QUOTE: visual reference JP, How Social Distancing Rules Are Created:
All one needs to do is stop for a moment and look at the words our government is using to communicate to us. “SOCIAL DISTANCING”. I first noticed something awry, as it were, ( insert Richard Attenborough impression ) when i saw ( years ago ) the P.R sign for “VISION ZERO”. Take into consideration NYC is the epicenter of the business world ( or was ) . NYC . gov has an a team of public relatiion professionals, lawyers, strategical planners. Every detail is worked out in a think tank or board room systematically before given ” the go” “the ok” by the “boss” before any political campaign is launched whether it be for social good, safety or the subverion of the foundational principles of These United States of America. So there is no mistake in the word choice. No mistake in the syntax. The syllables are measured as a beer commercial OR cereal commercial would be – so it resonates with the public – lingers in the brain- whistling while they work. For example: “Tastes Great – Less Filling” “Glove Doesn’t Fit You Gotta Aquit” . ” The Nag Factor” [ watch this link in regard to manipulating children for the sale ]
“VISION ZERO”. What is that saying??? Zero vision??? Blindness??? This is an ambiguously negative statement. That may sound like a stretch though every time you see those words you are exposed to those words and the references your mind makes in “NANO SECONDS”. Also “GROUNG ZERO” has the same amount of letters and the same syllable structure the exact spacial setting as “VISION ZERO”. If you watched the video above on child advertising you will see how the prostitution of such things is simply a business maneuver. I’m not making a judgement it is simply the fact of the advertising and Public Relations mode of operation [ I may have just did it myself]. Again don’t take my word for it; watch the experts speak for themselves in the video. “VISION ZERO” sound like “GROUND ZERO” so their is a resonance of the political narrative and prostitution of the event. The advertising and P.R teams have Dr’s and Psychologists on their teams with the specific intent of performing these psychologically strategic maneuvers [ i repeat watch video above]. “VISION ZERO” is intended to be a safety governmental mandate to protect walking pedestrians while enforcing driving laws on Drivers [ I am not judging this just pointing out factors ] We have to understand there are climitization factors happening incrementally ( boiling frog syndrome ). We may agree that speeding is irresponsible and for the reasonable safety we create “regulations”, “laws”. We the People must remember: The automobile is the owners property and at one time that was simply the case – you own it your say so- no one else’s business- unless you trespass against another in the operation of your property. Though because of the dangers of automobiles we decided to have people take tests for licenses in order to make sure they were capable of this task. Then car registration was mandated and insurance as well. Is this what we are going to do with the human body??? Is their goal to give every human being a digital registration via a vaccination for virus safety??? As we mandated car regulations and “law” to protect the safety of walking pedestrians from reckless driving are they suggesting we regulate man walking for the safety of walking pedestrians from recklessly walking pedestrians- via the “Cindy has the Sniffles Pandemic??? Take a moment an look at this before you discount this. I don’t need or want to be right & I don’t give a F… what you think of me. This is important, the future of America is at stake. If I’m wrong- I’d be happier than the nay sayer. Principles should be put before personalities here [ if not always ]. The principles of the Constitution. Not my or your political stance or pension plan.
BULLSHIT LINE of the DAY: “SOCIAL DISTANCING”
They are playing the same game as stated above. If you have read this far there is no need for me to explain any further. George Orwell termed it “double speak”. I had a friend once call it out simply as “Baffling with Bullshit”. Some one has a white coat on so we must comply to what he and the manicured man on the boob tube sais. Hard working civil servants sent their kids to college to get degrees; to become P.R men, Adverting execs, BULLSHIT ARTIST MD’s so we all must comply; comply dutifully like good soldiers, with out validated or peer reviewed source material or FACTS. FACTS not necessary when we need to feed the pension and health care insurance system ( goddamn illegals adding to the 51 Billion dollar debt we are writing for this years Homeland security budget- how much of that tax payer money is going to Israeli cyber security 8200 companies??? Both here in the U.S and in Israel itself or the Suadi and Afghanistan Pre-emptive security groups, or hell, the whole middle east – all for your safety – goddamn undocumented workers… ). Principles of the Constitution simply words to be forged, words to be debated in competition, to WIN, to show how good a degreed collegiate can debate – win a position win the girl and win to make Mom and Dad proud and show much their college tuition has paid off, how much their parents hard work has paid off, [That’s what it is to be American??? Right???]. Constitution be Damned 1st amendment be damned, hell freedom be damned. Hows my designer mask look??? Does it match my clip board??? “I can’t see it from over here- show it to me when you get your Biotech cyber-security one love vaccination HERO shot…” “TASTE GREAT” vs “LESS FILLING”…
Some suggest that after 1917 The Federal Reserve act [ prior to this each state coined their own money and exchanged as we do in other countries] was a move to centralize power through banking in the free country America. Though the great Depression [The Great Depression was the worst economic downturn in the history of the industrialized world, lasting from 1929 to 1939. It began after the stock market crash of October 1929, which sent Wall Street into a panic and wiped out millions of investors.(wikipidea) to create new centralized governance through this crisis. One issues was people went to the banks and their $ was no longer there. How could that be possible if the bank was simply meant to hold their $. The answer is fractional banking: were they could lend out more money than they were actually holding because it was assumed that everyone would not come back for their $ at the same time then – Then it has been suggested they used “assumtion” to say well hell if they all come back at the same time we can say we don’t have the money to give everyone at the same time. This all being done when the simple honest people simply thought the banks were earning $ to hold their money and protect it. That part of the story is not told in our history books if mentioned at all. If I have gotten this info correctly, Just as prohibition created the IRS a governance that will put you in jail if you don’t let them rob you we seem to be ushering in a similar type of governance. The patterns are repeating. This time it is a GLOBAL pandemic. In which our governments and others close down all the small business akin to closing all the banks so that they can cripple We the People with a enduced crisis. As the traitors (it seems I may be wrong?) at the CDC who are working with an international agency: the WHO [who I will add had a communist Chinese leader at it s head recently] centralizi an unconstitutional power through a military type “Health” management. That goes against any sembelence of what our Constitution derived from our Declaration of Independence [creator given inalienable right = FREEDOM] principles is Naturally . The bad apple government creates Trillions of $ of debt = welfare to national and international business they term (lie) call “bail outs”.Billions, Trillions impossible numbers for our children and grand children to ever pay off as they are born into debt slavery, As they are writting this debt acting as if it is a check being written backed by We the People gold [ which has long been robbed bye the same Banker via WHO crony puppet type organizations doing this ( [I may be wrong?]) they are saying the economy is good. To say our economy is good in such a situation is irrational it is illogical- your house hold is not financially healthy if you accumalate unpayable debt. If you do such you lose everything- go bankrupt. So could these Global players that act from their own principle be looking to crash our economy so they can create a Global type currency and enforcement type “GLOBAL’ governance. Could they be putting us under a Global authority. Well if we are answering to the WHO with their CDC alliance- it is already happening. It has been shown with actual verified date that covid 19 is not a pandemic that the inflated #’s of death are actually no more than normal deaths ( though especially high in areas such as NY but for #’s to be high does not make a pandemic) though the inflated numbers are a con- The threat of deaths of a pandemic are address by arbitrary rules such as distancing- that scientists ( not on the take) and Drs say are ridiculous – can be said to be working when the normal or fact based numbers that would of occured with or with out the arbitrary distancing type “rules’ can be said to have worked… heres an alagory of such
An international visitor with dual citizenship [WHO type citizen corp intelligence agent] is blowing a horn early in the morning and his neighbor comes out and sais “Why are you blowing the horn so early in the morning people are sleeping.” and the man replies ” We need to do this to protect our families, our children from tigers. and the man replies “but we do not have tigers in this area we never have had tigers in this country” and he replies “you see it works there aren’t any tigers”
I will put some links below :
Here is a link to show the WHO type cronies and the Global business network have been planning such an event (destroying our Constitutional republic ) for years:
You once owned and operated your vehicle- now you need a liscence to drive that thing you own – You own you body and you can move freely … ??? You must register your vehicle – IS taking a COVID 19 test a new way of registering your body so they can regulate your travels- if you step within 6 feet of another person will you get a ticket- if you too walk fast will you now get a ticket??? Does taking a Covid 19 test do anything to stop the current spread of it??? You once went to work and left the business and its stresses their so you can spend time with your family- IS / HAS your work life INVADED your home ???DOES YOUR job or a SCHOOL have any place in your home???- Have you been CON (EDISON) ED INTO ALLOWING THEIR AUTHORITY INTO YOUR HOME??? ON YOUR HOME??? IN YOUR WALLET??? Do you want to have your child use a device to interact with the world- DONT answer that because they have given you NO CHOICE- DO you understand now why they where parroting FREEDOM ISN’T FREE??? So now bang your pots and SAY THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER [ ALLA TINY TIM WELCOME BACK MONARCHY AND AUTHORITARIANISM ISN’T IT GRAND AREN’T WE BRAVE AND FREE NOW ALL TOGETHER BANG THE POTS THREE TIMES BUT PUT ON YOUR GLOVES FIRST AND TAKE TEN STEPS AWAY FROM YOUR LOVE ONES AND PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE HOMELAND SECURITY FLAG GOD BLESS whatever they haverenamed this shitshow We are in… Everyone loves a parade ” ok now on three…
We the People have been sidelined for a time now. Some say it started with the Federal reserve act 1917 (*)( which handed over We the Peoples control of our money supply) others say the nails were set in the Bank relief act 1933. Though lets speak about where We the People are today. After 9-11 (*)We amidst a crisis, confusion and chaos We agreed to go against the agreements made bye the Greatest Generation (*)that spilled blood gave and took lives and altered lives and families lives for generations so We the People would never go to war to defend our inalienable rights ( freedom) again and that We the Peoples constitution and lives would honored as Vigilantly as our Fore father fought for it… An act of aggression was (is) considered a crime against humanity – that to take pre-emptive (*)action is was dishonoring them – We started taking these actions Bye policy makers that where not acting from these aforementioned principles – and in acting outside of what was left of the checks and balance system ( derived from the Constitution and Declaration of Independence ) . We the People are being mandated where and where to stand by misplaced powers in an apparent power grab and maneuvering of a new type of “global” governance that does not answer to We the People ( even in the pantomime of late) but now is Declaring the dependence of the People on the government and a new Rule of Law and Enforcement- those who once “SERVED” the people are now the “ENFORCEMENT” agents a security/ police of the new Rules/Rulers. Here’s some examples of what We have forgotten:
The doctrine of the “right to travel” (*)actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.2082 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the “Privileges and Immunities” of a citizen of the latter state.2083 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period of time before taking advantage of the benefits of that state’s citizenship.
In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.
Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.
What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.
I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information).
So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.
The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO’s Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO’s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong, a defence which has seldom succeeded in court.
(b) following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;
The key was that the concept of “imminent” was to change:
The concept of what constitutes an “imminent” armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats
In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel’s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam’s “imminent threat” to the UK, which proved to be nonexistent. It says everything about Bethlehem’s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second’s thought to the fact that the intelligence on the “imminent threat” can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.
There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favorite is this one by Bethlehem’s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.
In the UK recently, the Attorney General gave a speech in defence of the UK’s drone policy, the assassination of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely verbatim, and stuck a reporter’s byline at the top.
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet in fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office’s own large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO’s legal advisers had advised that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view. Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal ‘expert’ who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the ‘legality’ of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic proponent in the world of drone strikes.
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem accepts that established principles of international law dictate that lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is ‘imminent’. Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be ‘imminent’ does not require it to be ‘soon’. Indeed you can kill to avert an ‘imminent attack’ even if you have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely on your target’s ‘pattern of behaviour’; that is, if he has attacked before, it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is ‘imminent’.
There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for past crimes, rather than to frustrate another ‘imminent’ one.
You would think that background would make an interesting story. Yet the entire ‘serious’ British media published the government line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that Bethlehem’s proposed definition of ‘imminent’ has been widely rejected by the international law community. The public knows none of this. They just ‘know’ that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to give them other information.
Remember, this is not just academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “imminent” is a “concept” which means neither “soon” nor “definitely going to happen”. To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.
Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the “deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans”. This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Really? Who were they? When and where? While the Bethlehem Doctrine allows you to kill somebody because they might be going to attack someone, sometime, but you don’t know who or when, there is a reasonable expectation that if you are claiming people have already been killed you should be able to say who and when.
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, ISIL are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon’s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was “responsible for hundreds of American deaths” is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.
As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.
The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence’s attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed. Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.
Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.
The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognizes. The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to “non-state actors”. Unlike all of the foregoing, this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semiofficial status.
But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further.
The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media, that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is. It was an act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple.