An attorney with the State of California reports being gassed inside her home and taken to a hospital Emergency Room, following repeated incidents of electromagnetic attacks. The attacks take place during an extended court battle over her mother’s guardianship.

An anti-police corruption activist in Medford Oregon reports an aerosol attack on her dwelling which causes her to lose consciousness.

An award winning author pens a memoir concerning how the NSA tried to hack into her mind.

A former intelligence officer lines her apartment with boom boxes in order to drown out chatter of electronic voice weapons. She reports that her mission was successful and the voices have stopped.

Are these women crazy or is the US government now testing its weapons on selected civilians?

Bruised by the Iraqi war, the revelations that the US government was involved in torturing detainees hit fast and hard. What were initially some horrific photos leaked from Abu Ghraib soon become a virtual flood of accusations. Prisoners, it appeared, were being tortured by simulated drowning; their genitals electro shocked and the uncooperative were put into tiny spaces and deprived of sensory input.

In his campaign promises of 08, President Obama assured us that torture would cease and that Guantanamo would be closed. However, it is nearly eight years since Obama took office, and the prison at Guantanamo has not closed, nor have renditions to countries agreeable to torture ceased. In 2015,Al Jazeera reported that “More positively for his legacy, the NDAA imposes further restrictions on abusive interrogations and helps fulfill his (President Obama’s) original campaign promise to stop torture.”

A number of individuals with intelligence backgrounds would disagree. In fact, it appears that, as far as torture goes, some are now asserting that the intelligence agencies are using US citizens for target practice.

Electromagnetic Weapons

In former intelligence officer Julianne McKinney’s seminal 1992 report, entitled Microwave Harassment and Mind Control, she revealed for the first time a disturbing blip on the intel radar. Citing contacts with people across the US, McKinney details what amounts to covert programs to torture people through use of electronic weapons. And to do so in the targets’ (TI’s) own homes and wherever they may travel.

McKinney’s groundbreaking report cited about 25 individuals who claimed that they were being electronically harassed. It is now twenty five years later and this number has ballooned to hundreds of thousands, worldwide.

According to Wikipedia, “Electronic harassment, or psychotronic torture, or electromagnetic torture is a conspiracy theory.” Wikipedia goes on to determine that “These experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis.”

Certainly some of the claims of TIs sound odd. ..voices being planted in their heads, being stalked by a multiplicity of strangers and sometimes, even worse.

However, a review of what is declassified in terms of covert projects reveals a number of operations involving attempts to control or direct human thought, and by consequence therefore to mold behavior. Project Artichoke was one of the subjects of scrutiny in the Church and Pike Committee hearings, which took place in the US Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, during the seventies. A declassified 1952 memo indicates the aim and scope of Artichoke. The memo states “Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self-preservation?”

The Church and Pike hearings uncovered a multiplicity of “black” projects aimed at accessing the human mind. The surviving records concerning Project Artichoke detail forced drugging, including forced morphine addiction and dosing subjects with LSD, in order to determine vulnerabilities to direction and control under the influence. According to released documents, Artichoke was renamed MKULTRA in 1953.

The US Supreme Court has stated that MKULTRA was concerned with “the research and development of chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behavior.”

The Church Committee’s investigation was hampered by an order from CIA Director Richard Helms to destroy the records relating to MKULTRA. As a result of the Church and Pike Committee hearings, MKULTRA and related projects were reportedly terminated.

It is the contention of Julianne McKinney–who was an intelligence case officer with the US Army –and scores of others that the projects only went underground, in order to escape further detection and oversight.

Preston Bailey, PhD has noted the following patents for neurological weapons which could produce the sorts of effects claimed by TIs:

THE NEUROPHONE: US Patent # 3,393,279. July 16th, 1968 –a device which converts sound to electrical impulses.

SILENT SUBLIMINAL PRESENTATION SYSTEM: US Patent #5,159,703. October 27th, 1992 — A silent communications system in which nonaural carriers, in the very low or very high audio frequency range or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum, are amplitude or frequency modulated with the desired intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally, for inducement into the brain.

HEARING SYSTEM: U.S. patent #4,877,027, 31/10/89—“Sound is induced in the head of a person by radiating the head with microwaves in the range of 100 megahertz to 10,000 megahertz that are modulated with a particular waveform.”

HEARING DEVICE: U.S patent #4,858,612, 22/8/89—“A method and apparatus for simulation of hearing in mammals by introduction of a plurality of microwaves into the region of the auditory cortex is shown and described.”

A further review of the literature uncovers dozens more such patents, including the following:

A HYPNOTIC INDUCER US3014477 (“The primary object of the present invention resides in the provision of physical means of inducing a state of hypnosis”); AN AUDITORY SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE SYSTEM AND METHOD (US4395600); APPARATUS AND METHOD OF BROADCASTING AUDIBLE SOUND USING ULTRASONIC SOUND AS A CARRIER (US6052336); METHOD OF INDUCING AND MAINTAINING STAGES OF SLEEP IN HUMAN BEINGS (microwaves) (US3884218); and METHOD AND ASSOCIATED APPARATUS FOR REMOTELY DETERMINING INFORMATION AS TO A PERSON’S EMOTIONAL STATE (US3884218).

Non-ConSensual Chemical Weapons Testing

Not all the current torture allegations involve electromagnetic weapons, however. The Edgewood Test Vets lawsuit charged that the US Army tested a variety of chemical and biological weapons on soldiers, without gaining their informed consent, from the 1950s on into “at least 1976.”

According to the plaintiffs, “In this class action, the Plaintiff class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief only – no monetary damages – and redress for several decades of the U.S. Government’s use of them as human test subjects in chemical and biological agent testing experiments, followed by decades of neglect, including:

• the use of troops to test nerve gas, psychochemicals, and hundreds of other toxic chemical or biological substances;
• the failure to satisfy their legal obligations to locate the participants of experiments and to provide them with notice of what they were exposed to and what the possible health effects may be;
• the failure to follow their legal obligations to provide medical care to test subjects for health problems related to the experiments;
• the failure to release the test subjects from oaths of secrecy.”

According to multiple claims, such non-consensual experimentation is now regularly carried out on citizens. Some of the individuals claiming “torture without borders” have intelligence backgrounds. Geral Sosbee is a former FBI agent whose career with the agency apparently went sour when he objected to an arrest. He subsequently resigned from the FBI and went on to work as an attorney in El Paso, Texas and as a part time judge. He also taught at the University level. However, Sosbee states that the Agency’s vendetta against him became relentless.

Writes Sosbee: “….no attention is focused on psychological operations against a targeted person even though a growing number of persons worldwide now testify that they are targeted by ruthless and painful campaigns. No law exists that may stop the type of violent activities in which the FBI and the CIA engage regularly against their Targets, foreign and domestic.”

Sosbee has diligently and quite publicly documented his ordeal. A 2009 entry on his website.In the introduction to his report, Sosbee has detailed an extensive list of methods to torture a target, including not only electromagnetics but also other unconventional weapons. He cites repeated instances of poisonings, some apparently life threatening.

Intelligence agencies have long been known to use poisons against foreign spies. What is of note is that poisons are now apparently being used against domestic US targets.

Sosbee is not alone in his claims of chemical targeting.

Carol Warner is the daughter of former CIA General Counsel, John Warner, who was also pivotal in creating the CIA out of OSS back in the forties. Carol received a Masters Degree in Clinical Social Work from Smith College. She was working as a therapist when a woman walked into her office claiming that she had been groomed by the US government as a “presidential model” sex slave. This contact launched an avalanche in Warner’s life. In a book pending publication, Warner writes: “Sometime after I started training and working more intensively with dissociative identity disorder, I began to be aware I was under intense surveillance.” (Return to the Self, p. 135)

During the Church Committee hearings in the seventies, her father, John Warner, initially became aware of some of the CIA “black ops” programs involving mind control. In her book, Carol Warner recounts some of the discussions she had with her father at that time and comments on the impact of the destruction of MKULTRA records by Director Richard Helms. She writes: “As such, it was abundantly clear to my father and myself back then that the programs would not stop, because Congress never knew about most of them.”

Carol Warner’s soon-to-be-published book, Return to the Self, covers a wide range of issues, including ritual abuse, dreams, spirituality and a discussion of government involvement in mind altering programs. In disclosing her decision to go public about her own situation, Warner tells us that “I was not going to write about this and the many illegal and unconstitutional activities perpetrated against me since 2008, but circumstances have forced me to revise my decision. Unfortunately, as this near-fatal incident (which I will describe later) dramatically proved to me, there is no safety for me in keeping the knowledge I have gained to myself. I have been told by wise counsel that my only safety is in getting the information out. Unfortunately, it has become radically clear the powers that be do not want the information in this book out.” (Return to the Self, p. 134)

She then reveals a number of incidents in Virginia in which her house was illegally entered, one in which her alarm wiring was altered and also where she was followed and stalked. She also describes a number of murder attempts. An avid outdoorswoman, Warner reveals how she was hiking when she became aware she had been followed into a secluded area. Attempting to elude her stalker, she writes: “I kept walking, headed there with my sole focus on finding a good temporary hiding place. Then, out of nowhere, I felt a sting in my right butt cheek. To my utter dismay, I felt myself starting to lose consciousness. Whatever it was that had stung me was powerful and was quickly overtaking me. There was no doubt in my mind that I had been drugged. (CIA development of tranquilizer dart guns became public knowledge with the Church Committee investigation in the 1970s). In a flash I assessed my predicament. Succumbing to the drug was not an option—it would mean certain death.”

Warner was able to marshal her strength to survive this incident; however, the efforts against her did not stop. Other stalking incidents reveal that her movements were being monitored, as her stalkers chose to advance against her in various locations with potentially life threatening results.

Warner also reports the use of chemical agents. She details the following event, while eating out: “The soup tasted off, and I didn’t eat but a few bites of it. I started feeling horrible immediately, with gastrointestinal symptoms. I felt dizzy and fought to keep consciousness… …I didn’t make it but a few steps. When I came to, I was lying on the restaurant floor, surrounded by paramedics.”

The doctor’s verdict was chemical—not food—poisoning.

Why Torture People at All?

Torture is not a reliable method to gain confessions. Truth serum drugs obviate the necessity for using torture to gain information. In this perspective, the repeated claims by governments that torture is necessary for reasons of intelligence gathering are inadequate to explain torture as an interrogatory tool.

However, torture does desensitize and condition the perpetrator. According to McKinney, somewhere in the ball park of 15-20% of US citizens may be involved —at some level—in using others as target practice. The degradation of society and morality implicit here should not go unnoticed.

In a recent interview, McKinney stated that targets are chosen somewhat at random, although she also believes that these torture techniques are being deployed against specific individuals for retaliation. In her 1992 paper, McKinney stated that “…harassment is beginning to surface as a form of retaliation against persons who try to assist electronic ‘harassees.’ Retaliation suggests loss of control. Under the circumstances, we are not entirely confident that ‘whistleblowers’ will continue to be exempted from this type of harassment in the long term.”

McKinney now believes that these techniques have resulted in deaths. In response to the question why—why would intelligence agencies use these “torture without borders” technologies on US citizens, McKinney stated that she believes that these are training exercises to prepare the perpetrators for a coming holocaust-level event. Rather than controlling the minds of the subjects, which is a common misperception, McKinney stated that the perpetrators are being desensitized and prepared for participation in a more widespread and devastating scenario.

Her conclusions may be echoed by Carol Warner, who wrote that “If people don’t understand the surveillance state is turned on the American citizen, I hope and pray my words will help the reader reconsider. The goal is total full-spectrum control of the populace.”

Janet C. Phelan, investigative journalist and human rights defender that has traveled pretty extensively over the Asian region, an author of a tell-all book EXILE, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The 5-0 ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court overturned a lower  court decision that doctors in New Mexico could assist people in terminating their lives.

The New Mexico ruling highlights the controversy sparked by these laws. Several European countries now affirm the legality of assisted suicide and/or voluntary euthanasia, including Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. Canada recently passed an assisted suicide law and five US states–Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California and Montana–have all approved assisted suicide.

The proponents of AS state that these laws are compassionate towards those who are in the end stages of life and that AS will provide relief from terrible suffering. According to Dr. Balfour Mount, who has been dubbed the “father of palliative care,” this ignores certain medical realities.

In a 2014 interview, Mount stated, “There’s no need [to legalize euthanasia] because of pain and symptom control. We’re able to control the suffering, and through palliative care with a skilled team able to minimize suffering that’s physical, psychological, social, spiritual, existential.”

In his opinion, New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Edward Chavez wrote:  “…end of life decisions are inherently fraught with the potential for abuse.” The court’s decision highlighted three specific areas of such potential abuse. First, according  to the opinion, “the State has legitimate interests in…protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession.”

In other words, giving physicians the license to prescribe life-ending substances is a departure from the impetus of the profession and its two thousand year old caveat: “First, do no harm.” Incidentally, following the passage of the California law, a non- practicing physician decided to re- enter his profession solely for the purpose of providing assisted suicide services to Californians.

Second, the New Mexico opinion asserts that the State has an interest in  “protecting vulnerable groups—including the poor, the elderly, and disabled persons—from the risk of subtle coercion and undue influence in end-of-life 
situations, including pressures associated with the substantial financial burden of end-of-life health care costs.”

According to the disability rights advocacy group, Not Dead Yet, “The disability experience is that people who are labeled “terminal,” predicted to die within six months, are – or will become – disabled. It is well documented that the six month prediction called for in the Oregon and Washington laws is unreliable.”

Not Dead Yet points out that disability, rather than physical  pain, appears to be the deciding factor in whether or not an individual chooses assisted suicide.

“Although intractable pain has been emphasized as the primary reason for enacting assisted suicide laws, the top five reasons Oregon doctors actually report for issuing lethal prescriptions are the “loss of autonomy” (89.9%), “less able to engage in activities” (87.4%), “loss of dignity” (83.8%), “loss of control of bodily functions” (58.7%) and “feelings of being a burden” (38.3%).” (Death With Dignity Act Annual Reports, PDF download )

The New Mexico ruling also  referenced  the “slippery slope”  that such physician- assisted suicide laws may subtly enable. The decision  asserted that the  State had an interest in “protecting against voluntary or involuntary euthanasia because if physician aid in dying is a constitutional right, it must be made 
available to everyone, even when a duly appointed surrogate makes the decision, and 
even when the patient is unable to self-administer the life-ending medication.”

Indeed,  assisted suicide is already being utilized by those merely afflicted with ennui. Recently, a retired English schoolteacher reportedly flew to Switzerland to end her life because she could not “adjust to the modern world.” An Italian woman was also reported as going to Switzerland to drink the kool aid because she was depressed about “losing her looks.”

And ratcheting up concerns about the slippery slope potential, a recent article in a bioethics journal bore the headline, “Should Happy Demented People be Euthanized? The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, made a serious stab at considering the legal and ethical implications of whether someone who had signed a medical directive, asking to be euthanized should he end up with dementia, should have his wishes honored if the dementia had resulted in a state of happy forgetfulness of his prior wish.

In an ironic twist, the case before the New Mexico Supreme Court was initially filed in 2012 by a woman who was suffering from uterine cancer. Aja Riggs, who has since gone into remission, has vowed to continue the legal battle for the “right to die.”

As quoted in the Taos Journal, Riggs stated that: “I absolutely still believe it’s something that people should have a right to… Although I have managed to survive to see this decision, which was not necessarily expected, all of my time learning about this has only increased by feelings about how important it is for people who are terminally ill to have this option available, in addition to other options that are now legal and available.”

Suicide, however, is not illegal and some believe that the codification of a “right to die” will have unforeseen culture- changing ramifications. In a recent interview with Bioedge, author and attorney Wesley J. Smith stated, “I have observed in the 15 years since the first edition of Culture of Death, that throughout the developed world and the West we see a terrible and increasing disrespect for the intrinsic value of the most weak and vulnerable among us. Euthanasia has spread like a stain and grown increasingly toxic. For example, in Belgium medicalized killing is now coupled with organ harvesting—including of the mentally ill. Health care rationing, which is blatant and invidious medical discrimination, is a growing threat. Advocacy continues to discard the dead donor rule in organ transplant medicine, even proposals for the live-harvesting of patients with profound cognitive disabilities.” 

Not everyone agrees. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico has called the decision “tragic news” for terminally ill New Mexicans and has stated it will now devote its efforts towards changing this law.

It should be noted that while the ACLU is apparently diligently serving those who wish to die, it remains curiously silent about those who wish to live. The ACLU has been repeatedly contacted concerning the involuntary euthanasias now regularly being executed against those under adult guardianships, also elderly or disabled. To date, the ACLU has declined to involve itself in a single case involving an individual who wished to escape from a guardianship.

Janet C. Phelan, investigative journalist and human rights defender that has traveled pretty extensively over the Asian region, an author of a tell-all book EXILE, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

In a recent US government human rights report, the US voiced sharp criticism of

China’s treatment of human rights lawyers and dissidents. “The crackdown on the legal community was particularly severe, as individual lawyers and law firms that handled cases the government deemed ‘sensitive’ were targeted for harassment and detention,” the report stated.

The report, which is issued annually by the US State Department, failed to take note that similar repressive tactics are currently being leveled against attorneys and human rights activists in the US. In particular, the disability rights community is  being hit with the disbarment of  attorneys and the jailing of activists.

Why Disability  Rights?

Governments  generally have some kind of mechanism in place to house or otherwise care for the incompetent and infirm. State hospitals, homeless shelters and later, community board and care facilities have all provided some level of care for those under parens patriae (when the government is legal protector of those unable to protect themselves).

According to the Alzheimer’s Association, 11 % of people over 65 have Alzheimer’s. This figure balloons to over 30% for people over 85. It is estimated that 5.3 million Americans have Alzheimer’s. The rude fact is that such people have traversed beyond their productive years and are considered by some to be a burden on the entitlement programs. In a society which values youth and accomplishment, such people may be considered superfluous.

There are three official routes to the elimination/plunder and one unofficial route.

The official routes involve 1) assisted suicide laws, 2) adult guardianships and 3) hospice for non- terminally ill individuals. The unofficial route involves a previously discussed program involving “impostor” pharmaceuticals. The first three routes enable the “legal” elimination of individuals who are past their productive years. And, as is hardly surprising, there is a growing resistance, among family members and also grassroots groups, to the taking of the elderly and disabled.

The final route constitutes a “black”  program and at the time of this writing, efforts to turn over evidence of the impostor pharmaceuticals  to the authorities at The Hague have met with a roaring silence.

Those Who Stand to Profit are the Gatekeepers

Those familiar with settings for Hollywood movies will recognize that there is a difference between façade and structure. In the case of celluloid, a “mock-up” may be used to simulate a structure, without, however its three-dimensional and functional integrity. A mock-up may look like what it is simulating, but on close examination, it will become apparent it is only a Sim.

A cornerstone of democracy has been the ability afforded the citizenry to “vote the bums out.” However, concerns that our vote has been taken from us through a variety of machinations, including pre- programmed electronic voting machines, “hanging chads” and “Super Delegates,” has turned the formerly sacrosanct act of voting into a charade.

WHERE ARE THE AMERICAN BORDERS?

The US should be quite a bit easier to define through its borders and geography, right? In fact, through its invasions of other countries and its propensity to topple unfriendly regimes and set up “puppet” governments, the actual influence of the US extends far beyond its territorial boundaries. The United Nations could potentially provide a check to such undisguised and rampant imperialism. Rather than providing oversight, the UN is enabling the United States in its quest to become the uni- power.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALL THIS DISSIMULATION?

People who have become aware that something is seriously wrong in the US often become so alerted when they become the recipients of injustice, and the reality manifests rather than the Sim. It is not uncommon for such people to state: “My county (city, state) is the most corrupt in the country!”

The Sim is NOT Big Brother, whom we are told to believe truly loves us. The Sim aims to have us for dinner.

Janet C. Phelan, investigative journalist and human rights defender that has traveled pretty extensively over the Asian region, an author of a tell-all book EXILE, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

While the West, and the United States in particular, has repeatedly voiced criticism over human rights abuses in other countries, the US’s own record in terms of detaining and incarcerating dissidents is now becoming conspicuous.

In presenting a recent report on human rights issues, US Secretary of State John Kerry stated: “Here is the truth, we believe: A government that fails to respect human rights, no matter how lofty its pretentions, has very little to boast about, to teach, and very little indeed in the way of reaching its full potential.” 

This report itself is heavily weighted in terms of naming Asian and Middle Eastern countries as human rights abusers. Kerry reports that “In every part of the world, we see an accelerating trend by both state and non-state actors to close the space for civil society, to stifle media and Internet freedom, to marginalize opposition voices, and in the most extreme cases, to kill people or drive them from their homes.” 

The United States is not named in the report.

However, the US is itself a major culpable actor in such abuses. Despite its continuing and increasingly strained efforts to self-promote as a defender of human rights, the US is now inhibiting media and internet freedom as well as regularly imprisoning activists–often without trial.

The world is already aware of the use of the Espionage Act to imprison and otherwise intimidate whistleblowers. The cases of Bradley Manning, Jeffrey Sterline,  James Hitselberger,      John Kiriakou,   and others have hit the mainstream press.

What the world may not be aware of is that non-CIA connected individuals, who are merely attempting to correct and/ or broadcast injustices, are now facing jail time.

You Mean I Forgot to Tell You About Your Trial?

Tim Lahrman is a name well known to disability rights activists. A trained paralegal, Tim has been volunteering his paralegal skills to a growing list of people who are engaged in legal battles against guardians and lawyers.

For those unacquainted with the issues concerning adult guardianships, an overview reveals that these guardianships constitute a legal loophole through which an individual may be declared incompetent and then stripped of all his assets and the lion’s share of his rights. In fact, upon the initiation of such a guardianship, the alleged incapacitated person may not even be allowed to hire a lawyer to defend against the guardianship. The National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse’s website has a compelling summary of what rights are lost when one goes under a guardianship.

Robin Gibson, a Los Angeles woman, attributes Tim Lahrman’s legal expertise to the successful resolution of an ongoing legal conflict with the guardian for her mother.  Recently, the mother was released from a guardianship which Gibson states was draining her mother’s estate and wherein the guardian, Frumeh Labow, had virtually sequestered the older woman from contact with the outside world.

“I owe this all to Tim,“ pronounced an exhilarated Robin Gibson in a recent interview. “I have finally got my mother back.“

Gibson is only one of many who have benefited from Lahrman’s legal acumen and skills. And she may be one of the last. For Tim Lahrman now sits in an Indiana jail cell, held without bail on two seventeen year- old misdemeanor charges.

Candice Schwager, an attorney from Texas, has this to say about Lahrman’s incarceration:  “There is an entirely different agenda behind this seventeen year old persecution. It’s not even reasonable to think that Goshen keeps misdemeanor cold case files and this was bad luck. This arrest was retribution because Tim has brought up the crimes of a clouted political figure.”

Tim Lahrman was himself placed under a guardianship in 1987. He was at that point in time in his twenties and an owner of a thriving automotive business which was subsequently ravaged through the guardianship proceedings.

Lahrman’s guardianship was never legally terminated. After sacking his business, the guardian, Kenneth Scheibenberger, “just sort of wandered off,” according to Lahrman.

This left Tim Lahrman in legal limbo. Neither his rights nor his property were ever restored to him. He was left, in essence, as a legal zero.

As the law states, Lahrman thus could not have had the “legal capacity” to commit the two misdemeanors with which he was charged in 1999 —driving with a suspended license and possession of a small amount of marijuana.

Fast forward to 2016. Tim is not only assisting others in their guardianship cases but has now filed a number of lawsuits in his own matter.

Filed on January 20, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Tim Lahrman also sued Elkhart County Superior Court No. 2 (Stephen R. Bowers, Judge), the Chief Judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals, the State of Indiana, the Office of Indiana Attorney General and the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration. Lahrman was picked up in March of this year on the seventeen year- old stale and expired warrant, and is being held in Elkhart County Jail without bail. His writ of Habeas Corpus, filed with the court this past week, was reportedly denied by Judge Bodie Stegelmann. According to reports, Judge Stegelmann has ordered Lahrman into a psychiatric evaluation.

Attorney Schwager, who has filed notice in this case, states that Tim was put into “the hole”—solitary confinement—this past week after asking his public defender for her name and also requesting the court file. The request apparently frightened her. Schwager has more on the case.

The public defender subsequently withdrew and the judge has ordered Tim to appear pro se—without legal counsel.

I Don’t Know You But I Am Sure You Are Incompetent

Another disability rights activist, Cary Andrew Crittenden, is now being held in Santa Clara County Jail, in Northern California, after being arrested on Christmas Eve on “secret charges.”

We can only term the charges “secret” because the Santa Clara County Prosecutor’s office has consistently refused to honor its legal responsibility to release the records containing the factual circumstances surrounding Crittenden’s arrest. The California Public Records Act, clarified by the court case known as “Kusar” mandates the release of these records.

Crittenden, who has launched an internet campaign against corruption in Santa Clara County was previously arrested in Santa Clara County for making online statements about public officials which were deemed to be “harassment.”

An internal affairs complaint was filed on February 11 with the Prosecutor’s office concerning the refusal of Assistant District Attorney David Angel to comply with the records disclosure law, which is in place in order to guard against “secret arrests.” This IA complaint appears to have gone the way of the public’s rights to know—into the garbage can. No action has been taken on the complaint.

The recipient of the complaint, a Lt. Jorge Perez, who states he is an investigator with the DA’s office, has refused to even release the name of the individual who has been assigned to investigate the complaint concerning ADA David Angel’s refusal to comply with the law.

Recently, there was an attempt to have Crittenden declared incompetent to stand trial. If an individual is so deemed, he may be incarcerated indefinitely without ever having his day in court. Sniffing this rat, Crittenden refused to attend the psychiatric evaluation which the court had set up for him.

In a bizarre, Kafkaesque effort, a “doctor” –who never saw or evaluated Cary Andrew Crittenden–trotted himself into court. In a declaration that would have made any surrealist proud, Dr. Burke, the “doc-in the pocket” of the court, intoned that in his professional opinion, Crittenden, a man he had never seen, was “incompetent to stand trial.”

The fact that Burke had never evaluated Crittenden did not escape the attention of the court, however. Crittenden was ordered into another evaluation, and the subsequent medical professional reportedly determined that Crittenden was indeed competent.

The propensity for courts now to order activists and dissidents into psychiatric evaluation is something that deserves special attention. A person adjudicated incompetent by a court may, in fact, never get a trial. He can be locked up indefinitely on minor and potentially bogus charges and also be court- ordered to be forcibly  medicated with anti- psychotics, which constitute a chemical strait jacket.

If you think that the cases involving Lahrman and Crittenden are the exception, you may rest assured that, for cases involving guardianship activists, this is standard court operating procedure. Rosanna Miller, who was attempting to protect her father’s interests while he was under guardianship, was arrested in 2014 for failure to pay court costs. The Ohio Supreme Court, however, had issued a memo stating that an individual cannot be arrested for failure to pay court costs.

Questions were raised about the possibility that the Bellafontaine judge, Ann Beck, was involved in a number of financial improprieties. Beck then quickly released Miller from custody. Barbara Stone, a NY attorney whose mother, Helen, was under a questionable guardianship in Florida, was arrested and charged with “custody interference”—which mandates a potential sentence of five years in prison—for allegedly taking her mother to lunch.

If I Can’t Get You, I’ll Get Your Kid

The psychiatric incarceration of John Rohrer raises further questions about motives to detain this young man, and detain him possibly indefinitely.  Rohrer, who apparently wandered into the wrong house while under the influence of a hallucinogen, has now been detained over ten years, the last six and a half years as an in-patient in a state psychiatric facility. The case has been fraught with illegal maneuvers by the prosecutors and judge, including denying him his right multiple times to hearings to determine whether he meets the state’s definition of being “mentally ill.” In fact, Rohrer has never been deemed incompetent. Rohrer is now being held at Appalachian Behavioral Healthcare, a State psychiatric hospital, where he was forcibly drugged for years.

It should be noted that the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that a judge may not order forced drugging unless he makes a finding that the individual lacks capacity to consent. The forced drugging must also be in the patient’s “best interests” and there must not be any alternatives deemed to be as effective as the drugging. In the Rohrer case, Judge Corzine made none of these findings, and in fact stated on the record that Rohrer appeared “pretty lucid today.”

Nevertheless, Corzine ordered the forced drugging of John Rohrer.

According to reports, during a brief 2007 exposure to Risperdal, Rohrer, who was at that time 27 years old, suffered a cardiac event, but this did not stop it from being chosen as the primary drug to forcibly inject.

Medical and legal malpractice complaints were filed November 24, 2014 in the Ohio Court of Claims and November 28, 2014 in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court by the attorney for John Rohrer. The complaint states that Rohrer was forcibly injected with Risperdal for more than 3 ½ years although the drug is known to cause irreversible brain damage. In addition, the complaint states that Rohrer’s rights to a fair hearing have been repeatedly violated.

The activist in the Rohrer case is actually his mother. Attorney and talk show host Katherine Hine founded the advocacy group Stop Child Abuse Now in Oklahoma and advised a group of foster mothers who were outraged at the involvement of judges and lawyers in the murder of 2 year old Ryan Luke in 1995. She is the Executive Director of the Ross County Network for Children in Ohio, an organization with a strong history of conflict with the Ross County Prosecutors, surrounding two child murderers that the County had not wanted prosecuted back in the 1990’s.

Hine is now with WJLA radio hosting a two weekly broadcasts—one exposing illegalities of forced psychiatry and another exposing the consequences of the lack of judicial accountability. She also is a contributor to The Columbus Free Press.

The Ross County Prosecutor’s office has made it clear that they despise her. Now, they are the ones making sure John Rohrer stays locked up.

Hine has faced three disciplinary actions.  She writes, “My first discipline was in Oklahoma in like 1981 or 1982 when my soon to be ex grabbed by children in violation of an Oklahoma custody order giving their temporary custody to me.” According to Hine, “He claimed he wasn’t served.” She reports that “I got a private reprimand – where you go into an office and they yell at you about 15 minutes.  Told me what a disgrace to the profession I was and how ashamed they all were of being in the bar association with me.”

She was subsequently reprimanded by the Oklahoma Bar in 1997 for communicating with a judge concerning a matter involving a suspected case of child abuse, in which she did not represent a party. In fact, Hine had signed a letter along with seven other individuals who were concerned that the judge had authorized supervised visitation of a child with a sexual predator and that the supervision stipulation was being ignored. In other words, the child was allowed to be alone with the predator. There was another attempt at discipline when she was accused of ghost writing for a pro se litigant, but Hine invoked confidentiality and the complaint evaporated.

Concerning the lengthy incarceration of her son, Katherine Hine has this to say: “These people are like the Cosa Nostra. They launch intergenerational vendettas and will go after your family.”

According to Hine, John Rohrer is no longer allowed online. He had previously set up websites with his music and poetry but the public awareness of his situation had launched protests among his readers and as a result, he is now barred by the hospital from going onto the internet.

Recent articles have discussed the increasing incidence of suspension and disciplinary actions taken against attorneys who are attempting to protect the rights of individuals. If the current trend continues, we may see anyone standing up for the rights of another individual escorted into jail and, from there, potentially into a rubber room.

Janet C. Phelan, investigative journalist and human rights defender that has traveled pretty extensively over the Asian region, an author of a tell-all book EXILE, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

“We had received credible intelligence that 95 political prisoners had been transferred from the Abu Ghraib Prison to a site in western Iraq, where they had been subjected to lethal testing under the supervision of a special unit from the Military Industrial Commission, under Saddam’s personal authority.”

The stance of the United States and her allies has always been that such experiments bear the watermark of a brutal dictatorship and are never engaged in by the free world.

So when Abu Ghraib again hit the news in 2004, concerning the ongoing torture of prisoners by US forces, the US was swift to act in condemning the reports as constituting isolated incidents and not reflective of US policy.

And then the floodgates opened, with more revelations of torture, CIA “black sites” waterboarding and prisoner rape. And torture became a topic of heated debate.

Those who torture would like you to think that they do not, or that torture is necessary for reasons of “National Security.” However, any first year medical student can tell you that torture is unnecessary to gain confessions, which is the fall- back used by government officials to explain its necessity. All that is needed to obtain such ostensibly highly valued confessions is a good dose of sodium pentothal or another such chemical in the array of truth serum drugs.

What one gains by the use of torture is false confessions. False confessions would be highly valued in the continuing “war on terrorism,” to provide proof that acts of terror are being perpetrated by those who are detained.

Abu Ghraib may or may not have been the locus of experiments by the Iraqi leadership. What is certain is that the US is engaged in experiments on its own people, without informed consent, some of which achieve the definition of torture.

The US Continues to Evade the Mandates of Informed Consent

The issue of informed consent was central to the The Doctors Trials at Nuremberg, where twenty German doctors who experimented on Jews and others, often fatally, were tried and sentenced. What emerged from the Trials was the Nuremberg Code, which mandates that experimental subjects be given information about the nature of the experiment and the right to refuse.

The Nuremberg Code, however, remains a recommendation, not a law.

Some of these current experiments run by the United States are taking place within the borders of the US and some are taking place in foreign countries, with pharmaceutical and defense agencies as primary perpetrators.

As an act of apparent damage control following the 1994 disclosures of US radiation experiments during the Cold War, President Bill Clinton produced a memo, lodged in the Federal Register, calling for strengthened protections for human subjects.

These radiation experiments exposed US citizens to high levels of radiation, without informing them of the risks. According to reports, the radiation caused the deaths of a number of the experimental subjects. 

Clinton subsequently established an Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments to review reports and recommend ways to prevent further unethical research from taking place in the future.

The Advisory Committee’s recommendations included mandating informed consent of all human subjects, among other recommendations. However, the Committee´s recommendations were never acted upon. And informed consent, which constitutes the core of the Nuremberg Code, was never codified into law.

Obama Perpetuates the Myth of Legal Protections for Test Subjects

Fast forward to 2010, when another embarrassing experimental project, this time launched by the US Public Health Service in Guatemala, hit the front pages of newspapers. US researchers were reported as deliberately infecting over 1500 human subjects in Guatemala with sexually transmitted diseases. This study took place back in the 1940’s and was effectively covered up for over sixty years.

In response to this disclosure, President Obama directed the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to “determine if Federal regulations and international standards adequately guard the health and well-being of participants in scientific studies supported by the Federal Government.”

The Commission reported back in December of 2011 with their conclusions that the current US rules would deter such abuses from taking place again.

The Commission failed to take note that research protocols, classified and otherwise, are lacking an informed consent requirement. What this means is that if, for example, an intelligence agency decides to run an experiment using human subjects, that intelligence agency can waive any necessity to inform the subjects and to gain their consent.

The Commission’s report is largely a whitewash. In light of the following facts, it is clear that US nonconsensual human experimentation is rampant. Some of these experiments appear to be classified and some not. In many cases, neither the classified research nor non classified protocols appear to be abiding by the stated need for informed consent.

Children as Lab Rats

On January 4, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which provides incentives for using children in drug trials. The Act offered pharmaceutical companies a six-month exclusivity term in return for their agreement to conduct pediatric tests on drugs. This Act was quickly followed in 2003 by the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA). PREA authorizes FDA to require manufacturers of new drug and biologics products to conduct pediatric studies in certain circumstances.

As a result, drug trials on children have gone through the roof.

An article at medicalkidnap.com states that: “In 2006, they found that there were approximately 45,000 children participating in experiments.”

According to Victor Yeung, who is with the Centre for Paediatric Pharmacy Research, The School of Pharmacy, at the University of London, over 50% of medicines used on children are not licensed for use either for the stated disease or for the age group. 

As it eventuates, the US government is playing fast and hard with informed consent where children are involved. On the surface, it appears that parents must provide consent for children to be enrolled in drug trials. As it plays out in the real world, however, this is not always the case. Parents are often not given adequate information as to the nature of the drug experiments. And in other cases, when the parents raise questions about their children’s medical care, they may find the children taken from them by Department of Children Services. In some cases, they may even have their parental rights terminated by a court.

In 2013, Justina Pelletier was removed from her parents after an emergency trip to the hospital. Justina, who suffers from a rare mitochondrial disease, was re-diagnosed by a new intern at Boston Hospital with “somatoform disorder,” after her parents took her to the Emergency Room with what appeared to be a bad case of the flu. The diagnosis of “somatoform disorder” is a psychiatric diagnosis, which essentially stated that Justina’s disease was “all in her head.” Her parents were unhappy with Boston Hospital’s treatment plan and also with their failure to even consult with her regular doctors and refused to sign off on BH’s treatment plan.

At that point, the hospital notified DCF (aka Child Protective Services) and the Pelletiers were effectively blocked from further unsupervised contact with their daughter. Justina was placed in a locked psychiatric unit and Lou Pelletier was charged with contempt of court for speaking about her circumstances to a Boston Globe reporter.

After an extended court battle and after her plight made national news, Justina was finally returned to her parents’ care. Concerns that she may have been used in experimental drug trials continue.

The Pelletiers are suing Boston Children’s Hospital.

A similar playbook was used against Melissa Diegel, an Arizona mother of two daughters also diagnosed with a rare mitochondrial disease. Diegel has now lost her parental rights after she questioned the treatment plan for her daughters, which was put into place by Phoenix Children’s Hospital and Translational Genomics Research Institute.

In court proceedings fraught with secrecy, removal of witnesses from the courtroom, sealed records and attempts to cast Diegel as someone who had “overmedicalized” her two daughters, Judge Kristin Hoffman severed all parental rights of Melissa Diegel and ordered the two girls to be put up for adoption.

As in the case of Justina Pelletier, where her parents were deemed unfit for following the recommendations of the primary physician and not honoring the diagnosis of a new doctor, the Diegel case reveals efforts by Child Protective Services to demonize Melissa Diegel for following one doctor’s recommendations for treatment for her two daughters, rather than following the recommendations of another doctor.

Melissa Diegel states that Hanna and Kayla were enrolled in TGen drug trials.

The willingness of courts to interfere with parental rights when the children in question can be used for drug trials reveals a systemic imperative wherein science will trump the welfare of individual children. At the center of such experimental imperatives lies organizations such as TGen.

Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen) is situated in a modern, multi-story building in Phoenix Arizona. It was established in 2002 by Dr. Jeffrey Trent, who served for 10 years as the Scientific Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) at the National Institutes of Health at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, prior to founding TGen.

TGen’s promotional literature states that: “TGen is on the cutting edge of translational research where investigators are able to unravel the genetic components of common and complex diseases. Working with collaborators in the scientific and medical communities, TGen believes it can make a substantial contribution to the efficiency and effectiveness of the translational process. TGen’s vision is of a world where an understanding of genomic variation can be rapidly translated to the diagnosis and treatment of disease in a manner tailored to individual patients.”

However, TGen may also be involved in nonconsensual human experimentation. This reporter has uncovered documentation that the Institute maintains agreements with Phoenix Children’s Hospital to refer sick children to the Institute. According to a grant proposal from TGen researcher Dr. Justin Hunter, “Dr. Saunder Bernes, senior pediatric neurologist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital (PCH), has agreed to refer Arizona residents with NMD for these studies (see attached letter of support).” The grant was awarded to Dr. Hunter on October 23, 2014.

As at least two sick children, Hanna and Kayla Diegel, were “referred” to TGen with disastrous results for their family unit, one might question whether or not TGen’s research programs regularly result in terminating family rights.

PCH has continued to deny any such relationship with TGen, even in light of the documents which have surfaced.

TGen maintains numerous contracts with the federal government, including defense contracts. One of these contracts involves sequencing the genome of Burkholderia pseudomallei, which constitutes a Class B bioterror threat.

One of the problems with terminating the parental rights of experimental subjects is that reliable information as to what sorts of experiments are taking place becomes difficult to obtain.

Officials at TGen did not respond to calls from this reporter.

Creating the “Perfect Spy”

Using children as lab rats is not the only human experimentation issue that has reared its head in recent years. Following the Congressional Church Hearings of the 1970’s, the US government’s program to create the “perfect spy,” dubbed MKULTRA, was allegedly disbanded.

However, mind control experiments have continued, apparently unabated. After hearing testimony from a number of individuals alleging that they are being electronically harassed with mind-invasive technologies, the President’s Bioethics Commission issued a letter stating that it would not investigate such allegations. The letter states that “We would like to clarify for your information that the Commission is not investigating or reviewing any concerns or complaints concerning complaints about…..MKULTRA; COINTELPRO; electromagnetic torture or attacks; organized stalking; remove influencing; microwave harassment; covert harassment and surveillance; human tracking; psychotromic (sic) or psychotropic weapons and radio frequency or military weapons or other claims.”

Recent articles at such mainstream media sources as businessinsider.com have confirmed the existence of such electromagnetic weaponry. Project Censored, which operates out of Sonoma State University in California, has published a report confirming the existence of neurobiological weapons, directed acoustic weapons, electromagnetic crowd control weapons, pulsed energy projectiles and neural implants, all of which mirror the concerns and testimony of thousands of US citizens who are now alleging that these weapons have been covertly and nonconsensually tested on them.

Justice is Elusive for Test Subjects

The US continues to hold itself up as the leader of the “free world,” even in the face of such abuses of its own citizenry. As the US refuses to honor what one spokesperson called “an ´unaccountable´ World Court,” chances for those used as test subjects and denied their stated rights to informed consent in experiments to obtain justice remain slim. A lawsuit launched in 2009 on the behalf of military personnel used as chemical and biological test subjects by the US Army at Edgewood and Ft. Detrick military bases has resulted in a decision by a federal court judge that the Army should keep the subjects informed about “health information relating to their participation in chemical and biological tests spanning five decades.” No monetary damages were sought in the lawsuit. In light of the damage to the health of individuals who took part in the experiments– without adequate information as to what the experiments constituted–one might wonder if the best that can be obtained after a seven year court battle is an agreement to share such “health information” with the victims.

Tellingly, Bill Clinton’s memo of 1997 states the following: “This memorandum is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other persons.·

Writing for mindjustice.org, attorney Cheryl Welsh states that

“…until a federal statute that secures the right of informed consent for anyone subjected to classified human experimentation is passed by the legislature and signed into law by the president, the U.S. government has the power to carry out research projects without his consent and without informing the participants of the dangers or future complications.”

Any questions? Sadly, the US government won’t be answering them…for the time being, anyway.

Janet C. Phelan, investigative journalist and human rights defender that has traveled pretty extensively over the Asian region, an author of a tell-all book EXILE, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

If you wonder how the US could be supporting Turkey that is waging a veritable war on its civil Kurdish population, maybe you should take a look at the way people are being treated in America first. Back in the mid-twentieth century, the city of Flint, Michigan was a bustling industrial town. Home to General Motors car manufacturing plants, Flintonians enjoyed union wages with an average annual income higher than San Franciscans or Chicagoans.

When the General Motors plants began to close in the 1980s, a blue collar work force was left without the blue collar jobs. Unemployment soared. The plant jobs had attracted a largely black population and Flint, once a boom town, became a bust town. In 2011 a state of financial emergency was declared by Governor Rick Snyder.  Out of 80,000 industrial jobs, Flint was reportedly left with only 8,000.

Lesson 1: Government disinterested and negligent

It was only after Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, an Iraqi immigrant and director of pediatric residency at a local hospital, made public her findings that the children of Flint were being poisoned with lead from drinking water that the government was forced to act. The results of her lead screening documented the profound level of lead in Flint children’s systems and made Dr. Attisha an overnight global hero. Said Dr. Attisha in a recent interview, “….when we shared our results at our press conference we were attacked. They were like ‘No, this is wrong, you are an unfortunate researcher, you’re causing near hysteria, our numbers are not consistent with your numbers.’”

It is due to Dr. Attisha’s persistence that the story of the children of Flint being poisoned with lead, an irreversible neurotoxin, was finally brought to light.

One of the disturbing aspects of the Flint situation is how many people at how many levels of government knew about the problem and did not act. Officials at local, state and federal level are implicated in knowing about the leaded water problem and failing to act. 

Lesson 2: Flint is not an aberration

 As this story gains impetus, reports are coming in from other areas of the country indicating a similar problem with lead in the water. The Chicago Tribune recently ran a story revealing that the aging infrastructure in Chicago is also  producing lead poisoned water.

“More than two years after federal researchers found high levels of lead in homes where water mains had been replaced or new meters installed, city officials still do little to caution Chicagoans about potential health risks posed by work that Mayor Rahm Emanuel is speeding up across the city,” reported the Tribune.  

An article in the New York Times, published February 8, recites a similar problem with leaded water in Sebring, Ohio. As with Flint, months went by before the city took any action at all. The article cites other such instances in Washington, DC as well as cities in North Carolina, South Carolina and Jackson, Mississippi, where “officials waited six months to disclose the contamination….”

It was reported in January that the Navajo water supply had been poisoned by leakage from uranium mines.

A recent article at philly.com states that “Lead poisoning in PA, NJ, may be worse than Flint.” According to the article, government data shows that “18 cities in Pennsylvania and 11 in New Jersey may have an even higher share of children with dangerously elevated levels of lead than does Flint.”

The article attributes the Pennsylvania and New Jersey levels to consumption of lead paint chips in older houses.

Lesson 3:  Politicians use Flint for political currency

Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton was quick to get on the Flint bandwagon. In an NPR interview, Clinton said, “The idea that you would have a community in the United States of America of nearly 100,000 people who were drinking and bathing in lead-contaminated water infuriates me.”

Clinton visited Flint in February and spoke at a local church, calling for Congress to pass an emergency funding bill to help Flint. “What happened in Flint is immoral,” she declared. “The children of Flint are just as precious as the children of any other part of America.”

However, Hillary’s efforts did not achieve the desired result. It was shortly reported that, as US Senator from New York, Clinton had voted against a bill which would have banned a fuel additive which was contaminating water supplies across the country.  MTBE was used to make fuel burn cleaner but was found to be a carcinogen. In 2000, a federal investigation found that wells in at least thirty- one states were at risk for MTBE contamination.  The legislation to ban MTBE was passed by Congress in 2005. Clinton voted against the ban.

Apparently, Clinton’s campaign promises to Flint fell on jaundiced ears. In the recent primary election in Michigan, Clinton was walloped by presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders. The Republican Presidential candidates have all condemned the failure of government to address the Flint water crisis  but have failed to suggest any remedy or assistance.

Lesson 4: Chemical and biological abuses of US populations are epidemic

The indifference or complicity of various levels of government to the poisoning of Flint, Michigan has historical equivalents.  The Tuskegee experiments, in which African American males were put into an experimental study group, without their consent, to track how untreated syphilis affected their health, is a well- known stain on US health policy history. More recently, a number of prestigious universities were caught using “premies”—babies born prematurely– in experimental studies which ran the risk of causing blindness or death to the infants. The families were not informed of the risks of the studies.  

Another unplumbed depth of degradation lies in the buried history of A-South, a psychiatric inpatient unit at the posh UCLA medical center in West Los Angeles, California. A-South was a detached unit which was razed to the ground about ten years ago.  It is known that human experimentation was ongoing at A-South, which at least for some period of time only serviced welfare patients.

Officials with the hospital continue to deny that A-South ever existed.  It has recently been reported that patients housed on A-South were receiving drugs known to be deleterious to their well- being as well as electroshock therapy in excess of what are considered therapeutic levels. It is also known that A-South patients were refused the right to refuse harmful treatment. At least one physician, Dr. Derek Ott, who served as a resident on A-South in the 1990s, has been cited as causing the death of one of his patients.

Ott was reportedly reprimanded by the medical board and did not face loss of his license to practice medicine. UCLA has refused to release names of other physicians who did their residency on A-South.

The trajectory of what happened to the daughters of Melissa Diegel reveals that courts are involved in terminating the parental rights of parents in order to feed medically challenged children into experimental drug programs. Kayla and Hannah Diegel, both of whom have a rare mitochondrial disease, were taken from their mother after she questioned treatment her children were receiving at Phoenix Children’s Hospital. The two Diegel daughters have apparently been enrolled in drug test trials with Translational Genomics Research Institute. Diegel’s story illuminates the primacy of scientific experimentation over human and civil  and family rights.

After the Church hearings in the 1970’s, MKULTRA, which was the US’s experimental program dealing with mind control, was reportedly disbanded. Nicholas West reports in Activistpost that the search for mind control technologies has only accelerated.

Lesson 5:  What else is in the water?

Lead poisoning lasts a life time.  Once lead enters the neurosystem, it does not exit. Children exposed to lead face a life sentence of diminished learning capacity, lowered IQ and behavior problems.

Lead contamination is not the only challenge facing US water systems. As of 2006, sixty-nine percent of Americans were serviced by water systems that employ fluoride.  Fluoride affects the hippocampus in the brain, inducing docility and passivity in those who ingest it, and was used to dose and daze the denizens of Eastern European concentration camps, during Hitler’s reign of terror.

Another item of concern is the use of chloramines to disinfect water. Chloramine is produced when chlorine is added to ammonia. According to Dr. Winn Parker, chloramine is known to cause breast cancer and miscarriages, and can cause further deleterious effects when imbibed by someone who faces health challenges, such as kidney problems. 

Recent reports have also raised the bar of alarm on the leakage of pharmaceuticals, such as estrogens, antibiotics and psychiatric medications, into US water supplies. Reports from both the WHO and Harvard University have minimized this as a risk to health. However, articles in medical journals—some going back thirty years—have discussed the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria in drinking water and the potential effects on public health.

And finally, there are also the unanswered questions as to why the US has covertly reconfigured water systems country-wide as “double line” water systems. As reconfigured, this double line system allows for the introduction of another substance into preselected service lines. In other words, some preselected homes can get an injection into their service lines of the “something else” that  is in the top secret second line, without  the recipients’ knowledge or consent. Queries as to the reasons for the reconfiguration have resulted in official invocations of “National Security.”

Water is life. As the residents of Flint learned, something as precious as water and human lives can now be subject to politicization, scientific experimental imperatives and even, God forbid, a potential eugenics impetus.

Janet C. Phelan, investigative journalist and human rights defender that has traveled pretty extensively over the Asian region, an author of a tell-all book EXILE, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

While the pundits earnestly discuss the merits of the candidates, there lurks off screen a question that is growing in magnitude. “Does it really matter?” has been joined by an equally dark concern: “Is this only theatre?”

Increasingly, that latter question demands our attention. The trajectory of American politics has resulted in a narrowing of the differences between right and left, between Republicans and Democrats. Some have gone so far as to say that there is really only one political party in the US at this juncture, and that would be the “Money Party.” Others have likened the Presidential contest to a Punch and Judy show, with the hidden hand of the puppeteer creating what appears to be conflict and dialectic where none really exists.

 It is not within the scope of this article to dissect the similarities between the red and blue candidates. Briefly, an overview on their war policies as well as their domestic policies reveals little separating them from each other.

The reality that the candidates may not be substantially different from each other constitutes one level of concern. Of even greater magnitude is that the election results may be predetermined. The entire campaign and electoral process may be a sham, a display to convince us that the race—and therefore the future– is not fixed. In other words, the elections may be a charade to sucker us into believing that we have choice when we do not.

If we are living in a mock- up nation, wherein the program has been predetermined and we are objects, rather than subjects of our own future, one could conceivably see where the election could be contrived to convince us that we live in a representative democracy when we do not. If in fact we do not, the spin doctors may go to some lengths to engineer our delusion. The proof of this could be found in what is commonly termed “election fraud.”

Allegations of election fraud surfaced in 2000, in the Presidential race between George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore. Gore took his demand for a recount in Florida, which appeared to be the focal point of election fraud, up to the US Supreme Court. In a patently bizarre decision, SCOTUS ruled that a complete recount in Florida would violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause because different counties have different ways of counting votes.

By 2004, many people had had their fill of Bush. And the allegations of election fraud in the 2004 Presidential contest between Bush and John Kerry went through the roof.  Concerns about election fraud centered on several states—Ohio, Florida and New Mexico– featuring as pivotal battleground states. And, as we shall see, these three states, which determined the vote count to re- elect George Bush in 2004, were the critical states determining the re- election of President Obama in 2012. At both junctures—in 2004 for incumbent George W. Bush and in 2012 for incumbent Barack Obama—public support for the incumbent had turned sour for the men seeking a second term in the White House. And in each circumstance, the same states popped up Republican to support a Bush victory and then turned around and weighed in as Democrat to ensure Obama’s re- election.

Curious, isn’t it?

 OHIO

Ohio was “delivered” to Bush through a number of dedicated methods, including African American voter suppression; the utilization of voting machines pre- programmed to register Democrat votes as Republican ones; the removal of voting machines in African American neighborhoods (African Americans are known to vote Democrat), resulting in lines so long that many people simply were not able to vote at all; as well as the destruction of new voter registration forms.

The fact that the problematic electronic voting machine companies were owned by Republicans was extensively reported in the news, as was the statement by Diebold’s CEO, Walden O’Dell,  a major fundraiser for Bush, who stated that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year.”

 Exit polls, considered to be a reliable form of vote prediction, consistently showed that Kerry was winning in Ohio. “Exit polls are almost never wrong,” wrote Republican pollster Dick Morris in The Hill. “So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries. …”

In defiance of the exit polls, the final vote tally  delivered Ohio—and the country– to Bush. Writes Michael Parenti, “Bush Jr. also did remarkably well with phantom populations. The number of his votes in Perry and Cuyahoga counties in Ohio exceeded the number of registered voters, creating turnout rates as high as 124 percent. In Miami County nearly 19,000 additional votes eerily appeared in Bush’s column after all precincts had reported. In a small conservative suburban precinct of Columbus, where only 638 people were registered, the touchscreen machines tallied 4,258 votes for Bush.” 

FLORIDA

 The 2000 Presidential election was brutally close. As it eventuated, Florida determined that election. Factors resulting in Bush’s victory over Gore included Florida Governor Jeb Bush (George’s kid brother) ordering state troopers to engage in such confrontational tactics as car searches at polling places, which resulted in keeping individuals from voting. Other tactics included some precincts demanding two forms of identification (Florida’s law only requires one form of ID); voters turned away due to falsely being termed “convicted felons”; early closure of polls in Democrat precincts; and the infamous “hanging chad” ballots.

Florida election difficulties again emerged as a tool in George Bush’s box of tricks in 2004, when Bush faced disgruntled voters in the national election. In 2012, when Obama faced a disillusioned voting population, Florida, where election fraud is now considered to be state- of- the- art, went for Obama.

NEW MEXICO

 New Mexico is another state wherein problematic voting machines may have fixed election outcomes. Writing about the 2004 election, Michael Parenti stated: “In New Mexico in 2004 Kerry lost all precincts equipped with touchscreen machines, irrespective of income levels, ethnicity, and past voting patterns. The only thing that consistently correlated with his defeat in those precincts was the presence of the touchscreen machine itself.”

 In 2012, New Mexico helped ensure Obama’s national victory.

 What we see in these three states is that the depth of connivance in falsifying the vote tallies served to re- elect an incumbent President both in 04 and then in 2012. What this appears to point to is that there are certain states which will serve up a President–of either party–upon demand.

The US populace was keenly aware in 2008 that the country needed change. In 2008, Obama appeared to be the candidate offering this.  His sweeping victory in 08 could have been viewed as a mandate for a new direction. Rather than steer the country away from the policies of Bush, however, Obama only continued them.  He pursued Bush’s “War on Terror,” advancing the methods to include drone kills and executive ordered assassination of US citizens alleged to be involved with Al Qaeda, in a shocking detour from the Constitutional imperatives for due process.

 Obama also advanced the invasion of Middle Eastern countries to include Libya and Syria. His promise to close Guantanamo did not bear fruit and his promise to provide medical care for all Americans resulted in a mandated  coverage scheme which excluded a chunk of  poor Southern blacks and jacked up the rates for many others.

 Such a yearning for “change” appears to be fueling the popularity of DC outsider Donald Trump.  If you put them side by side, Trump would appear to be the polar opposite of Obama, in terms of personal style and apparent policies (although the New York Times has suggested that Trump may be the first “post-policy candidate”. )

Trump appeals, as did Obama, to the politically desperate and disillusioned, who think that the country is on a problematic course and needs a “different kind” of leader who will steer the ship of state in a new direction. In this sense, Trump is playing the “change” card, as did Obama in 08, although he is certainly playing it in an extravagantly different manner.

When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, he was considered to be a DC “outsider.”  The Washington Times has stated that when George W. Bush ran for President in 2000, he ran as a Washington outsider. Obama’s 2008 campaign was focused on his outsider status. This sort of spin seems to work well for candidates who wish to occupy the Oval Office.  The fact that Trump has positioned himself as an “ultimate outsider” might well be viewed with an understanding of the usefulness of this perception in prior Presidential elections.

The game is on. While are settling into our stadium seats to watch the applicants duke it out, it might be helpful to remember that the entire extravaganza may be just that—a hunky big psyop.

Janet C. Phelan, investigative journalist and human rights defender that has traveled pretty extensively over the Asian region, an author of a tell-all book EXILE, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

]]> https://journal-neo.org/2016/02/28/the-2016-us-presidential-election-produced-for-your-viewing-satisfaction/feed/ 0