Suburbia, 35mm

Posted: November 12, 2017 in Uncategorized

Natalie Breuer

31960011.jpg31960006.jpg31960014 (1).jpg2126001031960010.jpg31960018.jpg31960022.jpg31960019.jpg31960023.jpgIMG_0563.jpg31960012.jpg

California suburbia, photographs taken by me on a Minolta SR-T 101, 35 mm film.

XX, Natalie

More of my film photography here ❤

Social Medias

Instagram  ~  Twitter  ~  Facebook Page     ~   Tumblr   ~   Bloglovin   ~   Pinterest

View original post


Jon Rappoport's Blog

Dear Mr. Trump: here’s something you can do to defend America’s heartland: attack Monsanto

By Jon Rappoport

Something is happening in America’s heartland, Mr. Trump, and you don’t know what it is. Or if you do know, apparently you don’t care.

Because Monsanto’s favorite killer pesticide, Roundup, isn’t destroying farmers’ weeds, as promised, the company has gone to a stronger and even more toxic solution: dicamba.

Zero Hedge has the story: “…[dicamba] spray drifts from those liberal herbicide applications began to wipe out the crops of neighboring farmers who didn’t plant Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant seeds.”

“Now, as the Wall Street Journal points out today, after allegedly wiping out millions of acres of farm ground across the Midwest. [with dicamba], Monsanto once again finds itself in a familiar spot: the courtroom.”

Wall St. Journal: “Arkansas has been a flashpoint in the dispute: About 900,000 acres of crops were reported damaged there, more…

View original post 231 more words

The CIA Flips Off America

Posted: November 10, 2017 in Uncategorized

Desultory Heroics

Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from sarang / Wikimedia and CIA / Wikimedia.

Open Letter from JFK Assassination Expert Dan Hardway

By Dan Hardway


A 1964 CIA memo spells out clearly how James Jesus Angleton, the agency’s famous counterintelligence chief, wanted to deal with inquiries from the Warren Commission:

Jim would prefer to wait out the Commission.1

History seems to be repeating itself. The events of the past two weeks have shown that the CIA is still running a disinformation campaign against anyone who questions the “lone-nut” theory that, according to historian David Robarge, constitutes the agency’s “best truth.”

I recently published an article about the delay in releasing records under the 1992 JFK Records Collections Act. In that article I explained the CIA’s play to discredit those who question the agency’s lone-nut theory,2 and suggested that Robarge, its historian, has told us what to look…

View original post 2,288 more words

Desultory Heroics

By Patrick Martin


The political crisis in the Democratic Party, brought to the surface with the publication Thursday of excerpts of a campaign memoir by the former interim chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Donna Brazile, erupted into mutual denunciations over the weekend.

Brazile made public an unprecedented agreement between the DNC (under previous chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz) and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign that involved Clinton paying off the DNC’s debts and providing it a monthly subsidy in return for gaining control over the appointment of DNC officials and the right of approval over key operational decisions.

The deal was concluded in August 2015, six months before the first votes were to be cast in caucuses or primaries, when the DNC was required by its own rules to remain neutral in the contest between Clinton, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and several other candidates for the Democratic…

View original post 1,184 more words

Jon Rappoport's Blog

The great flu vaccine hoax: new evidence

by Jon Rappoport

November 8, 2017

Apparently, the powers-that-be want everyone to take the seasonal flu vaccine out of loyalty and blind faith. Because actual science reveals the hoax.

A new study, published in the PLOS Journal on 10/23, by contributing authors from the Scripps Institute and the University of Pennsylvania, is titled: “A structural explanation for the low effectiveness of the seasonal influenza H3N2 vaccine.”

Oops. Low effectiveness? The public has been taught to believe the vaccine is quite effective.

Here is a key quote from the study: “It is common to use chicken eggs for culturing clinical isolates and for large-scale production of vaccines. However, influenza virus often mutates to adapt to being grown in chicken eggs, which can influence antigenicity and hence vaccine effectiveness.”

Translation: The virus in the vaccine mutates, in the chicken eggs, and therefore the patient’s immune…

View original post 531 more words

Desultory Heroics

By Michael Krieger

Source: Liberty Blitzkrieg

In theory, Americans should be proud of their national capital and all the important work that gets done there. In theory.

In reality, our nation’s capital is an utter cesspool of self-serving, unethical and unaccountable parasites. We all know it and, even worse, it’s probably a hundred times more grotesque than we can imagine. A distressingly high number of people attracted to this swamp don’t go there to do good public work or help the American people. They go in order to enrich themselves at our expense.

A particularly degenerate strain of D.C. cretin is the lobbyist. These people swarm into Washington to influence the purse-strings of the U.S. government and funnel as much American treasure as possible in the direction of their clients, including Wall Street oligarchs, defense contractors and barbaric foreign monarchies like Saudi Arabia. We’re told that Washington D.C. exists specifically…

View original post 1,890 more words

Posted By Ric A Ohge From A Post By Luther Blissett – By Andre Damon & Joseph Kishore – – 10/27/17 With Amendments, Addition Data, History, Comments & Links By Ric A Ohge aka Rex Dexter – 10/27/17] 

The political representatives of the American ruling class are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress free speech. 

Under the guise of combating “trolls” and “fake news” supposedly controlled by Russia, the most basic constitutional rights enumerated in the First Amendment are under direct attack.

The leading political force in this campaign is the Democratic Party, working in collaboration with sections of the Republican Party, the mass media and the military-intelligence establishment.

The Trump administration is threatening nuclear war against North Korea, escalating the assault on health care, demanding new tax cuts for the rich, waging war on immigrant workers, and eviscerating corporate and environmental regulations. 

This reactionary agenda is not, however, the focus of the Democratic Party. 

It is concentrating instead on increasingly hysterical claims that Russia is “sowing divisions” within the United States.

In the media, one report follows another, each more ludicrous than the last. 

The claim that Russia shifted the US election by means of $100,000 in advertisements on Facebook and Twitter has been followed by breathless reports of the Putin government’s manipulation of other forms of communication.

An “exclusive” report from CNN last week proclaimed that one organization, “Don’t Shoot Us,” which it alleges without substantiation is connected to Russia, sought to “exploit racial tensions and sow discord” on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr and even Pokémon Go, a reality game played on cell phones.

Another report from CNN on Monday asserted that a Russian “troll factory” was involved in posting comments critical of Hillary Clinton as “part of President Vladimir Putin’s campaign to influence the 2016 election.” 

All of the negative commentary in news media and other publications directed at Clinton, it implied, were the product of Russian agents or people duped by Russian agents.

As during the period of Cold War McCarthyism, the absurdity of the charges goes unchallenged. 

They are picked up and repeated by other media outlets and by politicians to demonstrate just how far-reaching the actions of the nefarious “foreign enemy” really are.

While one aim has been to continue and escalate an anti-Russia foreign policy, the more basic purpose is emerging ever more clearly: to criminalize political dissent within the United States.

The most direct expression to date of this conspiracy against free speech was given by the anticommunist ideologue Anne Applebaum in a column published Monday in the Washington Post, “If Russia can create fake ‘Black Lives Matter’ accounts, who will next?”

Her answer: the American people. 

“I can imagine multiple groups, many of them proudly American, who might well want to manipulate a range of fake accounts during a riot or disaster to increase anxiety or fear,” she writes. 

She warns that “political groups—on the left, the right, you name it—will quickly figure out” how to use social media to spread “disinformation” and “demoralization.”

Applebaum rails against all those who seek to hide their identity online. 

“There is a better case than ever against anonymity, at least against anonymity in the public forums of social media and comment sections,” she writes. 

She continues: “The right to free speech is something that is granted to humans, not bits of computer code.” 

Her target, however, is not “bots” operating “fake accounts,” but anyone who seeks, fearing state repression or unjust punishment by his or her employer, to make an anonymous statement online. 

And that is only the opening shot in a drive to silence political dissent.

Applebaum is closely connected to the highest echelons of the capitalist state. 

She is a member of key foreign policy think tanks and sits on the board of directors of the CIA-linked National Endowment for Democracy. 

Married to the former foreign minister of Poland, she is a ferocious war hawk. 

Following the Russian annexation of Crimea, she authored a column in the Washington Post in which she called for “total war” against nuclear-armed Russia. 

She embodies the connection between militarism and political repression.

The implications of Applebaum’s arguments are made clear in an extraordinary article published on the front page of Tuesday’s New York Times, “As US Confronts Internet’s Disruptions, China Feels Vindicated,” which takes a favorable view of China’s aggressive censorship of the Internet and implies that the United States is moving toward just such a regime.

“For years, the United States and others saw” China’s “heavy-handed censorship as a sign of political vulnerability and a barrier to China’s economic development,” the Times writes. 

“But as countries in the West discuss potential Internet restrictions and wring their hands over fake news, hacking and foreign meddling, some in China see a powerful affirmation of the country’s vision for the internet.”

The article goes on to assert that while “few would argue that China’s Internet control serves as a model for democratic societies… At the same time, China anticipated many of the questions now flummoxing governments from the United States to Germany to Indonesia.”

Glaringly absent from the Times article, Applebaum’s commentary and all of the endless demands for a crackdown on social media is any reference to democratic rights, free speech or the First Amendment.

The First Amendment, which asserts that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” is the broadest amendment in the US Constitution. 

Contrary to Applebaum, there is no caveat exempting anonymous speech from Constitutional protection. 

It is a historical fact that leaders of the American Revolution and drafters of the Constitution wrote articles under pseudonyms to avoid repression by the British authorities.

The Constitution does not give the government or powerful corporations the right to proclaim what is “fake” and what is not, what is a “conspiracy theory” and what is “authoritative.” 

The same arguments now being employed to crack down on social media could just as well have been used to suppress books and mass circulation newspapers that emerged with the development of the printing press.

The drive toward Internet censorship in the United States is already far advanced. 

Since Google announced plans to bury “alternative viewpoints” in search results earlier this year, leading left-wing sites have seen their search traffic plunge by more than 50 percent. 

The World Socialist Web Site’s search traffic from Google has fallen by 75 percent.

Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms have introduced similar measures. 

The campaign being whipped up over Russian online activity will be used to justify even more far-reaching measures.

This is taking place as universities implement policies to give police the authority to vet campus events. 

There are ongoing efforts to abolish “net neutrality” so as to give giant corporations the ability to regulate Internet traffic. 

The intelligence agencies have demanded the ability to circumvent encryption after having been exposed for illegally monitoring the phone communications and Internet activity of the entire population.

In one “democratic” country after another governments are turning to police-state forms of rule, from France, with its permanent state of emergency, to Germany, which last month shut down a subsidiary of the left-wing political site Indymedia, to Spain, with its violent crackdown on the separatist referendum in Catalonia and arrest of separatist leaders.

The destruction of democratic rights is the political response of the corporate and financial aristocracy to the growth of working class discontent bound up with record levels of social inequality. 

It is intimately linked to preparations for a major escalation of imperialist violence around the world. 

The greatest concern of the ruling elite is the emergence of an independent movement of the working class, and the state is taking actions to prevent it.

Now…MY Thoughts On this Issue[Ric A Ohge aka Rex]:

1. In 1776 ‘We The People’ with a Declaration Of Independence’ launched a fierce 7 year war against the head of the world’s largest empire at the time…over MUCH less than the excesses done by our own[not really OUR own] corporacratic system.

2. On September 25th, 1789, the Congress if the new nation ratified 12 amendments to the new Constitution, the first ten became known as the ‘Bill Of Rights’…make especial note of number one:


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This Amendment is being CONTINUOUSLY violated by individuals in government and business with increasing frequency at every level – apparently with NO respect for this Constitution our “Leaders”, Military and “Law” Enforcement organizations actually SWEAR AN OATH to uphold!

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We have a systemic abuse of this Amendment, as well. 

Under the guise of “Civil Forfeiture & Imminent Domain”, Billions of dollars of private property is stolen from American citizens yearly, which has fostered a mirrored disregard by the private sector, especially the rogue banking system that rides roughshod over all.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note: The prevalence of various forms of online and other types of high-tech surveillance, does in fact, violate at the very least, the principle spirit of this Amendment, if in fact, the Amendment itself.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Anyone accused by a “jailhouse snitch or an absentee witness knows what’s in violation of this. We have more police per capita than almost any nation in history…if a witness refuses to give testimony in an actual court, said testimony should not be allowed, nor testimony where the witness stands to gain in an unspecified way. The testimony of “jailhouse snitches” should always be suspect.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Forced “Arbitration” and other side-stepping methodology, as well as recent “rules” against “Class Action” suits are nothing less than a blatant disregard for THIS provision.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This is constantly tested and/or pushed beyond anything like a reasonable interpretation. Examples: NDAA and Guantanamo.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The DEA, IRS, FDA are regular violators of BOTH IX AND X, respectively, as are draconian laws to supersede State enactments, especially when they are not even for the benefit of ‘We The People’.

It becomes ever clearer, the Constitution is being ravaged by rogue elements in this nation, to our ever increasing detriment, as a PEOPLE AND as a nation.

WHY Is There No Response To These Violations-There ARE Penalties:

Violating Oath of Office is a Federal Crime 


The recent years since 9/11 have proven our elected representatives have little to no interest in presenting or passing legislation that passes constitutional muster. 

A myriad of laws such as Patriot Act, GM takeover, NDAA, Bankster bailouts, Operating government without formal budget, mandated Healthcare and coming legislative assaults on second amendment all point to an out of control nearly, if not actually, tyrannical government our founders never intended but clearly warned us about.

In other threads I have touched on the subject of the oath of office and find its treated as just words to be said but no one holds those taking the oath responsible so I thought it a good topic for discussion especially since violating the oath is codified as a violation of federal law and executive order.

The oath taken by both houses of Congress reads:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Congressional Oath of Office []

It is apparent that the section of the oath that seems almost daily violated by politicians is “I will bear true faith and allegience to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without reservation or purpose of evasion;”

The congress as a whole along with the executive branch has been knowingly presenting legislation contrary to the constitution and then relying on legal challenges to make it to supreme court for final disposition, that folks is still a violation of the oath taken no matter the lawyeristic maneuver of passing legislation as constitutional and waiting for a challenge. 

If these were your children you would immediately scold for exceeding limits by their hope of getting away with trouble but suffering consequences for only the most egregious just by sheer quantity, its evasive both by congress and by children, both should be accountable.

Below is the most detailed listing of codes covering the subject of congressional oath and penalties for violation,

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. 

The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. 

One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” 

Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. 

Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331, which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

Violating This Oath


The subject I am bringing to the table is “why do the American people allow their representatives to break oath of office (a federal crime) and not hold them accountable?

This should be a non-partisan subject simply due to the fact this has been going on for long decades and both parties are guilty according to the law. 

I have myself watched a slow and steady deterioration of personal freedom going on fourty years and the accumulation is IMHO about to reach a tipping point where those hard fought rights become meaningless.

The scales could be tipped back somewhat if the public had awareness that the oath has teeth and voiced expectation that it be taken seriously.


Oaths of Office & Accountability — The Issue Behind the Case

The Presidential oath is specified in Article II, §1 of the Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Similar language echoes in statutory implementation of the constitutional requirement for congressional oaths of office under Article VI, Clause 3:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The key words here are “shall be bound by oath or affirmation.” 

Time For A Little History:

Background, History, And The Beginning Of The Revolution 


The thirteen colonies that became the USA were originally colonies of Great Britain. 

By the time the American Revolution took place, the citizens of these colonies were beginning to get tired of the British rule. Rebellion and discontent were rampant. 

For those people who see the change in the American government and society a real Revolution, the Revolution is essentially an economic one. 

The main reason the colonies started rebelling against ‘mother England’ was the taxation issue

The colonies debated England’s legal power to tax them and, furthermore, did not wish to be taxed without representation. 

This was one of the main causes of the Revolutionary War. 

The Revenue Act of 1764 made the constitutional issue of whether or not the King had the right to tax the thirteen colonies an issue, and this eventually

“became an entering wedge in the great dispute that was finally to wrest the American colonies from England”


It was the phrase ‘taxation without representation’ “that was to draw many to the cause of the American patriots against the mother country”.

The reaction against taxation was often violent and the most powerful and articulate groups in the population rose against the taxation.

“Resolutions denouncing taxation without representation as a threat to colonial liberties” were passed. 

In October of 1765, colonial representatives met on their own initiative for the first time and decided to “mobilize colonial opinion against parliamentary interference in American affairs”. 

From this point on, events began to reach the point of no return for the colonies. In December 1773, the Boston Tea Party occurred as a reaction to the hated Tea Act of earlier that year. 

In 1774, the First Continental Congress met and formed an ‘Association,’ which ended up assuming leadership and spurred new local organizations to end royal authority. 

Because of the influence of these Associations, many people joined the movement, and collection of supplies and mobilization of troops began to take place. The leadership of the Association was able to fan “public opinion into revolutionary ardor”.

However, not everyone favored the revolutionary movement; this was especially true in areas of mixed ethnic cultures and in those that were untouched by the war. 

The citizens of the middle colonies were especially unenthusiastic about the revolution. 

Among those who did support a change in the government structure, not everyone who joined the movement favored violence. 

Quakers and members of other religions, as well as many merchants from the middle colonies, and some discontented farmers and frontiersmen from southern colonies opposed the use of violence, and instead favored “discussion and compromise as the proper solution”. 

The patriots were able to gain a great deal of support for a violent Revolution from the less well-to-do, from many of the professional class, especially lawyers, some of the great planters and a number of merchants. 

Support for the Revolution increased when it became clear that King “George III had no intention of making concessions”. 

By the Fall of 1774, the American people “had in place the mechanisms of revolutionary organization on the local and colony level. 

A Congress of the colonies would coordinate and control the revolutionary movement”. 

The Revolutionary War erupted on April 19, 1775. 

The reason the British and the Americans resorted to using arms after a decade of fighting verbally and ideologically over the rights of the British subjects in the colonies, was because both sides had finally “become convinced that force alone could decide the issues that divided the empire”. 

In April 1775, the battle of Lexington occurred, closely followed by the battle of Concord. 

The shot at Lexington marked the first blood spilled in the war of the American independence. “The American Revolution now had its martyrs”

These two very important instances of bloodshed served to evoke the spirit of American patriotism all over the colonies. 

The Second Continental Congress met on May 10, 1775 and George Washington was elected commander of the patriotic forces. 

He and his army fought for the defense of American liberty and consequently led America to independence. 

The British rejection of the Olive Branch Petition, which expressed a “general desire for the restoration of harmony between Britain and her colonies”, issued in the summer of 1775, “stiffened the patriots’ resolve towards independence”

Another strong arguments for independence revolved around the issue of not becoming like the rotten Mother England. 

Americans believed that “the longer they remained within the British Empire, the greater was the danger of contamination”

By early 1776, Americans were ready to denounce any allegiance to the British crown. 

In January of that same year, Thomas Paine published Common Sense, a brochure that strongly served to rally Americans to independence. 

Paine’s writing convinced many of his countrymen to disown the monarchy and replace it with a republic. 

“As long as Americans deluded themselves with the hope that they could be free and yet remain British subjects, Paine believed that the cause of liberty was doomed”

By this time, the movement toward revolution was rapidly gaining speed. 

By spring of that same year, all royal governors had been ousted and patriots replaced British authority in the colonies by makeshift governments. 

The Congress itself exercised sovereign powers. 

In July 1776, Congress met and adopted the Declaration of Independence from Britain. 

The Articles of Confederation was the first document uniting the citizens of all thirteen colonies into one country. 

Under the Articles, the central government was very weak and the states held most power, but it was a beginning. 

As a result of Shay’s Rebellion, the Articles were disowned and the Federal Constitution was written in 1787. 

It is still the basic law of the United States of America.

Isn’t It ABOUT Time For An Awakening To The Decimation Of The Rights ‘We The People’ Paid So Dearly For In The First Place?