Anonymous on 
**Note** The kid is okay, he came out with only a few bruises. He was laughing, by the time his parents walked him home.
Arizona Secretary of State Threatens to Remove Obama from Ballot
Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett is threatening to keep President Obama’s name off the state’s ballot in November unless he receives confirmation from Hawaii that it has a valid birth certificate on file for him.
Bennett, who spoke to Arizona radio host Mike Broomhead Thursday, said he requested the confirmation eight weeks ago and has not gotten it. Hawaii, he said, does not have to supply a certified copy of the birth certificate, merely send him an email confirming that it has one.
Asked by Broomhead if he would remove Obama’s name from the ballot if Hawaii fails to comply, Bennett said: “That’s possible. Or the other option would be that I would ask all the candidates, including the president, to submit a certified copy of their birth certificate.”
Despite overwhelming evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, the issue of his birth continues to dog him. Thursday, Breitbart Big Government reported on a promotional booklet by Obama’s own literary agency listing him as having been born in Kenya.
Bennett said Hawaii law permits government officials to request verification of possession of a birth certificate in lieu of a certified copy.
“They could say yes tomorrow and the whole thing goes away,” Bennett said. “If they can’t say yes to that simple question, then it makes me wonder if we have to take it to another level. One way or another, we have to have some simple verification that people are qualified for the office if they’re going to be on the ballot here in Arizona.”
Bennett asserted that he is not a “birther” and denied accusations that he is playing to the birther crowd in Arizona because he wants to run for governor. But Bennett also hedged in stating his belief that Obama was Hawwaii-born.
“I believe the president was born in Hawaii – or at least I hope he was,” Bennett said.
Arizona, with its 11 electoral votes, is an important 2012 presidential battleground state. A Real Clear Politics average of recent polling in the state has Mitt Romney ahead by only four points.
One thing I’d like to make clear. This blog believes Obama was born in Hawaii. But it also believes threats by the Arizona Secretary of State to exclude the president from the ballot are newsworthy.
Talking Surveillance Cameras Coming to U.S. Streets
Talking surveillance cameras that bark orders at passers-by and can also record conversations are heading for U.S. streets, with manufacturer Illuminating Concepts announcing the progress of its ‘Intellistreets’ system.
As we first reported last year, high tech street lights with “homeland security applications” are now being installed in major U.S. cities.
The street lights also have loudspeakers that can give audible warnings to individuals, mimicking the talking surveillance cameras in the UK that shout out orders through microphones telling people to pick up litter or leave the area.
A recent press release put out by Amerlux announces the company’s partnership with Illuminating Concepts to further advance the rollout of ‘Intellistreets’. The announcement confirms that the street lights will have a number of “homeland security features” including a loudspeaker system that will be used to “engage captive audiences”.
“The built-in speaker can broadcast emergency information,” states the press release, adding, “SmartSite luminaires can be equipped with a variety of cameras and sensors to ensure real-time 24/7-security coverage. The sensors detect a variety of threats that enable rapid response from emergency personnel or help prevent crime and gain control of the streets.”
The press release adds that the SmartSite system developed to operate the ‘Intellistreets’ surveillance hubs is intended not only for street lighting but also for “retail malls, sports venues, on college campuses, and in new construction,” and “might well become commonplace” in the near future.
Not only can the street lights, now being rolled out in Detroit, Chicago and Pittsburgh with Department of Energy backing, act as surveillance cameras, Minority Report-style advertising hubs, and Homeland Security alert systems, they are "also capable of recording conversations," according to a report by ABC 7.
The ABC video clip, featured at the end of this article, includes creepy footage of the street lights being used to transmit Orwellian security alerts, including "pay attention please"¦.please stand by for a public safety announcement," and "this is a security alert".
Illuminating Concepts responded to the controversy over ‘Intellistreets’ last year by ludicrously claiming the system did not represent a "big brother" intrusion, as if talking surveillance cameras that also record private conversations are a perfectly normal concept.
The company also denied that it had received funding from the Department of Homeland Security yet subsequent reports confirmed that owner Ron Harwood is now "working with Homeland Security" to implement the high tech network, which is connected via a ubiquitous wi-fi system.
In reality, the system represents Big Brother on steroids – George Orwell’s worst nightmare come to life with interconnected wireless ‘telescreens’ blanketing America, all in the name of safety and security.
Rapex
An anti-rape device is one of a variety of devices invented for the purpose of preventing or deterring rape. The first such devices were the chastity belts of the 15th century. Recent designs have been inspired as a response to very high rates of rape in places like South Africa
Rape-aXe
An anti-rape female condom using a different design was invented by Sonnet Ehlers, a South African woman. Ehlers was motivated to create it while working as a blood technician with the South African Blood Transfusion Service, during which time she met many rape victims. Ehler mentioned that she was inspired to create RAPEX (later renamed to Rape-aXe) when a patient who had been raped stated, "If only I had teeth down there," suggesting the myth of the vagina dentata. Initially called RapeX, the name was changed in 2006 upon discovering that RAPEX is also an EU warning system against dangerous goods on the market.
The Rape-aXe is a latex sheath embedded with shafts of sharp, inward-facing barbs that would be worn by a woman in her vagina like a female condom. If an attacker were to attempt vaginal rape, his penis would enter the latex sheath and be snagged by the barbs, causing the attacker excruciating pain during withdrawal and giving the victim time to escape. The condom would remain attached to the attacker's body when he withdrew and could only be removed surgically, which would alert hospital staff and police. Like most condoms, Rape-aXe also usually prevents pregnancy and the transmission of HIV and sexually transmitted Infections.
Rape-aXe was unveiled on August 31, 2005 in South Africa. Although media coverage at the time implied that mass production was due to begin in April 2007, the device has never been marketed to the public and it remains unclear whether the product will ever be available for purchase.
Criticism
Critics have objected to Ehlers' invention as "vengeful, horrible, and disgusting" and oppose its planned sale in drugstores.
It is like we are going back to the days where women were forced to wear chastity belts. It is a terrifying thought that women are being made to adapt to rape by wearing these devices ... Women would have to wear this every minute of their lives on the off-chance that they would be raped.—Lisa Vetten (Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, South Africa)
This is a medieval instrument, based on male-hating notions and fundamentally misunderstands the nature of rape and violence against women in this society.—Charlene Smith
Ehler responded to criticism in the FAQ section of her website: "As with everything in life there will be negative attitudes and I can't be responsible for people who refuse to educate men and feel the device is medieval," and responds by calling the Rape-aXe "a medieval device for a medieval deed."
Other critics fear that use of the device could possibly enrage an attacker and further jeopardize the victim. Ehlers responded: "Sadly, many women have been killed over time, as nobody can guarantee the outcome of any rape. However, the huge plus-factor is that the discomfort and pain is such that the rapist would be disabled temporarily, giving you time to get away and get help."
UN & World Bank Strangle Sovereign Nations Into Accepting Global Population Reduction Dictates
Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
May 14, 2012
According to two subsequent documents put out by the World Bank, its guidelines dictate that in order to qualify for World Bank lending, sovereign nations must implement population reduction objectives as outlined by the World Bank and UN Population Fund. If they refuse, lending will be withdrawn.
Already pre-tested and implemented in Yemen and Niger, these guidelines are destined for global implementation within the next decade, says the World Bank.
In the World Bank’s Reproductive Health Action Plan 2010-2015, published in April of 2010, the Bank speaks of Millennium Development Goal number 5 (or MDG5), which stands for “Reproductive Health” (or RH).
As we know, this is eugenics-new-speak for population control. As pro-death globalist professor John Cleland argued at a 2006 gathering in the company of like-minded individuals from the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, the European Commission, the World Bank and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:
“It does this cause no service at all to continue to shroud family planning in the obfuscating phrase “sexual and reproductive health”. People don’t really know what it means. If we mean family planning or contraception, we must say it. If we are worried about population growth, we must say it. We must use proper, straightforward language. I am fed up with the political correctness that daren’t say the name population stabilization, hardly dares to mention family planning or contraception out of fear that somebody is going to get offended. It is pathetic!”
The 2010 report put out by the World Bank however, chooses to use this deceptive phrase continually. And, from its dark point of view, it is right to do so- for the resistance against this 21st century eugenics grows steadily. The Bank, just like the UN, has no choice but to cloak itself in deceptive language so as not to raise too much suspicion as they move forward:
“(…) a renewed global consensus on the need to make progress on MDG5, together with greater attention to gender issues within and outside the Bank is refocusing attention on RH and offering an unprecedented opportunity to redress the neglect of the previous decade. Notable among these developments is that in 2007 the UN fully incorporated RH within the MDG framework.”
Apart from all the available evidence of a global push for population reduction, The term Global Consensus alone proves it:
“The Global Consensus”, says the report, “recognizes that MDGs 4 & 5 will not be reached without country leadership and the prioritization of reproductive, maternal, and newborn health at country level. The Global Consensus proposes a five point plan that includes: (i) political, operational, and community leadership and engagement; (ii) a package of evidence-based interventions through effective health systems along a continuum of good quality care, with a priority on quality care at birth; (iii) services for women and children free at the point of use if countries choose to provide them; (iv) skilled and motivated health workers in the right place at the right time, with supporting infrastructure, drugs, and equipment; and (v) accountability for results with robust monitoring and evaluation.”
Speaking of a global consensus. It was Klaus Töpfer, 1996 Bilderberg attendee and former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) who in the year 2000 admitted to an “international consensus” on worldwide population control. During a speech given in Berlin in the beginning of the new millennium, Töpfer stated outright:
“Most people and policymakers are unaware that there is an international consensus that grounds population policy in human rights and development, emphasizing building the capacities of women to manage their own lives.”
In order to translate this international, or global consensus to the nation-states under its control, the World Bank boasts:
“The World Bank is uniquely positioned at the country level to take on advocacy for reproductive health, particularly in reaching Ministers of Finance. This will require utilizing the World Bank‟s economic analysis and technical resources to marshal arguments for investment in reproductive health. Bank’s country directors have key role to play in process of making RH a country priority through their policy dialogue with governments.”
There it is again. The World Bank- as lender- has the dependent nations in a stranglehold. If nations don’t comply with its directions, the Bank can cut the financial lifeline, no problem at all. Or, as its 1984 World Development Report states, the World Bank threatens nations who are slow in implementing the Bank’s “population policies” with “drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.”
A World Bank discussion-paper from 2007 called Population Issues in the 21st century: The Role of the World Bank, explains how this process works in more detail:
“The Bank has a potential comparative advantage to address these issues at the highest levels of country policy setting, not only with ministry of health counterparts, but also with officials from finance and planning. This is important given the increasing recognition that political economy is a critical factor in the implementation of population and reproductive health programs, particularly in high-fertility countries.”
“Its involvement in many sectors in countries”, the authors continue, “can produce synergies that will allow faster progress than a more narrow focus on family planning services. The Bank will need its partners – United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), World Health Organization (WHO), key bilaterals – to provide technical expertise and administrative knowledge in areas such as procurement of contraceptives, service delivery, and demand creation.”
The document makes clear that this global and coordinated push for total control is not some vague dream. It is already being test-cased in several developing nations. The document states two cases that are currently underway. In the first example, Niger, the World Bank already has in place so-called “benchmarks” that the nation in question has to live up to in order to enjoy the continued support of the World Bank. In the case of Niger, considered by the IMF as a “Highly Indebted Poor Country”- and therefore easy to subdue- the document states:
“Population growth is documented and a population ESW (Economic and Sector Work) planned. A national Population and Reproductive Health Strategy is not only a CAS (Country Assistance Strategy) benchmark, but also a lending trigger, while reproductive health is included in one of the CAS pillars.”
“High fertility and rapid population growth were not only acknowledged as major problems, but fertility was also used as one of the CAS performance benchmarks. Moreover, a population ESW was planned and subsequently delivered. That ESW has been most instrumental in enhancing the in-country policy dialogue on population issues, and has led to a free-standing International Development Association (IDA) population operation, currently in preparation, which is the first population-specific operation in many years in the World Bank Africa Region. The preparation of a National Population and Reproductive Health Strategy was also a CAS benchmark as well as a lending trigger, while reproductive health was included in one of the CAS pillars. Other Bank partners such as the EU have joined the effort. Finally, population issues have also been given a high priority in the new Rural and Social Policy Reform (Development Policy Lending) Credit.”
The devil is in the details. The extend to which the World Bank and UN are willing to blackmail “Highly Indebted Poor Country’s” in implementing globally coordinated population control policies also becomes obvious in the second test-case example: Yemen:
“In the lending portfolio, restructuring of the Health Sector Reform Project (which includes family planning) is proposed and is expected to lead to a Population II Project to specifically address high fertility and family planning issues. Pillars two and three address population and reproductive health. Contraception is addressed effectively, and CPR is included as a CAS indicator. Furthermore, earlier in 2006, the Bank produced a study on “Promoting the Demand for FP in Yemen.”
“High fertility and rapid population growth”, the document reads, “were not only acknowledged as major impediments to economic growth and poverty reduction, but was included as one of the specific goals that was subsequently translated into policies, programs, and an indicator (reduce population growth rate by 3 percent per annum). Moreover, budget was allocated specifically for each of the four population policies that were outlined.”
The dimensions of this “Global Consensus” are extensive. These diabolical dimensions are being described in the 2007 “Discussion Paper” with the help of the catch-phrase: “Multisectoral approach”:
“A more systematic approach to mainstream population within the core agenda (…) would greatly enhance the adoption of a truly multisectoral approach. (….) The Bank’s comparative advantages in strengthening health systems are mainly in the areas of health financing, system governance, accountability for health service delivery, and demand-side interventions, all of which are important to further the population agenda.”
The authors continue:
“By supporting large-scale implementation of an integrated health sector plan that includes family planning, the Bank can play an important role in keeping family planning as a priority in high fertility and high-population-momentum countries. Even though historically some successful family planning programs were based on a vertical approach, such an approach is now considered less attractive, both from a sustainability standpoint as well as from a comprehensive reproductive health approach.”
However deceptive and “rational” the language, the document is nevertheless strangely upfront about their full-spectrum dominance, to make use of a military phrase:
“Unless population issues are approached in a multipronged fashion, it is unlikely to accelerate a demographic transition in these countries.”
The report goes on to say that: “The Bank is well positioned to systematically include population and reproductive health dimensions in key strategic documents (…). The Bank is particularly well placed to provide the fiscal and economic analysis to ensure that funding of population issues is placed within the overall development financing agenda of the country.”
“This strategy can be best achieved by a coordinated strategy implemented by a visible, strong, and high-level in-country unit with the mandate to design, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The Bank can help strengthen such institutional mechanisms, and foster collaboration with external national or international partners.”
There it is. World Bank “in-country units” will “strengthen” the institutions that distribute the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food. Above all this, the Bank uses the tools confided to them by the scientific dictatorship:
“The role of political economy in the implementation of population and reproductive health programs and policies is critical. The Bank, by providing the necessary analytical basis for policy discussion, can play a constructive role in prompting policy makers to take action now for future changes in population structure and size.”
Speaking of the scientific dictatorship, the World Bank works in concert with all the other arms of the octopus:
“As was noted in the section on the global policy context, it is impossible for the Bank to work on reproductive health issues without the support and collaboration of the broader international community. The UNFPA is the lead technical agency in the population field, with a large network of field offices. The Bank already uses UNFPA’s contraceptive procurement know-how and has intensified its collaboration in other areas (e.g., training and country program management). The WHO, as the normative agency, is a critical partner at both the global and country levels. As population issues are linked to reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, and child survival, the Bank works also with WHO, UNAIDS, and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), respectively.”
Returning to the essence, the intention and the strategy leave little for the imagination: a global consensus is in place between all the major transnational institutions and banks: the earth’s population must be brought down, with all means necessary. The World Bank uses financial tools to bring nations on their knees, demanding they cull their numbers; the UN guarantees the political legitimizing for these depopulation policies (Agenda 21); the Foundations develop the anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food, the World Health Organization takes care of the “health-standards” and distribution. With the help of this global construct, carefully coordinated from the top-down, the scientific dictatorship has circled the wagons around all of free humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
0 comments: