In December presidential frontrunner Donald Trump said parts of the internet should be shut down to prevent terrorism. Hillary Clinton has also proposed taking down the websites and blocking videos and encrypted communications of Islamic militants.
Earlier this week Cyber Command leader Adm. Mike Rogers said during a budget hearing for the agency this would not be possible.
“The idea that you’re just going to shut down the Internet given its construction and complexity is not realistic,” he said in response to a question by Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from Washington. “It’s just not that simple. I wish I could say that there’s a part of the Internet that was only used by a specific set of users.”
Turkey’s authoritarian leader Erdogan found out in 2014 how difficult it is to shut down the internet. Following widespread criticism of his government on social media, the Turkish government tried to block Twitter, but within seconds of Turkey’s telecommunications department taking a “protection measure” to block the popular microblogging site people were changing their DNS settings, using Virtual Private Networks and sending out tweets via SMS (in the latter case, Twitter provided instructions).
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is responsible for maintaining DNS (Domain Name System) servers and the organization has instituted a system akin to unlocking a nuclear weapon for launch. ICANN selected seven people as key holders and gave each one a computer code that must be paired with codes held by other key holders before the ICANN database can be accessed. Meetings are held every couple years to change to key holder pass codes.
The internet can be blocked, as it is in China, but taking it down in its entirety short of the accessing the ICANN DNS master database would be virtually impossible. But even if the database was sabotaged, many computers would continue to function using direct network connections.
The precursor of today’s internet, ARPANET—Advanced Research Projects Agency Network—was designed by the military to provide communication in the advent of a nuclear war. Packet switching—the dominant basis for data communications worldwide today—allows data to be dynamically routed via different paths in the network. In other words, if data—email or a request for a web page—encounters of problem, it will find its final destination using an alternate route.
Manchin said a common question asked by his constituents is why the government does not simply shut down parts of the internet used by the Islamic State and other terrorists. “I’m not just trying to find an answer, because that question is asked like shut her down, like you do your telephone, but it doesn’t work that way,” he said.
It is by its promise of a sense of power that evil often attracts the weak. ~Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) American philosopher and author.
Leftist anarchists sparked security fears in Chicago on Friday and shut down a rally that had drawn tens-of-thousands of Trump supporters.
Thousands of Donald Trump fans were stunned to hear that riots had succeeded in derailing the event at the University of Illinois-Chicago. The announcement came amid protests outside the venue.
Oh yes, George Soros’ Moveon.org anarchists, along with Bernie Sanders, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall street, F**k the Police, and typical
Chicago-Style-Democrat-thug politics were responsible for the riot in Chicago where Trump was to speak. [Link] Many were carrying Mexican flags and wearing “Muslims Hate Trump,” t-shirts. This is the second stage of planning to derail Trump. Because Trump had to cancel the Chicago speech, these gangsters will try this again and again. Yes, it’s the 60s again, with commies fomenting hatred for freedom of speech from the only candidate who wants to return America to her founding principles. And of course, Obama’s buddy, Bill Ayers, was in the crowd demonstrating.
Born and raised in Chicago, I know the politics of this democratic held city only too well, and it very, very ugly.
Ted Cruz Claims Trump Responsible
Ted Cruz and the GOPe jumped into the fray of Soros Chicago politics and actually blamed Donald Trump for the protests. So, Ted Cruz blames Donald for not being politically correct and thus causing the protests and violence.
Diane Marshall of the Marshall Report writes this:
What if the Trump supporters decided to go ballistic and riot Cruz town halls because of Glenn Beck’s garbage mouth calling them ALL NAZIS and Trump Hitler! He can’t blame that all on Beck…he stood their nodding with that snaky grin approving all of the liar messages every time they were spoken, over and over and over again.
Cruz has lied over and over again about Trump, and even about Carson and Rubio. His supporters don’t seem to understand the deviousness of his campaign and continue to say it’s untrue, but we’ve documented his lies many, many times. Cruz has even accepted monies from David McIntosh, the president of Club for Growth.
Remember Club for Growth is pro-amnesty, and when they asked Trump for a million-dollar donation, Trump refused. So CfG spent $3.3 million in attack ads against Trump. Of course Ted Cruz has no problem accepting money from McIntosh, and why wouldn’t he, he’s for open borders. Heidi Cruz spent five years at the Council on Foreign Relations helping to write the North America Union, and that filthy sovereignty destroying piece of legislation eliminates the borders between Canada, Mexico and the United States. If Cruz becomes president, we will become just like the now failed, European Union.
Fox News Joins in Blaming Trump
Fox News, (especially Megyn Kelly), who has proven to be worse than CNN, has even joined the left (MoveOn.org and George Soros) in blaming Trump for this communist demonstration from the far left anarchists. They’re saying Trump should accept that America no longer allows total free speech, that it should be curtailed to be more “inclusive and politically sensitive.” Excuse me, while I go get my barf bag. If this doesn’t sound like commie rhetoric, I don’t know what does!
Who Owns What?
The GOP establishment, the DNC establishment, the MSM establishment, and the anarchists from Soros’ leftist organizations all hate Trump, but even the web outlets we believe give us the truth have questionable ownership.
Robert Mercer
Billionaire Robert Mercer founded Cruz’s super Pac for $10 million, but he also purchased Breitbart.com for another $11 million. [Link] Mercer has given $750,000 to the infamous Club for Growth (CfG). In my article, Why The GOP Establishment Hates Donald Trump, I exposed CfG partners and allies include the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Peterson is chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and former chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Another ally is the US Chamber of Commerce, who is so behind the invasion of illegal aliens on our southern borders.
Cambridge Analytica is the receiver of the contact information provided to Breitbart when you participate in their on-line Presidential Poll. [Link] They were hired by Cruz as his spy machine on voter attributes via Facebook.
Wilks Brothers
As 2015 came to a close, Ted Cruz met with hundreds of prominent faith leaders (including David Barton, James Robison, and John Hagee) at the ranch of Texas tycoon, Farris Wilks. Wilks supports most of the phony rightwing groups in the secretive Council for National Policy. Farris and his brother Dan have donated $15 million to a super PAC which supports Cruz. Cameras and recording devices were not allowed at the Wilks ranch when Cruz spoke, so only God and attendees know what was said at the event. However, one might be able to get an idea of how Cruz views God’s role in American politics by reviewing his associations. Farris Wilks heads the Assembly of Yahweh, Seventh Day. Here’s what they believe.
National Review
National Review, who came out with their list of who hates Trump not long ago, now is endorsing Ted Cruz. We shouldn’t be surprised at that since those on the list are the neo-cons claiming to be conservatives. Remember that the National Review was founded by William F. Buckley, CFR member, CIA agent, and Skull and Bones man. Buckley actually appointed the present head of National Review, Rick Lowry, in 1997 to carry on with the neo-conservative propaganda of the founder. If you haven’t read John McManus’s book, “William F. Buckley, Pied Piper for the Establishment,” I’d really suggest getting a copy. It is heavily referenced and has a wonderful index.
Conclusion
By now, most Americans, who have been politically astute for many decades, can see just exactly what the Republican party has become in the last 60 years. Very few of them are friends of the Constitution, and neither are they conservatives.
The establishment Republicans, and media all claim Mr. Trump isn’t conservative enough, but this is a euphemism for saying he isn’t a globalist establishment insider. Americans who flock to his rallies know this, they know he resonates with freedom. They know he isn’t perfect and he doesn’t know every subject, but they know he’s a good man, rough around the edges like General Patton, but always telling us the truth the way he sees it. We rejoice in hearing this truth. It’s thrilling after so many years of hearing the false drivel from the moderate left leaning Republican candidates.
Am I thrilled that Ben Carson endorsed Trump? You bet I am because even though I have my problems with Ben, I believe this skilled doctor is a good man who is decent and who can spot another honorable man. And, if Trump becomes President, maybe he can consider appointing Dr. Carson as Surgeon General.
Why do I think Ben Carson endorsed Trump? Because Trump showed that he was the only gentleman among the candidates…truly, a gentleman. [Link]
* Do our loved ones & friends KNOW ?
* Note taken from Health Sciences Institute e-Alert - Jenny Thompson - 4/8/16 * Choose all natural D-3 and do not wait until actually diagnosed with Congestive Heart Failure!
- An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure!
Dear Reader,
If you or someone you love suffers from heart failure, I bet it’s been a while since you got good news.
You’ve probably been told that the breathing problems… the constant fatigue… the feeling like your heart is beating out of your chest… are going to be with you for the rest of your life.
And that they’re only going to get worse.
But some exciting new research out of the UK may be turning that all on its head.
Because researchers say they’ve discovered a powerful natural remedy that can actually reverse some of the damage of heart failure, and get your ticker pumping better than it has in years.
And this life-saving treatment isn’t just dirt cheap — it’s practically free.
Walking on sunshine
I haven’t seen this much enthusiasm for a natural therapy for heart failure since…well, I can’t remember when.
What these doctors are so excited over is something that I’ve been telling you about the benefits of for many years.
I’m talking about the humble sunshine vitamin. That’s right — vitamin D.
Now, for the moment, let’s put aside all the other amazing things vitamin D has been known to accomplish where our health is concerned. Because I want you to focus exactly on what these doctors across the pond discovered.
Lead researcher Dr. Klaus Witte and his colleagues from the University of Leeds gave 163 patients with fairly advanced heart failure either a placebo or a 100 microgram (4,000 IU) vitamin D pill every day for a year.
Now, these were people whose hearts were in very bad shape. Their “ejection fraction” numbers, which measure the ability of the heart to pump blood, were at life-threatening lows — averaging at around 26 percent (a normal EF is 60 to 70 percent).
And with a number that low, you’re in grave danger of going into a deadly irregular heartbeat.
But after a year, those who got the vitamin D supplements saw such improvements in their EF that Dr. Witte called it the best he had seen “in a generation” of research.
The study patients who received the vitamin D saw their EF numbers increase by an impressive 31 percent in an echocardiogram test. Plus that, their hearts actually got smaller — something that indicates the muscle is getting more powerful and efficient in doing its job.
That’s right — vitamin D was actually reversing years of damage to their hearts.
That EF increase means that the patients taking the D supplements may not need surgery to implant a defibrillator, something that can shock their hearts if they go into a dangerous irregular heart rhythm. And that’s a big risk for someone with a very low EF.
The researchers said that they don’t know precisely how vitamin D helps the heart become stronger, but it’s believed that every single cell in the body benefits from it.
One important take-away from Dr. Witte’s study is that they used a pure vitamin D supplement, one without any calcium. That mineral, the researchers said, can cause problems for those with heart failure.
But as Dr. Witte said, “It’s not about the tablet per se, it’s about the vitamin D levels which you achieve.”
And that’s something you can get for free by just stepping outdoors when the sun is shining!
While this research will be a blessing for many suffering from heart failure, you’ll also benefit from upping your D if you’re in perfect health — and want to stay that way!
Many foods are naturally high in D, including salmon, egg yolks and mushrooms. And getting 10 to 15 minutes of sun exposure on your skin (without sunscreen) a day should be enough to give you a good dose.
Of course, vitamin D supplements are about as cheap as they come.
Or, as the cheeky Brit Dr. Witte put it, “Cheap as chips.”
To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson
Sources:
“Vitamin D can produce ‘amazing’ improvements in heart function, study finds” Doug Bolton, April 5, 2016, Independent, independent.co.uk
“Vitamin D ‘heals damaged hearts'” James Gallagher, April 4, 2016, BBC News, bbc.com
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the developed world, and yet we are still in the dark ages when it comes to treating and understanding it.
The colossal failure of conventional cancer treatments reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what cancer – the “enemy” – actually is. For one, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are both intrinsically carcinogenic treatments. The only justification for their use, in fact, is that they are highly effective at damaging the DNA within cells – with the hope that the cancer cells will be more susceptible to being harmed than the healthy ones (sadly, not always true).
The reality, however, is that the “collateral damage” from treatment is inevitable; it is not a matter of “if,” but to what degree the damaging side effects will occur. As in real modern warfare, the decision to strike is often based on deciding how much collateral damage to “civilian” populations is deemed acceptable. This is not unlike the fixation in toxicological risk assessments for drugs, environmental pollutants, food additives, etc., where determining “an acceptable level of harm” (a rather horrible oxymoron) to the exposed population is the first order of business.
Chemo Agent Classified by the WHO as Carcinogenic
The DNA-damaging, or genotoxic effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, according to the prevailing wisdom, are the #1 cause of cancer initiation and promotion. This is known as the “Mutational Theory” of cancer, and has been the dominant explanation for half a century. Therefore it is absolutely disconcerting that the standard of care in cancer treatment today is still the use of genotoxic agents versus substances that are able to selectively harm the “bad” cells, leaving the “good” ones intact; which is also known as “selective cytotoxicty,” and is a property characteristic of natural anti-cancer compounds and whole plant extracts. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the case of fruit-derived compounds, such as graviola, where cell research indicates that fruit extract may be up to 10,000 times more effective at killing certain cancer cells versus adriamycin (not so affectionately named the “red devil” for its lethal side effects) and is highly selective in which cells it kills.
Take the cancer drug tamoxifen, for example. It is classified by the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society as a human carcinogen, and has been documented to cause over two dozen health-destroying side effects, and yet it is still being used as a first line treatment for certain types of breast cancer. Does that really make sense? Even if tamoxifen was effective (which increasingly it is not), does it really matter if it “cures” breast cancer only to cause endometrial or liver cancer (which is often far more deadly than breast cancer) as a direct result of the treatment? Tamoxifen and chemotherapy resistance is increasingly a problem. In the same way that certain pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics – even becoming stronger after being challenged with them – drug resistance and multi-drug resistance to chemoagents is the canary in the coal mine, indicating the entire paradigm, hinged as it is on patented, highly toxic chemicals, is rearing to collapse.
Radiation Therapy Known To Cause Cancer & Enhance Malignancy
Similarly, radiotherapy is known to induce secondary cancers, along with a wide range of serious adverse effects. A woman whose breast is irradiated is more likely to develop lung cancer, for instance. But its effects may actually be far worse on the primary cancer it is being used to treat…
When a breast tumor is exposed to radiation, the cells within that tumor are not uniform, but have great heterogeneity. Some of the cells are fast-replicating, whereas some are slow-replicating and benign. Some cells are older, technically senescent, and by their very existence are keeping neighboring cells within the tumor and with greater potential for malignancy from breaking out into invasive growth. There are also cancer stem cells, which are technically slower-replicating and therefore less likely to be destroyed by chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and yet which are responsible for re-seeding and fueling the growth of the tumor itself with a theoretical limitless resupply of daughter cells.
Radiotherapy has been shown to increase the survival and self-renewing capacity of these breast cancer initiating cells by up to 30-fold, which means that while a radiation treatment may initially regress a tumor’s volume/mass, it may actually be selecting out the more radiation-resistant and aggressive subpopulation of tumor cells which ultimately lead to higher malignancy. This promotion of self-initiating cancer cells is also true for chemotherapy, of course. Incidentally, the low-dose radiation used to diagnose breast cancers in x-ray mammography is likely causing far more cancers in women over time than it is said to prevent. If you read the actual peer-reviewed medical literature on the subject you may be surprised to find that the low-dose ionizing radiation is actually far more carcinogenic (3-4 fold higher) than the high-dose radiation it is often compared to in radiation risk assessments. In fact, one of the most well known breast cancer associated genes, namely, BRCA1/BRCA2, confers greater susceptibility to radiation induced breast cancer in those who have it. In other words, staying away from medical radiation, diagnostic or therapeutic, may be essential to avoid the cancer it is being used to both “prevent” and “treat.
Why Conventional Treatment Fails & Will Continue To Do So
The failure of chemotherapy can work in the same way. When you expose a diverse population of breast tumor cells to a highly toxic agent, a normal response is to become damaged to the point of dying. But cancer may not be a strict random mutation process, but an ancient survival program unmasked; that is, the cancer cell may be drawing from a far more ancient evolutionary and genetic “tool kit” which enables it to survive far harsher cellular environments, e.g. chemical exposure, low oxygen, higher availability of glucose/fructose, acidic pH, etc. and therefore the addition of highly toxic chemotherapy-type chemicals will selectively kill the weaker, and technically healthier (more benign) cells within a breast tumor, while creating the very conditions within which the malignant and more chemoresistant cancer cells may thrive. Multidrug-resistance genes and proteins are involved. When attacked by a chemical (xenobiotic) the cancer cell may “regress” and activate the genetic equipment that enables it to efficiently push out (efflux) the chemoagent being used, surviving, while its neighboring weaker (though technically more normal and healthier) cells die off.
Can you see, then, how radiotherapy and chemotherapy may be responsible for driving a cancer into greater malignancy, at the very moment that it is harming the rest of the body, compromising the immune system (damage to the bone marrow and direct harm to the immune cells)? The incurability of pancreatic cancer vis-à-vis chemotherapy and radiation, therefore, may reflect how the standard treatments themselves are driving the patient into premature death. When the average pancreatic cancer patient (using most chemo and radiation protocols) lives no more than 6 months, do we say that the cancer killed them, or the treatments?
Standard operating procedures is to write off the patients death as being “caused” by an “exceptionally aggressive” form of cancer, rather than to admit that the very treatments may have transformed a relatively slow growing tumor into a rapidly proliferating and invasive one. Think of it this way: if you were being blasted with chemicals and radiation, and you were seeing your neighbors dropping like flies, would you relocate? Can you, therefore, blame a subpopulation of tumor cells, having survived chemotherapy and radiotherapy while it’s neighboring cells did not, moving to another tissue – say, bone, or brain – in order to survive? Cancer, after all, is something our body does (and likely to survive) and not something that happens to it, as if the genes in our body just went off one day like a cancer time-bomb, fatalistically predetermined by the less than perfect genes we inherited from our predecessors.
Given the likelihood that the conventional cancer industry is often not only failing to improve the quality and length of the lives of those who it treats, but quite the opposite, reducing the quality and length of their lives, the time has come to look for safe, effective, affordable, inexpensive and accessible alternatives to patented chemicals and ionizing radiation in the prevention and treatment of cancer. And the solution may be as close to us as our kitchen spice racks:
The Case For Turmeric
While US law presently forbids the medicinal use of natural substances, turmeric has been used in ancient Indian medicine for thousands of years, and curcumin, which gives the spice its golden hue, is one of the most extensively studied natural compounds of all time, with 4,588 references to studies performed on it on the National Library of Medicine’s bibliographic database known as Medline [as of 2.25.2012]. Yet, despite having been shown to have therapeutic value in more than 500 diseases in animal and test tube studies, it still has not been the subject of extensive human clinical trials. As a public service GreenMedInfo.com has indexed curcumin’s anti-cancer properties in more than 50 cancers, with the top 10 most compelling cancers applications in cancer prevention and treatment listed below:
What Has the Actual Research Shown?
Type of Cancer Curcumin Has Potential Value In Preventing or treating
Number of Peer-Reviewed Studies Supporting Its Therapeutic Properties
As one can see by the density of research referenced above, curcumin holds great promise. First, it has an exceedingly high margin of safety relative to conventional drugs. As an example, the dose at which it will acutely kill 50% of the animals given it is 2,000 mg/kg, whereas it only takes 115 mg/kg of 5-fluorouracil (conventional chemo agent) to produce the same effects. What is even more amazing is that it has been repeatedly demonstrated to possess both chemoprotective and chemosensitizing properties, which means that it will both enhance the positive cancer-killing effects of conventional chemotherapy, while at the same time protect healthy cells which may be susceptible to being harmed by chemotherapy. GreenMedInfo.com contains 57 studies on its chemosensitizing properties and 70 on its chemoprotective properties for reference. As if this wasn’t impressive enough, it also has profound radioprotective and radiosensitizing properties. Radioprotective substances protect the healthy cells in the body from being damaged by radiotherapy, and radiosensitizing substances help the radiation kill the cancer cells, making them “more sensitive” to the radiation treatments. GreenMedInfo contains 15 studies on curcumin’s radiosensitizing properties and 23 studies on its radioprotective properties.
Given this growing and compelling body of research, should not curcumin be considered for use in cancer treatment? And if not as a first-line treatment, then at the very least as an adjuvant in integrative cancer care?
A devastating report commissioned by the National Cancer Institute reveals that our 40-year long ‘War on Cancer’ has been waged against a vastly misunderstood ‘enemy,’ that in many cases represented no threat to human health whatsoever.
See the exclusive cancer documentary premiere for Infowars readers the mainstream media refused to air. Click here to view it completely free. If you have been following our advocacy work on cancer, particularly in connection with the dark side of breast cancer awareness month, you know that we have been calling for the complete reclassification of some types of ‘breast cancer’ as benign lesions, e.g. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), as well as pointing out repeatedly that x-ray based breast screenings are not only highly carcinogenic but are also causing an epidemic of “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” in US women, with an estimated 1.3 million cases in the past 30 years alone.
A National Cancer Institute commissioned panel’s report published in JAMA online confirmed that we all – public and professionals alike – should stop calling low-risk lesions like DCIS and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) ‘cancer.’
There are wide-reaching implications to this recommendation, including:
Millions of women in this country have been diagnosed with DCIS, and millions of men with HGPIN, and subsequently [mis]treated. Are they now to be retroactively reclassified as ‘victims’ of iatrogenesis, with legal recourse to seek compensation?
Anyone engaged in a cancer screening will now need to reconsider and weigh both the risks and benefits of such a ‘preventive’ strategy, considering that the likelihood of being diagnosed with a false positive over 10 years is already over 50% for women undergoing annual breast screening.
The burgeoning pink ribbon-bedecked ‘breast cancer awareness’ industry will be forced to reformulate its message, as it is theoretically culpable for the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of millions of US women by propagating an entirely false concept of ‘cancer.’
The practice of oncology in the United States is in need of a host of reforms and initiatives to mitigate the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of cancer, according to a working group sanctioned by the National Cancer Institute.
Perhaps most dramatically, the group says that a number of premalignant conditions, including ductal carcinoma in situ and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, should no longer be called “cancer.”
Instead, the conditions should be labeled something more appropriate, such as indolent lesions of epithelial origin (IDLE), the working group suggests. The Viewpoint report was published online July 29 in JAMA.
Fundamentally, overdiagnosis results from the fact that screen-detected ‘cancers’ are disproportionately slower growing ones, present with few to no symptoms, and would never progress to cause harm if left undiagnosed and untreated.
As you can see by the graph above, it is the fast-growing tumors which will be more difficult to ‘detect early,’ and will progress rapidly enough to cause symptoms and perhaps even death unless treated aggressively. But even in the case of finding the tumor early enough to contain it through surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation, it is well-known that the minority subpopulation of cancer stem cells within these tumors will be enriched and therefore made more malignant through conventional treatment. For instance, radiotherapy radiation wavelengths were only recently found by UCLA Jonnsson Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers to transform breast cancer cells into highly malignant cancer stem-cell like cells, with 30 times higher malignancy post-treatment.
What this means is that not only are millions of screen-detected abnormalities not ‘cancer’ in the first place but even those which can be considered fast-growing are often being driven into greater malignancy by the conventional chemotherapy, radiation and surgery-based standard of cancer care itself.
Our entire world view of cancer needs to shift from an enemy that “attacks” us and that we must wage war against, to something our body does, presumably to survive an increasingly inhospitable, nutrient-deprived, carcinogen- and radiation-saturated environment, i.e. Cancer As An Ancient Survival Mechanism Unmasked.
When we look at cancer through the optic of fear and see it as an essentially chaos-driven infinitely expanding mass of cells, we are apt to make irrational choices. The physiological state of fear itself has been found to activate multidrug resistance proteins within cancer cells, explaining how our very perception of cancer can influence and/or determine its physiological status and/or trajectory within our body.
The NCI panel report opined:
“The word “cancer” often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process; however, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient’s lifetime.”
For more details on what our founder Sayer Ji calls the “Cancer Malignancy Meme,” see his video presentation at the Mind Body Week DC conference, wherein he discuss the ‘Rise of Biomedicine’ within the context of the mind-body connection, and breast cancer overdiagnosis in particular.
We must keep in mind that this proposed redefinition of cancer is no small academic matter, but will affect the lives of millions of women. Consider that every year, approximately 60,000 women in this country are diagnosed with DCIS, a diagnosis so traumatic that it results in significant psychiatric depression 3 years after even a ‘false positive’ diagnosis. For those less fortunate women, numbering in the millions over the past 30 years, who were told they had ‘cancer’ and needed to undergo lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy and/or mastectomy, the NCI panel’s recommendation is a hard pill swallow after the damage has already been irrevocably done.
So, what’s the solution? There is a growing movement towards the use of thermography as a primary diagnostic tool, as it uses no ionizing radiation, and can detect the underlying physiological processes that may indicate inflammation, angiogenesis, cancer-specific metabolic changes, etc., many years before a calcified lesion would appear within an x-ray mammogram. Also, the mainstay of any truly preventive strategy against cancer is diet, nutrition, exercise and avoiding chemical and radiation exposures – the things that we can do in our daily lives to take back control of and responsibility for our health.
“Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost.” Thrift and ubiquity aside, “executions are community projects-not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his’ duty, but rather with actual participants. That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes, indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians.” ~Gary North, Reconstruction leader
Dominionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul.
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. … John 8:7
No matter how simplified I try to keep the definition of Dominionism, it is such a huge topic, that it’s difficult to make it concise, or even use the K.I.S.S. method. I constantly receive emails from people asking me to explain this aberrant doctrine in Christianity. Despite my previous efforts, many still do not understand. There are wonderful researchers who I’ll link to for your perusal, hoping this will help. It is really of the utmost importance because one of the candidates is steeped in this false doctrine, as are his close supporters, Glenn Beck, David Barton, and Ted’s father, Rafael Cruz, Sr.
What is Dominionism?
There are three basic tenets to Dominionism
• Dominionist wants a theocracy (government) of their form of Christians leading the country. • Dominionists wants a theonomy (Old Testament Law) in this theocracy, which means, their beliefs are based on Old Testament Mosaic laws, minus a few dietary restrictions, which will govern/rule the society. • Dominionists want to use Old Testament law, including “stoning” to rid the country of sinners such as homosexuals, adulterers, disobedient children, those who take the Lord’s name in vain, etc., although not all Dominionists subscribe to this tenet of the doctrine.
Dominionists believe that we (mankind) have a mandate to build the “kingdom of God” on earth, restoring paradise, by progressively and supernaturally transforming ourselves and all societal institutions, through subduing and ruling the earth by whatever means possible, including using technology, science and psycho-social engineering; and then and only then will a “Christ” manifest his presence on earth.
A basic premise of dominion theology is that when Adam sinned, not only did man lose dominion over the earth, but God also lost control of the earth to Satan. Since that time, some say, God has been on the outside looking in, searching for a “covenant people” who will be His “extension” or “expression” in the earth to take dominion back from Satan. According to the dominionist interpretation, this is the meaning of the Great Commission.
Some teach that this is to be accomplished through certain “overcomers” who, by yielding themselves to the authority of latter-day apostles and prophets, will take control of the kingdoms of this world. These kingdoms are defined as the various social institutions, such as the “kingdom” of education, the “kingdom” of science, the “kingdom” of the arts, and so on. Most especially there is the “kingdom” of politics and government. (Dager, p. 44)
Dominion theology is predicated upon three basic beliefs:
1) Satan usurped man’s dominion over the earth through the temptation of Adam and Eve;
2) The Church is God’s instrument to take dominion back from Satan;
3) Jesus cannot or will not return until the Church has taken dominion by gaining control of the earth’s government and social institutions. (Dager, p. 87)
Dominionism Popularized
The term “Dominionism” was first popularized in the 1990s by researchers, including Chip Berlet, scholar Sara Diamond, and Fred Clarkson, who needed a term to describe the political aspirations of Christian Rightists who believed that they have a biblical mandate to control all earthly institutions –including government – until the second coming of Jesus. But the idea of conservative Christians gaining political power sufficient to take dominion over society predated their use of the term by decades.
The two main schools of Dominionist thought include Christian Reconstructionism, founded by the late R.J. Rushdoony, which advances the idea not only of the need for Christians (of the right sort) to dominate society, but institute and apply Old Testament “Biblical Law.” Again, a theocracy (ruled by Dominionist Christians only), will be on Old Testament law, (a theonomy) and this includes all 613 Mosaic laws, other than a few dietary laws. Those hardcore Dominionist leaders, like Gary North, believe in stoning sinners in the street.
The other, closely related form of Dominionism is advocated by the Pentecostal New Apostolic Reformation, which exuberantly advocates for Christians to “reclaim the seven mountains of culture”: government, religion, media, family, business, education, and arts and entertainment. [Link]
Yet, both forms cross over into each other’s territory. In the 1980s, the Reconstructionist leaders—despite their pretensions of theological integrity, worked compatibly alongside Charismatic leaders in the Coalition on Revival (COR) for political action, spelling out how they planned to rule over 17 “spheres” of society in America. These 17 spheres are a direct precursor to the 7 mountains taught by C. Peter Wagner and his group of “apostles” who claim they will reign as “kings.” (See KINGS and PRIESTS) Rafael Cruz’s sermons have spoken of the “seven mountains and kings and priests.”
Seven Mountains Mandate
Sarah Leslie, has just completed research on these doctrines in dominionism, and written an article on the Seven Mountains Mandate with Dr. Orrel Steinkamp. It is titled, 7 Mountain Politics and Theology. It is an in-depth overview and is important in understanding the entire culture of this apostasy in the church today. The Herescope website states:
Herescope has published many articles about the 7 mountain theology. Our critical perspective is distinctly biblical, and thus distinguishable from the criticism of the seven mountains coming from the political Left, although we do share some of their concerns about this radical agenda for the church to transform society and/or government(s) into a church-state via cultural, political and/or “warfare” activism. In our articles, we clearly articulate our theological differences with this 7 mountains teaching.
I urge readers to delve into this article in order to understand the full ramifications of this heretical doctrine. Sarah Leslie is one of the finest researchers on aberrant doctrines in today’s church, and I cherish her friendship and her work.
Dominionists Who Support Ted Cruz
Pastor Kevin Swanson - Colorado pastor Kevin Swanson was the keynote speaker at the National Religious Liberties Conference in Des Moines, Iowa. In his speech, the infamous “Kill the homosexuals” pastor called for the murder of homosexuals saying, “They are worthy of death.”
Swanson then introduces Ted Cruz as the next president of the United States after his diatribe against homosexuals. In addition to Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal were also at this conference as speakers.
Swanson actually said he would give some time for homosexuals to repent, but he didn’t say how long before the executions would begin.
Cruz claims he doesn’t know what Swanson has said or not said, but he certainly didn’t take time to find out about this very controversial pastor. Neither did Huckabee nor Jindal. Swanson’s supporters also distributed “death to gays” pamphlets at the event.
Swanson bragged on his radio show about the “amazingly successfully” National Religious Liberties Conference held in Iowa in early November, during which he declared he was “not kidding” when he said he’d spread excrement all over himself if his son ever married another man.
“I’d spread it all over my body,” he preached. “That’s what I would do and I’m not kidding! I’m not laughing!”
Cruz’s Rally for Religious Liberty
After appearing at the Kevin Swanson Iowa rally last November, candidate Cruz hosted his own anti-LGBT hate fest in South Carolina.
Among the speakers at Cruz’s event were Dominionist Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, would-be reality TV stars the Benham brothers, also Dominionists, and anti-gay Houston activist and Dominionist, Dave Welch. Perkins is also a United Nations Non-Governmental Organization member.
Other Dominionists Endorse Cruz
Phillip “Flip” Benham, another Dominionist pastor, once arrested and prosecuted for stalking the judge who heard Kim Davis’s case, is also endorsing Ted Cruz.
And, Senator Ted Cruz, isn’t backing away from the endorsement of Mike Bickle, a controversial evangelical pastor who once characterized Hitler as “a hunter” sent by God to go after Jews who don’t to convert to Christianity. [Link]
Despite calls from Jewish groups to denounce Bickle’s interpretation of scripture, a senior advisor to Cruz instead welcomed the pastor’s support in a statement published in the Jewish Journal.
Cruz trumpeted Bickle’s endorsement in a post on his website. Sadly, Christians do not do any investigation into these endorsements.
Bickle’s IHOP/New Apostolic Reform
Here is a brief synopsis of the IHOP/NAR history from Herescope.com:
• IHOP is just one arm of a multi-faceted group (with many names, entities and offshoots) known as the “Kansas City Prophets” that has been around since the mid-1980s. • These Kansas City “prophets” are leaders who track a direct lineage back to the old Latter Rain cult. • John Wimber became an overseer of the KC group in the late 1980s when their cult excesses became public and controversial, and set them up under his Vineyard denomination. • John Wimber was a mentor to C. Peter Wagner and vice versa, and the two of them have a history that tracks back into the mid 1970s at Fuller Theological Seminary where they concocted doctrines together. • C. Peter Wagner’s “Third Wave” movement, the predecessor to the NAR, was founded on Wimber’s signs and wonders mysticism. • C. Peter Wagner’s “New Apostolic Reformation” was founded on the convergence of the mystical streams of John Wimber, the Kansas City group, and Fuller Theological Seminary.
In January, 1990, Ernie Gruen, a Charismatic pastor in Kansas City for 27 years released a 233-page document listing erroneous prophecies, statements, doctrines and incidents involving the Kansas City Prophets. Gruen’s shocking report on the Kansas City Prophets, “Documentation of the Aberrant Practices and Teachings of the Kansas City Fellowship (Grace Ministries),” is filled with evidences of spiritual abuse and theological excesses of Bickel, et al.
Conclusion
In several previous articles, I’ve exposed the Dominionist teachings of Rafael Cruz Sr., David Barton, and now, even Glenn Beck who seems to have joined the Dominionist ranks. Ted Cruz masquerades as a Christian, yet his actions speak otherwise. Cruz has openly lied about other candidates, he’s used tactics via Jeff Roe, his campaign manager, that are deceitful and dangerous.
Cruz lied about Dr. Carson dropping out during the caucus in Iowa, and then lied again about Rubio dropping out in the latest Hawaii vote. His actions speak louder than his words and his public prayers. The Lord tells us to judge them by their fruits, yet today’s Christians seems to swallow the hollow words and accept everything as gospel. The lack of discernment is telling.
The doctrine of Dominionism is heretical according to God’s Word. Like Islam, they want a theocracy, based on their form of theonomy, with stoning still in practice. Surely we all know folks who have led lives that were unchristian, only to later come to realize the error of their ways. Repentance and salvation can come any time up to your very last breath, and it is faith alone that saves. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9 We are all sinners, just saved by grace.
Take the story of Pastor Jack Morlan. He was radically saved out of a homosexual lifestyle by Jesus Christ. He and his wife, and their two sons boldly proclaim a Gospel of Salvation. Jack’s ministry was treated very badly during the 1990s by the Christian Right leaders, who told him frankly that they found much more enjoyment in bashing gays, and that they made much more money attacking gays in their fundraisers. They informed Jack that they didn’t WANT to share the Gospel with homosexuals. Pointing a finger and screaming “SINNER,” wins no one to Christ and salvation.
With Dominionist theology, there is no grace, and the opportunity to change would be cut short with their punishment. When Ted Cruz said as a teenager that he wanted to rule the world, people found it humorous and the silly statements of youth. But, his form of aberrant doctrine truly believes he should rule the world.
WHERE IS THE REAL GOSPEL, TED? This isn’t the Gospel of Salvation!
Hillary Clinton continued to downplay the ongoing FBI investigation into her use of a home email server to send classified material, even laughing about it in a new interview.
In an appearance Friday on NBC’s The Today Show, Clinton dismissed the notion that she could face criminal proceedings, and laughed about the scandal.
Host Matt Lauer broached the subject by telling Clinton that Republicans “are clinging to the hope… that at some time between now and the election, and they say this, that they will get to see Hillary Clinton in handcuffs. That there will be some kind of political perp walk based on your private server.”
Hillary burst into laughter, retorting “Oh my goodness! Well, Matt, I know that they live in that world of fantasy and hope because they’ve got a mess on their hands on the Republican side.”
“That is not going to happen. There is not even the remotest chance that is going to happen,” Clinton added, claiming “they have been after me for 25 years.”
“Do you think the FBI and the Justice Department write you a letter and say it was a misunderstanding? We’re sorry, carry on?” Lauer intervened.
“Well, we’re certainly going to carry on. I think it’s a security review,” Clinton said of the FBI’s investigation.
“It is a security review and there are lots of those that are conducted in our government all the time and you don’t hear about most of them. You hear about this one because, you know, it does involve me, so that’s why it gets so much attention.”
“The Republicans’ fondest wishes will not be fulfilled.” Hillary concluded.
Famous last words?
Hillary has continuously dismissed the notion of a criminal investigation, claiming that her email sever was legal, and attempting to spin the fact that she exposed classified material as a case of excessive government secrecy, “over-classification,” or “retroactive-classification.”
However, legal experts have concluded that a grand jury has already been convened, and is preparing to indict Hillary, given that the FBI has some 150 agents assigned to the case, and that Justice Department officials issued immunity last month to Hillary’s former IT chief Bryan Pagliano.
“While, then, the constituent body retains its present sound and healthful state everything will be safe. They will choose competent and faithful representatives for every department. It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin.” ~James Monroe, First Inaugural Address (March 4, 2026)
“When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.” ~Jonathan Swift
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor – 9th Commandment - Exodus 20:16
Martin’s CPAC Speech
Jenny Beth Martin, leader of the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) spoke at CPAC on Friday, March 4th, 2016. I listened to her 18 minute speech and was appalled at her lack of Constitutional knowledge, not to mention her support for a liberal Warren court decision, NYT’s v. Sullivan, which allows media and public figures to destroy the reputations of others with impunity.
She claims one of the candidates for president is not Tea Party at all, although Mr. Trump says he loves the Tea Party. Martin states, “If you want to love our country, then you have to love our Constitution, and I have serious questions about his (Trump’s) fidelity to the document the Tea Partiers revere.” (Really Jenny Beth? If they revere it so much, why does TPP want to open another Constitutional Convention and risk the destruction of our founding document?)
Martin states Trump has said, “If he becomes president, he would open up the libel laws to make it easier for him to sue newspapers who wrote unkind things about him.” Not just unkind things, Jenny Beth, but outright libel and slander!
And that’s not what he said at all. He said, “We’re going to open up the libel laws, so when they write falsely, we can sue the media, and we can get the story corrected and collect damages.” I would agree with him. Media lies are propaganda to sway the uninformed public, and all too often, they work.
In her diatribe against Mr. Trump, Martin continues, and says, “The right to speak freely without reprisal is enshrined in our Constitution, and when I hear a candidate say he wants to mess with our rights to free speech, I fear for our Constitution.” Whoa Jenny Beth, you’re using the same tactics Trump is fighting against…you’re lying! Trump has never said he wants to mess with our rights to free speech. What he wants to do is return the nation to civil discourse rather than the odious deceit perpetrated by so much of the MSM, GOP, DNC, and other public figures. Trump believes in honest discourse, but Ms. Martin doesn’t seem to grasp this concept.
Jenny Beth Martin agrees with the very liberal Supreme Court that lying about public figures is a first amendment right. In other words, anyone who is a public figure can have their reputation destroyed at the will of media or other public figures because of this liberal court’s decision. Take for example, Cruz’s campaign manager, Jeff Roe, who has no problem lying about opponents, and in one instance Roe’s lies and attacks even caused a public figure to commit suicide.
Ms. Martin speaks of fearing for our Constitution, but the candidate she supports, Ted Cruz, wishes to open the Constitution via a Convention of States and destroy what the founders gave us. Her former partner, Mark Meckler, is also pushing a Constitutional Convention under the guise of a Convention of States. I have continually asked these people one question, and have never received an answer. “Where does it say in Article V that the states can call, open, or convene a Convention and bypass Congress?” It doesn’t! Obviously, lawyers Cruz and Rubio know this, but to pass the CFR’s North American Union (NAU) may well require another Constitutional Convention. Remember, Heidi Cruz, along with Ted’s friend, Henry Kissinger, were on CFR’s NAU Task Force.
As a matter of fact, while Meckler was still with TPP, he co-sponsored a conference on an Article V convention at Harvard with several pro-Convention leftists, including Obama associate, Lawrence Lessig. Absent were the people and groups against a Convention. [Link], [Link] They were never invited.
Meckler and Martin
New York Times v. Sullivan
Donald Trump knows all about the 1964 decision, NYT v. Sullivan and what it has done to truth in politics and the public forum. In 1962, the NYT’s lied about the police department in Montgomery, Alabama. The police commissioner, Sullivan, sued in Alabama court and won a $500,000 judgment. The Alabama Supreme court upheld the judgment. Then, the NYT’s, knowing there were six liberals and three moderates on the Supreme Court, sued Sullivan. With a 9 to 0 decision, the liberal Earl Warren court stated that media could lie with impunity, and could only be sued if “actual malice” could be proven. Remember this is the same court who ruled in 1962, that religious prayer in schools was unconstitutional.
The Supreme court succeeded in changing the rules involving libel that had previously been the province of state law and state courts, as they’ve done with so many other laws belonging only to the states.
Supreme Court Justice Brennan then set out the rule that reshaped libel law with his majority opinion. A public official could recover in a libel action only if and when a court found that the libelous statement about the official was made with ” ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” As long as the press has an “absence of malice,” public officials are barred from recovering damages for the publication of false statements about them. It’s nearly impossible to prove “actual malice.” This decision also eliminates the ability of a public figure to sue other public figures or politicians for libel, i.e., the lies of Ted Cruz against both Donald Trump and Ben Carson. The Court’s decision eliminates the 9th Commandment in the public arena. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
Jenny Beth Martin, GOP establishment
Let’s take a look at TPP’s roots. Founded in February of 2009, TPP is a 501(c)4 tax exempt entity. As such, they can endorse candidates and still have tax exempt status. In 2011, I wrote a four part article on the Tea Parties, and their infiltration and neutralization by the GOP establishment. There are some wonderful TP’s out there, those who have remained independent and who do independent research. However, these larger TP’s have long since been controlled by the establishment GOP.
TPP was initially organized by pro-amnesty Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks, and funded by the leftist Koch brothers’, Americans for Prosperity. There were originally three founders of TPP. Mark Meckler and Amy Kremler left for various reasons, and Martin retained control. Before Martin became a Tea Party star, she was scrubbing floors and cleaning houses for suburbanites after her husband’s business went bankrupt in 2007. Nothing wrong with physical labor and hard work, but she’s sure had a lifestyle change heading up TPP. In 2011, she was making $6 K a month at TPP. What was disturbing to many people within the TPP, was that she put her husband in charge of TPP’s finances, especially since they had huge IRS debts because of his bankruptcy.
Martin has done quite well for herself, TPP takes in millions of dollars every year. The majority of these donations are spent on “consultants.” Problem with this is, Jenny Beth is the consultant. She sets her fee at $15,000 per month. She also gets a salary, and as of 2012, she was paid more than $272,000. Nice work if you can get it. These two salaries allowed Martin to earn over $450,000 in 2015.
JB Martin is in bed with the globalist GOP establishment and has been from TPP’s inception. Martin has long been affiliated with Ralph Reed, formerly Director of the Christian Coalition, and infamous for the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals, along with Grover Norquist. Martin has appeared on panels at Reed’s “Faith and Freedom Coalition” conferences, and Reed has returned the favor by speaking at TPP gatherings. During 2004, both of them worked on the Bush campaign, as did Ted and Heidi Cruz. All of them are Bush establishment GOP!
Remember Dave Brat who overcame all odds and beat incumbent pro-amnesty, Eric Cantor? Well, according to Laura Ingraham, JB Martin wouldn’t give TP favorite, Brat, the time of day. [Link] Martin wouldn’t even accept Brat’s phone calls. What does that tell you?
While the national TPP group is flush with cash, much of it raised through fundraising pitches that tell donors the money will be directed to grassroots activities. The smaller TP organizations around the country are struggling on shoestring budgets. TPP is not and never has been a grassroots organization. It is strongly affiliated with the GOP establishment and has been from its inception.
Jenny Beth Martin is just another GOP establishment clone, following the lead of the globalists to derail Donald Trump. They are desperately afraid of him, and have pulled out all the stops to eliminate him from the nomination, despite what the American people really want! With voter fraud, with intimidation, with attacks and lies, with Romney and Ryan, he still leads, and the people still love him.
Freedom Rider
radioroger2015
Steve