorized to sanction murder by any means. FYI, self-defense is not murder. And, she had to be reminded that there is no “assistance” in suicide; there is no “right” of another to force someone to use their skills. It is always done at the threat of force by government. Anytime government is involved, it is always a matter of force through penalties, fines, sanctions or the barrel of a gun.
Some time back a prediction was made that if murdering babies in the womb continued to stand in violation of the law – Courts cannot make law, the progressive murder of individuals would continue to include newborns, the elderly, and others government deemed appropriate to murder. This is what is being seen in this government-sanctioned murder by physician false legislation.
Anyone who supports this start calling it what it is and stop using the fancy, fluffy, “make you feel better” government terminology. It’s long overdue to stand up for life – life at any point from conception forward. Unfortunately, there is no hope for Canada. However, this abomination of government-sanctioned murder by physician can be quashed here in the united States. Represent, people!
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-16--Baltimore, Maryland:  Cops Violently Assault Grandmother In Her Home After Granddaughter Cursed At P

Baltimore, Maryland:  Cops Violently Assault Grandmother In Her Home After Granddaughter Cursed At Police (Video)

Baltimore , MD — Nothing highlights the lack of training , the irrational fear , and brutal nature of police officers quite like videos of them beating elderly women .
While this may sound shocking , it happens and is caught on video far too often to be an “ isolated incident.
” In fact , TFTP just reported on an elderly grandmother being attacked and tasered in her own home by cops after she demanded a warrant before they entered her home , and now , it ’ s happened again .
Family members are speaking out after infuriating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mellerson being dragged from her home and violently assaulted outside .
According to WBAL , police were at Mellerson ’ s home last Friday in search of her granddaughter Cierra Floyd on charges of disorderly conduct .
Police say the charge of disorderly conduct came after Floyd allegedly cursed at officers earlier that day .
TFTP would like to take this time to remind our readers that cursing at police officers is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution—so is flipping them off .
In fact , the U.S. Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill , that police must tolerate even more abusive speech than an average citizen—which certainly includes a young woman cursing at them .
The court concluded that “ in the face of verbal challenges to police action , officers and municipalities must respond with restraint , ” and added that , “ the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.
” Apparently , the cops who went to Mellerson ’ s home on Friday couldn ’ t have cared less about the oaths they swore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that when they entered Mellerson ’ s home to arrest her granddaughter for practicing her first amendment that Mellerson “ interfered ” in Floyd ’ s arrest .
They also claimed Floyd “ moved towards an officer in an aggressive manner ” which forced them to use pepper spray and tasers inside the home .
As the video shows , Mellerson doesn ’ t appear aggressive at all .
In fact , the elderly woman is peacefully walking out of her home when an angry cop runs up on the scene , violently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground .
An attack like this could have proven fatal for someone as old as Mellerson .
Luckily she survived but her daughter says this 76-year-old woman , whose never had so much as a speeding ticket , has other scars .
“ My mother is a 76-year-old woman , lives alone , minds her business , never broke the law .
She doesn ’ t even have a moving violation , ” said Mellerson ’ s daughter , Barbara Mellerson .
“ For her to go through something like this is ridiculous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , she starts shaking .
I had to take my mother to the hospital.
” After the video was published to local media , police were forced to respond and a spokesman said the incident is under review .
WBAL reports that in a statement issued Tuesday afternoon , Chief Melissa Hyatt called the video “ unsettling ” and said she has “ ordered a thorough investigation.
” After that investigation is complete , the body-worn camera footage will be made public , she said .
“ I thank the individual who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important partners in our communities , ” Hyatt said .
“ We hold our officers to a high standard of accountability .
Maintaining the trust of those who live , work and visit Baltimore County is paramount as we continue to work together to keep communities safe.
” “ Every resident of the Baltimore County community deserves to be treated with respect by law enforcement , ” he said in a statement .
“ This video raises serious concerns and warrants a full and thorough investigation.
” How many more grandmothers need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t going away ?

Baltimore, MD — Nothing highlights the lack of training, the irrational fear, and brutal nature of police officers quite like videos of them beating elderly women. While this may sound shocking, it happens and is caught on video far too often to be an “isolated incident.” In fact, TFTP just reported on an elderly grandmother being attacked and tasered in her own home by cops after she demanded a warrant before they entered her home, and now, it’s happened again.
Family members are speaking out after infuriating and disturbing video surfaced showing 76-year-old Rena Mellerson being dragged from her home and violently assaulted outside. According to WBAL, police were at Mellerson’s home last Friday in search of her granddaughter Cierra Floyd on charges of disorderly conduct.
Police say the charge of disorderly conduct came after Floyd allegedly cursed at officers earlier that day. TFTP would like to take this time to remind our readers that cursing at police officers is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution—so is flipping them off. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in City of Houston v. Hill, that police must tolerate even more abusive speech than an average citizen—which certainly includes a young woman cursing at them. The court concluded that “in the face of verbal challenges to police action, officers and municipalities must respond with restraint,” and added that, “the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.”
Apparently, the cops who went to Mellerson’s home on Friday couldn’t have cared less about the oaths they swore to uphold the Constitution.
Police claim that when they entered Mellerson’s home to arrest her granddaughter for practicing her first amendment that Mellerson “interfered” in Floyd’s arrest. They also claimed Floyd “moved towards an officer in an aggressive manner” which forced them to use pepper spray and tasers inside the home.
As the video shows, Mellerson doesn’t appear aggressive at all. In fact, the elderly woman is peacefully walking out of her home when an angry cop runs up on the scene, violently grabs her and slams her to the ground. An attack like this could have proven fatal for someone as old as Mellerson. Luckily she survived but her daughter says this 76-year-old woman, whose never had so much as a speeding ticket, has other scars.
“My mother is a 76-year-old woman, lives alone, minds her business, never broke the law. She doesn’t even have a moving violation,” said Mellerson’s daughter, Barbara Mellerson. “For her to go through something like this is ridiculous, and every time she talks about it, she starts shaking. I had to take my mother to the hospital.”
After the video was published to local media, police were forced to respond and a spokesman said the incident is under review.
WBAL reports that in a statement issued Tuesday afternoon, Chief Melissa Hyatt called the video “unsettling” and said she has “ordered a thorough investigation.” After that investigation is complete, the body-worn camera footage will be made public, she said.
“I thank the individual who taped the incident – our residents are important partners in our communities,” Hyatt said. “We hold our officers to a high standard of accountability. Maintaining the trust of those who live, work and visit Baltimore County is paramount as we continue to work together to keep communities safe.”
County Executive John Olszewski Jr. also responded.
“Every resident of the Baltimore County community deserves to be treated with respect by law enforcement,” he said in a statement. “This video raises serious concerns and warrants a full and thorough investigation.”
How many more grandmothers need to be attacked before Americans realize this problem isn’t going away?
Article posted with permission from Matt Agorist