If You Didn’t Catch The Nov. 10th Republican GOP Debates, WATCH HERE

candidatesThe Fox Business Network-Wall Street Journal Republican debates have concluded.  If you happened to miss them, you can watch them both here in their entirety.


First Debate (aired @ 7pm EST.) Candidates: Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal


Main Debate (aired @ 9pm EST) Candidates: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Carley Fiorina, Mike Kasich, Rand Paul

17 Untrue E-Cigarette Myths – BUSTED

17-untrue-e-cigarette-myths-busted-

Ever since the explosion of the e-cig market, the industry has been bombarded with harmful myths, misleading studies, and even outright lies. All in an attempt to kill a revolutionizing movement that has the potential to save millions of lives.

 

Well today I am going to bust 17 untrue myths about electronic cigarettes to give you the truth that you deserve!

seperator

1E-cigs Produce up to 15 Times More Cancer Causing Formaldehyde than Tobacco Cigarettes

Where it came from:

A news article released by NBC News under the Cancer heading titled, “Before You Vape: High levels of Formaldehyde Hidden in E-Cigs,” immediately went viral as soon as it was released. With close to 100,000 Facebook shares, it hit the panic button amongst readers with a huge bang. This same article has also been reposted on many other popular news blogs among the likes of WebMD.com, HuffingtonPost.com, and NYTimes.com.

These news articles obtained their data from the New England Journal of Medicine, stating that e-cig vapor exposes the user to formaldehyde up to 15 times stronger than that of tobacco cigarettes. For some of you who may not know, Formaldehyde is a chemical that has been known to cause nasal cancer in mice, which is why it is classified as a possible carcinogen (substance capable of causing cancer in living tissue) for humans.

Here’s why it’s misleading:

To put things into perspective, tobacco cigarettes has over 7,000 chemicals, including 70 known cancer-causing compounds and 400 other toxins; formaldehyde being just one of them. This study has created uproar within the vaping community due to the misleading and unrealistic tests they had used to retrieve their data. The study tested e-cigs at 3.3 volts and at 5.0 volts. At 3.3 volts they detected 0 levels of formaldehyde.

However, the misleading component is when they tested the device at 5.0 volts at a puff of 3-4 seconds. At this point, it would create a nasty and unbearable taste called, the dry puff phenomenon. Any users of e-cigs are very familiar with this and this usually occurs when the device is heated up to a point where it becomes burnt. Under no realistic scenario would an individual being be vaping like this.

The news sites only used this particular piece of the data to unjustly taint e-cigs to spread fear and doubt across the Internet and other news sources. Of course, any logical person who actually looks at the data can see how illogical this is. This obscenity is almost like saying steaks contains 15 times more formaldehyde than beans because it was cooked until it is completely burnt, even though no one would ever eat it in that condition.

seperator

2Vape Companies Market Fruit Flavored E-Juices to Attract Children to Increase Revenue

Where it came from:

Should this myth be assumed and the government takes action, the myriad of e-cig flavors would be slashed to just two – tobacco and flavorless. This drastic and unnecessary move could potentially wipe out 75% of all e-cig users, forcing them to return to cigarettes and ultimately subject them to potentially disastrous health consequences. The e-cig industry has been running at light speed since 2007, but this myth has the ability to chop off the knees of the e-cig industry and leave it crawling.

Here’s why it’s not true:

Contrary to this insidious myth, e-cig companies introduced a wide range of flavors, not to entice children, but instead, to help smokers kick their unhealthy habit.

Helping cigarette smokers move away from the taste of traditional tobacco to more enjoyable flavors such as mint, chocolate, vanilla or fruit-based flavors reduces the temptation of relapse back into ‘real’ cigarette smoking. Once an e-cig user becomes accustomed to their new flavor of choice, the taste of cigarettes becomes less and less appealing and eventually will hold no lure at all. This will increase smoking cessation success.

Underneath this ridiculous myth lies the incorrect assumption that adults don’t enjoy a wide arrange of flavors. The huge array of vodka flavors on the market such as peach, cherry, bubblegum and even apple pie are testament to adults’ liking of fun flavors. With no public outcry against the myriad of exciting liquor flavors, it makes no sense that e-cigs have attracted such outrage. Adults find these flavors enjoyable too.

The myth that kids trying e-cigs because of the lure of child-friendly flavors, being a “gateway” per se, to smoking real cigarettes is unfounded. The National Youth Tobacco Survey found that 90% of American teenagers who have tried e-cigs were already smokers to begin with. This proves that it’s more likely that kids switch from cigarettes to e-cigs, rather than the other way round; evidently showing that e-cigs are not the slippery slope to smoking they’re made out to be. In fact, e-cigs could potentially be the answer for teens struggling with a nasty cigarette habit.

seperator

3A 17 Year Old Texas Boy Contracted Lung Cancer from Using E-cigarettes

Where it came from:

Near the beginning of 2015, a new insidious rumor spreading harmful and false myths about e-cigs made its rounds on the web. A dubious website reported that a 17 year old Texan named Frank Delio had died from lung cancer caused by e-cigs. As the first ounce of ‘proof’ that e-cigs could be fatal, it garnered quite a lot of attention and was shared all over the Internet and social media.

Here’s why it’s not true:

FACT 1: The picture that accompanied the news story of a young man bandaged up in a hospital bed was later found to be a protestor from Syria, not an e-cig smoker from Texas. It had apparently been copied from the BBC’s news website which ran a story in 2011 about a man who had been attacked by the police with a nail bomb.

FACT 2: There is no record of a Frank Delio dying in the whole state of Texas on that date.

FACT 3: There is no record of a Frank Delio ever existing!

FACT 4: All reports were printed on suspicious, untrustworthy websites. There were no reports in the mainstream media regarding this supposed news.

FACT 5: E-cigs would not have been attributed as the cause of death by doctors. One would assume that a 17 year old boy could not have been smoking e-cigs or any kind of cigarettes for a period long enough to contract any kind of cancer from them.

So, with this story firmly debunked, we can take a look at the real facts and figures. In the United States, 443,000 people a year die prematurely from smoking and inhaling second hand smoke, while none have died from e-cigs. That’s right, zero.

If websites and newspapers recorded every person who died early from cigarette smoking, we’d have over a thousand stories to read through every day. More than a thousand lives gone each day is a sobering thought. One report of an e-cig death that turned out to be a fake is nothing compared to that.

seperator

4E-cigs are Totally Safe

Where it came from:

This myth is a little different from the rest because it originates from e-cig supporters, rather than their detractors, but it is still just as dangerous. Some people, in their enthusiasm for e-cigs, have gone as far as saying that e-cigs are totally safe and have no adverse health benefits. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Here’s why it’s misleading:

Saying that e-cigs are safe is absolutely wrong, misleading and definitely a major cause of damage to the vaping industry. The reason for this is that it creates unrealistic expectations. No, the e-cig is not full of clean crisp fresh air and neither does it claim to be.

An honest guideline about what e-cigs contain and how they can affect the human body is the best approach. Without that, every discovery an outsider makes becomes an exposé and the FDA has a clear line of fire to attack the vape community’s claims of its benefits.

The true argument isn’t about whether e-cigs are safe or not. The real question is whether e-cigs are safer than traditional cigarettes. As much as the news want to scare people away with new studies touting their theories against vape, the actual issue is being ignored, and that is if e-cigs are safer than cigarettes.

The e-cig did not come to the market as a health product. In actuality, it was introduced as a quit-smoking aid. In the same way that nicotine patches, or gum would not be used as a health product or considered risk-free, e-cigs fulfill a particular purpose as a less-harmful alternative to cigarette smoking.

It’s just like reduced fat food products. Everyone knows that ice cream is fattening and full of sugar. A reduced fat version of ice cream is better for you than the full fat version, and may be a great choice for dieters. That does not, however, make it lettuce.

A spokeswoman from the UK’s Department of Health puts it perfectly stating, “E-cigarettes are not risk free, but they carry a lower risk to health than smoking tobacco and may help people who want to stop smoking.”

seperator

5E-cigs Aren’t Effective at Helping People Quit Smoking

Where it came from:

A study in 2015 found that e-cigs do not help people quit smoking.

Numerous studies have proven otherwise and really should have smashed this myth into oblivion, but there are still many who trot it out as a case against vaping.

Here’s why it’s not true:

University College London found that a fifth of their 6,000 sample of smokers had quit with the help of e-cigs. This cessation rate was 60% higher than those who used other methods to try and quit. Willpower came up short, as well as nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches and gums.

One expert said the study is flawed and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

“It’s an example of bogus or junk science,” said Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of community health sciences at Boston University School of Public Health.

“That’s because the study does not examine the rate of successful smoking cessation among e-cigarette users who want to quit smoking or cut down substantially on the amount that they smoke, and who are using e-cigarettes in an attempt to accomplish this,” Siegel said. “Instead, the study examines the percentage of quitting among all smokers who have ever tried e-cigarettes for any reason.”

The American Heart Association’s policy statement reads, “If a patient has failed initial treatment, has been intolerant to or refuses to use conventional smoking cessation medication, and wishes to use e-cigarettes to aid quitting, it is reasonable to support the attempt.”

The Tobacco Research Center at the University of Oklahoma found that among 919 smokers who had quit or tried to quit in 2013-14, more than 33% used a vaping product; this means that e-cigs are the most popular quitting method in Oklahoma. A similar survey by the State of Minnesota found that e-cigs were the most popular cessation method there too, with smokers more than twice as likely to reach for an e-cig than patches or gum.

The MRHA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency), a UK body responsible to assessing quality, efficacy and safety of medicines in that territory, held a public consultation in 2010 regarding e-cigs and how they could be regulated. Following this, the NHS announced that in 2015, e-cigs will be classed as medicines, and doctors will be able to prescribe them directly to patients as cessation aids.

seperator

6E-cigs Emit Levels of Toxic Metals Such as Nickel and Chromium Four Times Higher than Regular Cigarettes

Where it came from:

September of 2014 met the birth of a study that found nickel and chromium levels were four times higher in e-cigs than in regular cigarettes. Researchers from the National Institute of Cancer Research in Milan, Italy, said that, “overall, electronic cigarettes seem to be less harmful than regular cigarettes,” but the media, eager for a story, selectively latched on to their information on zinc and chromium.

The research spread like wildfire, showing up in medical and science websites, magazines, and newspapers.

Here’s why it’s misleading:

They’re using this to down play the positive effects of e-cigs by using an exponentially smaller opponent to make e-cigs sound more dangerous than it actually is. They also failed to mention that the insignificant traces of metals in e-cigs are far less harmful than the 7000+ toxic chemicals and 40+ carcinogenic substances found in tobacco cigarettes.

The levels of metals found in e-cigs are well below the maximum daily limit for medical inhalation as set by US health authorities. In fact, it’s actually 15 to 250 times less than what is allowed, according to Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University.

Professor Riccardo Polosa said that vapers need to be more concerned with the quality of air they breathe in polluted cities than from their e-cigs, in terms of damage to their health.

An engineer who assembles e-cigs gives a great technical explanation. He states, “The heating coils in the atomizers are generally made from an alloy called ‘nichrome’, an alloy of nickel and chromium, This means there is some very small potential for the formation of chromium (III) compounds, and for the emission of metallic chromium, both at trace level, within the vapor from an e-cigarette.”

He further states, “Neither of these are considered to be hazardous to health, particularly at trace level. Chromium III compounds are actually essential in the human body to allow us to metabolize food, and metallic chromium is often present in the cutlery we use to eat. The reference to chromium as a toxic element is an alarmist over simplification. The salt we sprinkle on our chips contains sodium and chlorine; both deadly chemicals, but not in the form we consume them.”

seperator

7E-cig Vapor Contains Highly Dangerous Antifreeze

Where it came from:

The US Food and Drug Administration tested 18 e-cig cartridges in 2009. Their discovery of one cartridge containing tiny amounts of diethylene glycol had sent the press into frenzy. Headlines raved about the toxicity of this chemical that is found in industrial antifreeze, and how e-cigs could be deadly and should be banned immediately.

Here’s why it’s not true:

Yes, it was true that this ONE particular cartridge contained diethylene glycol. However, this finding started the false rumor and damaging myth that ALL cartridges contain the harmful substance. They don’t.

The FDA, in numerous repeat studies, has never again found evidence of diethylene glycol in any e-cigs or their cartridges. This means that the 2009 e-cig cartridge tested was an anomaly, a ‘deviation from what is standard’. No other study has found the presence of this chemical in any e-cig products.

Those who are still concerned about the presence of diethylene glycol in the one e-cig cartridge might take comfort in the report’s details. The levels of diethylene glycol found in the solitary cartridge? Nearly untraceable at 1%, nowhere near enough to be considered dangerous.

Another misunderstanding fuelled the fire of this misguided myth. A common ingredient in the liquid used in ecigs is propylene glycol, which is sometimes used as an ingredient in antifreeze.

What alarmists fail to realize is that propylene glycol is added to antifreeze to make it less dangerous if you accidentally swallow some! Propylene glycol is recognized by the FDA as totally safe for human consumption, found in toothpaste, asthma inhalers, and food additives. Because it has a lower freezing temperature than water, it is used to keep things from freezing, but there’s absolutely no danger in humans consuming it.

seperator

8There Haven’t Been Any Serious Studies About E-cigs Yet

Where it came from:

The Mayo Clinic published an article which stated, “No studies have been done to examine the safety of e-cigarettes. As a result, there is no evidence that doctors can use to assess the impact this product may have on a person’s body. Also, no convincing evidence shows that e-cigarettes are useful in helping people to eventually stop smoking.”

Here’s why it’s not true:

It looks like didn’t finish their research. There are numerous studies on the safety of e-cigs. Over 30 of them are compiled and can be found at OnVaping.com/the-ultimate-list-of-studies-on-e-cigarettes-and-their-safety. While there are misguided reports, this leads the public to think the vape industry has little evidence for e-cigs’ benefits over tobacco; nothing could be further from the truth. Study after study from top University scientists and respected councils and research bodies have found e-cigs steadfastly coming up as the healthier choice over and over again.

The relative truth hidden within the misinformation of this myth is that there are no studies about the long-term health benefits. The only reason for this is that e-cigs haven’t been around long enough for such studies to be done. Having said this, the huge amount of extensive studies into the contents of e-cigs and their effect on us indicate that, since being much safer than regular cigarettes in the short term, they are more almost certainly healthier in the long term, too.

Drs Polosa and Farsalinos note that, “Even for medications, no regulatory agency is asking for long-term safety data before being approved for use.” Why should e-cigs be singled out for unfair treatment?

Perhaps the writers of the Mayo Clinic and other detractors of e-cigs should have listened to London’s Royal College of Physicians, who said, “The RCP believes that e-cigarettes could lead to significant falls in the prevalence of smoking in the UK [and] prevent many deaths and episodes of serious illness.”

Or take a tip from the American Council on Science and Health, who said that e-cigs were “safer products” than their tobacco alternatives.

seperator

9E-cigs are Not yet Regulated So We Don’t Know What the Hell is in These Things

Where it came from:

The US Food and Drug Administration have proposed a new rule that will allow them to regulate the use and sale of e-cigs in the US, but as it stands, e-cigs are a self-regulated industry. Many people wrongly equate self-regulated with unregulated, and start to believe the myth that the e-cig industry is haphazard and doesn’t know what it’s doing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Here’s why it’s not true:

Issues such as effective labeling and packaging have been discussed within the vaping community and new measures have been implemented in these areas. All done without any kind of government intervention.

The huge range of scientific studies undertaken on this topic means we know exactly what’s in e-cigs and exactly how strong the effects of these ingredients are – virtually negligible. But for those who don’t know, most e-cigs break down like this:

The base of the e-liquid is vegetable glycerin. Most manufacturers use a certified organic version, and the purpose of it is to produce vapor. Then a little propylene glycol is added. The purpose of the propylene glycol is to carry the ingredients that make the flavor, which are usually added next and always up to food-grade standard. Nicotine is added, too. The amount in the mix depends on the product. Most e-cig providers have various strengths, including a zero nicotine option. That’s it. That’s all you’ll find in an e-cig liquid.

This myth is so harmful because it disempowers consumers. It persuades consumers that there’s no scientific knowledge about vaping, which is an outright lie. This will prevent people investigating further into the facts about e-cigs and coming to their own logical conclusion based on what they find out. Instead, they’ll think there’s nothing out there for them to learn! Information is a crucial asset to assist us in making the right decision in a world where we are faced with a plethora of uncertainties and misinformation . There are plenty of facts, figures and statistics about e-cigs for everyone to make their own knowledgeable selection.

seperator

10Vape Has 10x the Carcinogens of Regular Deadly Cigarettes

Where it came from:

This myth started out in the Inquisitr in 2014. A Japanese study commissioned by Japan’s Health Ministry found formaldehyde in the vapor of a few different brands of e-cigs. In fact, it was claimed that a lot of formaldehyde was found in one brand of e-cigs – 10 times the amount found in a regular cigarette. The study stated that when the wire, which is what turns the liquid into vapor form, gets overheated, more formaldehyde is produced.

The mainstream media reported sensationally, making blanket statements about all carcinogens (when only one was tested in the study) and all e-cigs (when only one brand was found to produce this result), rendering this myth highly exaggerated and misleading.

Here’s why it’s misleading:

Ten products were tested. Only one e-cig product was found to have levels at 10 times higher than cigarettes and this was an unpublished result that was given from a scientist to a pro-vaping group via private contact.

This study was in fact a replica of an earlier study by the same group of researchers. When the results of both studies were compared, regular cigarettes were found to have six times more formaldehyde than the highest e-cig content measurement. That immediately calls their methodology into question. What could explain this vast difference?

This study, with its sporadic results and questionable methods, should not have been taken seriously by anyone with an interest in knowing the actual facts about vaping. Its results and methodologies are not consistent between studies and this requires further investigation before anyone jumps to any wild conclusions.

Another study in 2015 by Portland State University also reported the presence of formaldehyde in e-cigs, but the study’s detractors say that the machines used to vape to conduct the experiment, did not mimic the actual behaviors of vape users realistically enough for the results to be valid.

Bill Godshall, the Executive Director of Smokefree Pennsylvania said of the study, “By setting their machine to repeatedly take three-to-four second puffs at 5.0 volts, the researchers overheated the vaporizer. Vapers call this ‘dry puff phenomenon’, and don’t do it due to the very harsh and awful taste. By making a false hypothesis and by multiplying that false hypothesis over and over, the researchers got it all wrong. There is no scientific evidence that e-cigs increase risks for cancer or any other disease.”

seperator

11Nicotine is Dangerous Because It Causes Cancer

Where it came from:

This myth didn’t originate with e-cigs, it originated with regular cigarettes. Anti-smoking activists have on occasion failed to differentiate between nicotine and the other ingredients of tobacco when informing the public of the dangers of cigarette smoking.

Here’s why it’s not true:

While nicotine is hardly a health product, being a highly addictive stimulant, there is no evidence to say it is a carcinogen. It is not the nicotine in cigarettes that causes cancer, it is the tar and chemicals in the smoke that contain carcinogens and can make you sick. None of these are present in e-cigs except in negligible, harmless amounts.

A study by Brown University reported that prolonged exposure to nicotine may cause atherosclerosis, a hardening of the arteries that can lead to heart attacks. However, a Duke University professor of psychiatry, who said that the nicotine exposure in the study was 10 times higher than that of an average smoker, attacked this research. The scientific director of the CASAA stated, “The conclusion that the nicotine without smoke causes such disease is clearly wrong.”

Nicotine is a natural stimulant found in tobacco. Tobacco is part of the Nightshade or Solanaceae family, which also includes eggplant, tomatoes and potatoes. The effects of nicotine are just like that of caffeine, raising the heart rate and blood pressure, but causes very few other negative effects.

It’s been found that coffee drinking causes very little health problems. The same is thought to be true of nicotine, though in the past it has proven difficult to investigate nicotine users as they are most commonly current or former tobacco users as well.

You might be surprised that nicotine has scientifically proven benefits as well as drawbacks. For some people, the effects being similar to caffeine, meaning it helps them focus and become more productive, and overcoming any attention deficits they may suffer from. Nicotine can also provide relief from stress, panic or anxiety. This might be the reason why such a high proportion of psychiatric patients smoke.

Smokers have lower rates of Parkinson’s Disease than the general population. This is thought to be because of nicotine. Sufferers of this disease also report reduced symptoms with the use of nicotine. Stanford University also found that nicotine helps the body to grow new blood vessels, proving that nicotine might not be so bad after all.

seperator

12Second Hand Vaping is as Dangerous as Second Hand Smoking

Where it came from:

When a study published by Oxford University said that second hand vapor was found to be “a source of secondhand exposure to nicotine,” e-cig detractors touted this little piece of information as another reason to get e-cigs restricted. While spreading this misinformed myth, they lobbied for e-cigs to be banned in public places.

Here’s why it’s not true:

There’s a great danger in making conclusions when you only have half the story, or in this case, half the sentence. The sentence above, in the Oxford University report mentioned, goes on to say “but not [exposure] to combustion toxicants.”

So while e-cigs are a source of secondhand nicotine, regular cigarettes are a source of secondhand nicotine and a whole host of toxic chemicals on top of that. The secondhand vapors of e-cigs contain none of these harmful toxins.

Not only that, the huge variance in the amount of nicotine passed on through the second hand smokes makes them incomparable. The same Oxford University study found that normal tobacco cigarettes contain ten times more nicotine than e-cigs do. This means that the second hand inhalation of this highly addictive stimulant is slashed by 90% when a cigarette user switches to e-cigs. This statistic was backed up further by a study in the Nicotine & Tobacco Research journal.

The Journal Environmental Research took this question even further by measuring the saliva and urine samples of passive smokers and passive vapers who had a smoker at home, and a control group with no passive smoking or vaping, to compare the differences.

They measured their saliva for cotinine, which is a metabolite of nicotine and a biomarker for its exposure.

Those exposed to e-cigs had an average cotinine level of two and a half times than that of those exposed only to clean air. But get this – those exposed to nicotine had double the amount of salivary cotinine of the passive vapers.

But it still gets worse for tobacco smokers and passive tobacco smokers. The amount of airborne nicotine was almost nonexistent in the homes of the no smoke or vape group. It was double that in the e-cig users’ homes. But in the cigarette smokers homes, it was a whopping ten times more than the no smoke or vape group. That means that cigarettes release nearly six times as much nicotine into the air as e-cigs. That’s a significant difference.

But even a little bit of nicotine is harmful, right? Not if you understand the research of the Drexel University School of Public Health in Philadelphia. After extensive testing, they concluded that the exposure of bystanders to e-cigs ‘pose[s] no apparent concern’ whatsoever.

seperator

13The FDA Found Nitrosamines – Another Carcinogen – to Add to the List of Deadly Chemicals in E-cigs

Where it came from:

An FDA study in 2009 reported the presence of nitrosamines, a chemical compound that in large doses can be carcinogenic, in the liquid used in e-cigs. The uproar that followed called for e-cigs to be banned, some detractors even saying that e-cigs were as bad as regular cigarettes, or worse.

Just a cursory glance at the scientific findings blows this hysterical claim right out of the water and busts the myth that nitrosamines in e-cigs are deadly.

Here’s why it’s not true:

FACT 1: The nitrosamines in e-cigs were at levels 14,000 times lower than the levels in Marlboro cigarettes.

FACT 2: The nitrosamines were not found in the vapor, just the ingredients, meaning that they might not even be taken into the body.

FACT 3: We regularly consume nitrosamines and nitrates through food and drink. Vegetables contain nitrate, which is converted to nitrite by the bacteria in the mouth. When it gets to our stomachs, it interacts with gastric juices and amine containing foods such as cheese and chocolate to create nitrosamines.

FACT 4: None of the 56 other carcinogens in tobacco were found in e-cigs.

FACT 5: The nitrosamines found were well below recommended consumption guidelines. US health authorities allow 60 parts per billion, while the UK allows 30 parts per billion. Cigarettes contain up to 11,000 parts per billion, way over the recommended health guidelines, while e-cigs contain just 8 parts per billion, well within the safe consumption limit. That’s the same levels of medically approved nicotine patches, which have proven not to be cancerous.

seperator

14E-cigs aren’t that Much Safer than Cigarettes Since they Both Contain Similar Toxins

Where it came from:

The myth that e-cigs are just as toxic as cigarettes has been circulatings for a while and is trotted out by many uneducated and misinformed people as a reason to ban them.

You don’t have to look far to find that this argument is no more than fantasy. One look at the scientific evidence on e-cigs and their contents will disabuse anyone of this false notion.

Here’s why it’s not true:

A 2013 study, conducted by the Roswell Park Cancer Institute that was reported in the journal Tobacco Control compared e-cigs with conventional cigarettes. This research showed that the levels of potential carcinogens in e-cigs were at least 9 times lower than, and at most, 450 times lower than the carcinogens found in regular tobacco cigarettes. This could mean that e-cigs are 900% to 45000% healthier than tobacco options.

An article in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology reported a study which found that the levels of problematic substances detected in e-cig vapors are at extremely similar levels to those detected in ambient air. A study by ASHRAE found levels of toxic metals were 1800 times higher in regular cigs than e-cigs.

Further solidifying this point, scientists from a major tobacco company had published a report in the International Journal of Research and Public Health about this. They found e-cigs, whether or not they contained nicotine and/or flavor, had non-detectable levels of toxins and mutagens, which is 6,000 times less than regular cigarettes. This would in turn make e-cigs the healthier choice by 600000%!

Whether 900%, 45000%, 180000% or 600000% healthier than regular cigarettes, there is an abundance of evidence to say that e-cigs are, by far, the wisest choice for health conscious smokers.

seperator

15Vape Pen Batteries Explosion Killed 53 Year Old

Where it came from:

When The Borneo Post reported in 2014 that an e-cig smoker had been killed by his own vape pen when it exploded, anti e-cig campaigners rejoiced – it gave them yet another reason e-cigs should be banned.

Here’s why it’s not true:

The site made a hasty correction once they were set straight by an e-cig smoker who’d identified the device pictured, not as an e-cig, but as a modified flare pen.

The 53 year old van driver named Lau died at the scene in Bintulu Tamu once the explosion from the device struck him in the chest. Originally it was thought that the battery of the e-cig had exploded, but this myth was dismissed by Borneo Post’s source Jonathan TK, who informed the paper that it was impossible for a fatal explosion to result from an e-cig.

He went on to explain that the battery in an e-cig is no more powerful than the one in a smartphone, ranging between 2000 and 3000 mAh. Though smartphones have exploded when they were plugged in for charging, that was due to the extra power input from the mains. In this instance, there was no extra power input to make an explosion possible. Even if an e-cig did explode, there is no way it contains enough power to be fatal.

From the photos provided, the Borneo Post’s source recognized the device as a modified flare pen, which is usually used for outdoor pursuits such as camping, boating or backpacking as a signal for help, or to communicate with those nearby. Easily bought in camping shops, they can be extremely dangerous if not handled correctly.

So while the incident is tragic, it was almost certainly not caused by an e-cig or e-cig battery.

seperator

16E-cigs are a Gateway to Entice Kids & Young Teens to Start Smoking

Where it came from:

The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a series of press releases about the use of e-cigs by teens. Their director Tom Friedman stated, “Many teens who start with e-cigarettes may be condemned to struggling with a lifelong addiction to nicotine and conventional cigarettes.”

His opinion, which was totally unfounded statistically, spread through the web rapidly, giving this myth not only widespread popularity, but also an illusion of credibility. The statement can still be found on the CDC’s website and has influenced this subject’s coverage by numerous newspapers and online news sites such as the New York Times, the UK’s The Guardian and the Washington Post, among others.

Here’s why it’s not true:

The initial report that the original press releases were based on, the National Youth Tobacco Survey, found significantly increased rates of e-cig smoking in 2014, but also the lowest rate of cigarette smoking in its entire survey history.

While the CDC hyped the first set of figures, they totally ignored the second. The President of the American Vaping Association, Gregory Conley stated, “While no vaping or smoking by teens is obviously the ideal, we do not live in a perfect world. There remains no evidence that e-cigarettes are acting as gateway products for youth. In fact, this study and others suggest that the availability of vapor products has acted as a deterrent for many teenagers and potentially kept them away from traditional cigarettes.”

Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, added, “…rather than serving as a gateway toward cigarette smoking, e-cigarettes may actually be acting as a diversion away from cigarettes.”

This myth could potentially lead to the ban and/or restriction of e-cigs. Statistically, this is likely to cause teen cigarette smoking rates to skyrocket, causing them to revert back to their previous vices, if the option of e-cigs is taken off the market and not available.

seperator

17Nicotine Poisoning is a Serious Threat within E-liquids

Where it came from:

In 2014, the BMA Occupational Medicine Committee released a report that called for the sale of e-cigs to be banned until further studies investigated their effects on our health. One of their main arguments was that children had been poisoned by ingesting the liquids from e-cigs. Therefore, this began the myth that e-liquids were poisonous and potentially even more dangerous than the contents of regular tobacco.

Here’s why it’s misleading:

Not wanting to let this false myth spread, Riccardo Polosa and Konstantinos Farsalinos, world-renowned cardiologists, issued a rebuttal to set the record straight. They pointed out that the leading cause of poisoning in children is from household and personal care products. There have been no deaths from exposure to e-cig liquids. That’s right, zero.

[Update 07/29/2015: Since this post, there was one extremely unfortunate case of a 1 year-old died of nicotine/e-liquid poisoning. Don’t start running around yelling doomsday just yet. E-liquids still doesn’t even hold a single hair to the danger of your daily household cleaners.]

We know that plenty of items in the home can cause poisoning if swallowed. If it’s important to call out for products to be banned based on accidental poisoning from ingestion, why aren’t we campaigning for cleaning products and medications to be banned, too? No one’s calling for a worldwide ban on bleach or motor oil or penicillin just in case someone accidentally ingests them in poisonous doses. We’d have to ban gas and diesel, every cleaning product in existence, shampoo, and beauty products. In fact, every single product or substance we use that has the potential to be drunk or eaten in error will need to be banned. Society as we know it would be brought to a standstill!

That being said, the vaping industry takes any incidents extremely seriously and has introduced childproof caps to prevent any of these rare accidents. Just like other substances not made for ingestion, but useful around the home, such as asthma inhaler liquid, makeup or cleaning fluids, it is imperative they’re kept in a safe place out of the reach of children.

Drs Polosa and Farsalinos also fired back at the misguided assertion of the BMA that e-liquids have not been adequately tested, stating that scientific evidence “clearly indicates e-cigarettes are considerably less harmful than tobacco cigarettes.

SO WHAT NOW?

With these 17 myths out of the way, you can rest assured there will be hundreds more coming from all wolves in sheep skins out there.
 
Learned something new? Found something valuable?
Share this vape post to help keep the truth alive!
story mirrored from www.vapeplenish.com

Connecticut FOIA Commission Hearing – Wolfgang Halbig vs Sandy Hook Police Department – 04/24/15

SandyHookfilesbookOn April 24, 2015, we live streamed with our reporter SOS inside the hearing room from Hartford Ct. on the FOIA request, to finally face officials in regard to the Sandy Hook School questions.

Swan Song hosted the conversation along with Tony Mead, ZeeRoe3, Brian Roberts and UpNorthOfThe49th. We presented information leading up to the hearing on the many questions Wolfgang Halbig has been trying to get officials to answer.
We outlined how Wolfgang has forced these officials to finally answer some of the many questions that are so important to be concerned over not only on the condition of the school Sandy Hook Elementary but also on the response from the police and school division.

 

Full Audio Hearing:
(download a copy by right clicking on “play in new window” and selecting “save link/file as”)

Play

 

Full Video Hearing:


Questions addressed today were:
1. Why all documentation was not presented on the supposed security system put in place by the school regarding the published letter from Mrs. Hochsprung apparently sent home to student on the new protocols for school security.

2. Where are the school boards documents regarding the children from the Sandy Hook Choir who attended the Super Bowl performance. Halbig presented the administration requires all outside activities should have been posted or filed of these children’s attendance. His request was put forward regarding the children’s names who attended.

3. Request was addressed on who was hired and contracted for the sanitation and clean-up of the school after the supposed incident. These contracts were not presented nor address to any extent.

4. Requests were made regarding who ordered and approved the placement of the port – o – potties on school property and what contractors were used and when those requested items were ordered. Also who had ordered the well-known electric street sign behind Gene Rosen asking people to report to the staging area.

5. They requested information on the Principles letters and emails and no response was really presented.

6. Requests were addressed regarding why the formal file was not provided by the Commissions office.

7. Detailed reports by police were addressed however fall far short on the request. As well the requested Dash Cam videos were not adequately provided. Addressed were also the fact the 911 calls were posted in reports as unwanted person and Threat level as Medium. Also who was in contact with coordinating State and Regional police and helicopter. They indicated no one and no communication between any of them.

8. Questions were addressed to the Janitor of Sandy Hook regarding school conditions being so adherent for the children to attend.
In conclusion the hearing ended with the Commission saying they need to continue on another date as well Halbigs lawyer put in record problems with having subpoenaed individuals were not in attendance and failed to appear.  So they need to press these individuals appear in a newly scheduled further hearing.

Thank you again to ALL of our callers and all our viewers for their support and information.

Please share the show with your friends, family, contacts or anyone you think would benefit from this information! We support those that support us, so please share with your contacts.

INTERACT WITH US!!! WE LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU!

We have a new APP to listen on your mobile devices download “Tune-In Radio” and search FPRN Radio!

Want to contribute to the weekly round table?
Contact us: maxresistance2nwo@gmail.com

The Max Resistance Round Table is a way to bring many channels who may not ordinarily connect from Youtube, Facebook and other social mediums together. While bringing many perspectives forward, we are open to a honest and fair conversation with a variety of heavy hitters from the “truth community” to discuss current events, past events, the state of this country and the lies that are being force fed to everyone within.

Click for More about The Max Resistance Round Table
LIVE:
Tuesdays 8:00pm-10:00pm Eastern

LIVE: Friday April 24, 2015 Connecticut FOIA Commission – Wolfgang Halbig vs Sandy Hook Police Department

SandyHookfilesbookOur Broadcast will begin at 1:30 pm EST live on FPRNRadio.com/listen-live & MaxResistance.com/chatroom

Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission
April 24 Hearing: Wolfgang Halbig v. Newtown Police Department
18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford Beginning at 2:00 pm EST

We will be broadcasting the hearing live with commentary from our hosts and our reporter at the scene.

We will begin streaming through FPRNRadio.com and MaxResistance.com/chatroom so you can participate live while the hearing unfolds.

If you have issues accessing the websites, we will also be streaming at the following alternate locations:
http://tunein.com/radio/FPRN-Radio-s209626/
http://streema.com/radios/FPRN_Radio

Call our listen live line on your phone or device by dialing (712)-432-4365

Our call-in line when opened will be (218)-895-3818

Our coverage will begin 1/2 hr prior to the 2pm EST start of the hearing broadcast (1:30EST). We will begin by giving our audience an exclusive overview/outline and commentary by our Hosts Swan Song and UpNorthOfThe49th.  Our special guest host will be Peter from TyrannyNewsNetwork.

We will be taking a report prior to the hearing from our reporter on the scene, SOS. He will be giving us the latest information and updates he has received from Wolfgang Halbig while building up to this hearing. If our reporter, SOS ,has the opportunity during a possible recess he will convey his observations from inside. As well a followup report on his observations and commentary after the hearing has convened.

If time allows during a recess period we will open the phone lines to take your calls and give you the opportunity to respond on what’s unfolding within the hearing. Phone lines will again open after the hearing has convened.

So tune, turn on and join the conversation. Tomorrow April 24, 2015 @ 1:30 pm EST.

The Terror Industrial Complex & YOU

Matt, the co-host of Liberty Under Attack radio, is starting a new series. It is a Q&A on the Terror War. Some will be basic questions, some will get extremely in depth. For those who are unaware, this is his expertise. This is the bulk of what he researches and he has a ridiculous amount of documentation on the subject.

 

endlesswarThe plan is for this to be updated every Thursday but, worst case scenario, once a week. Keep a lookout for weekly additions; and obviously, tune into Liberty Under Attack radio for in-depth discussions on this subject and many others.

1) WHAT IS THE “WAR ON TERROR”?

A: The ongoing campaign by the United States and some of its allies to counter international terrorism. (1) The War on Terror was declared on September 20, 2001 by George W. Bush, it quote “begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” (2) In short, an endless war campaign to defeat terrorists, with the short-shortsightedness of causing a rise in terrorism as a consequence of having no declared end with categorized terrorist entities.

Sources:
1) Dictionary.com
2) White House, September 20, 2001

2) WHAT IS AN “UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT”?

A: “(1) Someone who is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its allies – or who materially supports hostilities against the United States or its allies – without being a member of a regular armed force of another country. (2) Someone declared an unlawful enemy combatant by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal. Currently defined by federal law in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. (1)

“Hostilities” and “material support” are vague paramaters for defining a designated enemy. “Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may NOT challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts.” (2)

Sources:
1) NOLO
2) Glenn Greenwald, The Military Commissions Act in action – September 14, 2006

3) WHAT ROLE DID AFGHANISTAN HAVE WITH 9/11?

A: Nothing substantial. Mullah Omar pleaded to hold Osama bin Laden to trial and execution if the U.S. government would give the Taliban evidence of his responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Bush rejected this offer. (1) The Taliban and Al Qaeda haven’t sustained a solid historical alliance, Bin Laden irrirated Mullah Omar and one year (late 2008) the Taliban reportedly disowned Al Qaeda altogether. (2)

Indicating a shaky relationship at best. The implication being, the present rulers of Afghanistan during 2001 (the Taliban) had no active role in securing the strategem of the 9/11 attacks.

Sources:
1) BBC, Bush shuns latest Taliban offer, October 14, 2001
2) Wikipedia, Taliban: International relations

4) WAS SADDAM HUSSEIN CONNECTED TO AL-QAEDA?

A: The claims of an Iraq-Bin Laden connection were fabricated by a tortured prisoner named Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. (1) The 9/11 commission itself said, quote, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.” (2)

“The notion that Islamist terrorism is really the U.S. government’s target is contradicted by the targets of the Bush administration’s Middle East policy. Why, if the enemy is Islamist terrorism, did the administration invest so much energy against Iraq, Syria, and the PLO? Both Syria’s president, Bashir Assad, and the late chairman of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, were implacable opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood, but they found themselves incongruously to the list of Al Qaeda’s allies. By attacking Iraq, the Bush administration also found an inappropriate target. Since coming to power in 1968, Saddam Hussein was a determined enemy of the Islamists, from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini to terrorist Shiite groups to Al Qaeda itself. In invading Iraq, President Bush made common cause with the Islamic right: before, during, and after the invasion, the United States supported the Iraqi National Congress exile coalition, in which two Shiite fundamentalist parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), and the Islamic Call (Al-Dawa), played prominent roles. Both worked closesly with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.” (3)

“Bush, consciously and with deliberation, encouraged Iraq’s Ialmists to reach for power. American forces and the CIA brought an ayatollah from London to Najaf, Iraq, and forged a pragmatic alliance with another ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani, an Iranian cleric who became the kingmaker in Iraq after the war. The United States worked with a radical Iraqi cleric, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, who commanded the 20,000-strong paramilitary Badr Brigade, a force that was armed and trained by Iran. And it promoted a terrorist group calledthe Islamic Call, or Al Dawa, a group that over its forty-year history had conducted bombings, assassinations, and other violent attacks, including an attack against the American embassy in Kuwait in the early 1980s.” (4)

Sources:
1) Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied to Coercion Claim, December 9, 2005
2) NBC News, 9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, Al Qaeda, June 16, 2004
3) Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game, page 306
4) Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game, page 340

5) WHAT IS THE “TERROR INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX”?

A: The expansion of the military industrial complex of the 21st century. The TIC includes: Covert support of terrorists under the banner of “irregular” or “unconventional” warfare (1), geopolitical fracturing of regions or nation-states (2), using terrorism to force a response by categorized terrorist groups (P2OG) (3), strategic use of making civilians fear Americans more than designated terrorists (4), funding terrorist groups (5), supporting terrorists against enemy states (6), banking establishments funding terrorists (7), FBI entrapment encouraging terrorism. (8)

Sources:
1) Army Special Operations Forces: Unconventional Warfare, September 2008
2) Court Documents Shed Light on CIA Illegal Operations in Central Asia Using Islam & Madrassas, July 10, 2008
3) British and American black ops in Iraq, June 25, 2008
4) The warped mission of the American military: “out-terrorize the terrorists”, September 12, 2010
5) ISIS Mercenary Admits Getting Funds from US, January 30, 2015
6) The Secret War Against Iran, April 3, 2007
7) HSBC and Terrorist Finance July 29th, 2012
8) How FBI entrapment is inventing terrorists and letting bad guys off the hook – May 15, 2012

6) DOES THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT TERRORIST GROUPS, AND IF SO, WHO AND AGAINST WHAT COUNTRIES?

A: There are at least three well-known examples of Washington backing terrorists against foreign governments, Syria, Iran and Iraq. The MEK and Jundullah have reportedly worked in liason with Israel and the CIA to attack Iran. [1,2] And Washington has also supported Al Qaeda in Iraq-Syria against the Syrian government. [3] Washington has supported Islamic militants against the secularist rule of the previously toppled Saddam Hussein, who the CIA had previously supported. [4]

Links:
1,2) Our men in Iran, April 5, 2012.
3) Preparing the battlefield, July 7, 2007.
4) West pours arms into Syria as Al Qaeda mass slaughters civilians, February 24, 2013.
5) Who was behind the “terrorist network” in northern Iraq, Baghdad or Washington?, March 19, 2013.

7) WHAT FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS HAVE VIOLATED INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY UNDER THE GUISE OF “STOPPING TERRORISM”?

A: The Washington Post reported in 2013, that 54 countries united in the U.S. governments torture and extraordinary rendition policies of the GWOT. [1] In two extremely brutal cases of dictatorial abuses under the guise of “counter-terrorism” by U.S. allied countries, Phillipines’ Gloria Arroyo [2] and Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov [3] both resorted to mass killing and torture of political dissidents with no substantial evidence that the accused had any serious affiliations with terrorists or terror events in their respective countries.

Links:
1) A staggering map of the 54 countries that reportedly participated in the CIA’s rendition program, February 5, 2013.
2) Undeclared martial law: The violation of fundamental human rights in the Philippines, January 4, 2010.
3) Democratisation, Colour Revolutions and the Role of the NGOs: Catalysts or Saboteurs?, December 25, 2005.

8) HAS THE WAR ON TERROR INCREASED OR DECREASED TERRORISM ACROSS THE WORLD?

A: The blog Screeching Kettle says, quote, “terrorist attacks begin to spike after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. According to the GTI, among the five countries accounting for the highest spikes in terrorism, the US has conducted ground wars in two (Iraq and Afghanistan), a drone campaign in one (Pakistan), and airstrikes in a fourth (Syria). Libya – where the US intervened back in 2011 – also moved up nine places on the GTI scale and is now the 15th country in the world most plagued by terrorism. Time and time again, whenever the US goes somewhere to “fight terrorism”, it only ends up producing more of it.” [1] Washington’s Blog has documented that, quote, “waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. Drone strikes increase terrorism. Torture creates new terrorists. The U.S. has directly been supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups for the last decade. [2]

Links:
1) One simple graph shows how the War on Terror has been a total failure, November 26, 2014.
2) U.S. “War On Terror” Has INCREASED Terrorism, October 21, 2013.

9) HAS TORTURE HELPED PREVENT TERRORISM ATTACKS?

A: Igor Volsky at ThinkProgress cites a Senate Intelligence report declassified in December 3, 2014, says, quote: “At no time did the CIA’s coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of imminent threat intelligence, such as the hypothetical ‘ticking time bomb’ information that many believe was the justification for the use of these techniques.” [1,2]

Links:
1) The 5 Most Damning Revelations From The CIA’s Report On Bush-Era Torture, December 9, 2014.
2) SSCI Study, December 3, 2014.

10) HAS TOTALITARIAN SURVEILLANCE PREVENTED TERRORISM?

A: Peter Moskowitz, in an Al Jazeera America article cites a New American Foundation document that, quote “the study examined records for investigations into 225 people who have been indicted, convicted or killed by the U.S. for their reported ties to Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups like Al-Shabab after Sept. 11, 2001. The review found that the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone metadata, justified under the Patriot Act, was responsible for initiating investigations in only four of the 225 cases detailed by the New America Foundation and that none of those four prevented attacks.” [1] In summary, surveillance may assist in documenting evidence of a terrorist attack but it has done minimal to nothing in terror prevention. Here is the link to the full report. [2]

Links:
1) Report suggests NSA surveillance has not stopped terrorism, January 13, 2014.
2) Do NSA’s Bulk Surveillance Programs Stop Terrorists?, January 13, 2014.

11) HOW FREE ARE PEOPLE IN COUNTRIES THE STATES HAS ATTACKED IN THE NAME OF “STOPPING TERROR”?

A: Freedom House reports, according to their timelines that the following key “battlefields” in the War on Terror have lacked freedom in the world and have even gotten demonstrably worse for local people in several countries: Afghanistan (2001-2014) [1], Iraq (2003-2015) [2], Pakistan (2004-2014) [3], Syria* (2007-2015) [4], Yemen (2001-2015) [5], Somalia (2002-2014) [6], Philippines (2002-2014) [7], Algeria** (2007-2014) [8], United States (2001-2014 [9]. Freedom House expresses clear unquestioning bias regarding the U.S. according to how other countries fair regarding personal freedoms, it’s disingenuous to say that America has remained consistently a “free society” since the War on Terror has begun, especially with demonstrable evidence to the contrary of curtailed freedom under the guise of “counter-terror” security measures. To cite just one strong example to the contrary, I recommend everyone read the article “How many Constitutional rights have we lost?” over at Washington’s Blog. [10] While I don’t personally withhold to the concept that freedom is bound by documents such as the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, the blog provides a sufficient amount of evidence to the contrary of Freedom House’s narrative that North America has remained consistently “free” at the expense of others throughout the world, when Americans themselves can testify otherwise just how free they feel in the post-9/11 world where the War on Terror hasn’t only been used to target external threats but has been inverted against American society itself. Pew Research reported that, quote “In a poll conducted in 2011, shortly before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, 40% said that “in order to curb terrorism in this country it will be necessary for the average person to give up some civil liberties,” while 54% said it would not.” [11] Indicating a trend in opposition to the mindset that civil liberties “must be lost” to stop terrorism in the world that was prevalent immediately following the 9/11 attacks.

Sources:
1) World Freedom Index: Afghanistan. (2001)
2) World Freedom Index: Iraq. (2003)
3) World Freedom Index: Pakistan. (2004)
*At Land Destroyer, it’s reported that foreign influence had led to the rise of ISIS. The start in a rise of Sunni militants against Assad, at whatever cost to infrastructure or lives (and even in silent contract with Al Qaeda and it’s affiliated terrorist networks), was deemed necessary by Washington because the Syrian government hadn’t agreed to align with Israel against Iran since 07′. That’s the earliest recorded case of the terror industrial complex working against Syria, according to the research of Tony Cartalucci. Hence, this is why I start from 07′ in documenting Syria’s “freedom meter.” U.S. planned Syrian civilian catastrophe since 2007 – September 4, 2013.
4) World Freedom Index: Syria. (2007)
5) World Freedom Index: Yemen. (2001)
6) World Freedom Index: Somalia. (2002)
7) World Freedom Index: Philippines. (2002)
8) World Freedom Index: Algeria. (2007)
**Algeria is cited as a reference to Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara (OEF-TS) which also includes Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Nigeria and Morocco.
9) World Freedom Index: United States. (2001)
10) How Many Constitutional Rights Have We Lost? – February 27, 2015.
11) Balancing Act: National Security and Civil Liberties in Post 9/11 Era.

12) WHY SHOULD I CALL FOR AN END TO THE WAR ON TERROR?

A: The answer to that is a personal decision of your own to make, if you wish to. Nobody is under forced obligation to serve the interests of the LUA-ETTW (Liberty Under Attack-End The Terror War) partnership, everyone may voluntarily contribute to the interests of freedom and truth alongside Shane and myself in their own ways. To answer succinctly as possible, the War on Terror to me is a violation of the Nuremberg principles [1] and against the golden rule. [2] It has endangered lives, infrastructure, and made the world a more geo-politically and religiously volatile place [*], instead of an endeavor to genuinely work towards peace on the local and global levels. If you want to “stop terror” (the claimed objective according to George W. Bush in his Sept. 20 speech) [3], seriously, it’s counter-intuitive to terrorize others and expect terrorism to spontaneously stop existing as a result. [4] American support for Israel against the well-being of Palestinians was cited for the reason regarding the motives for the 9/11 attacks, as covered by Representative Press. This is not an endorsement of anti-Semitic attacks on the Jewish people of the world, but merely a recognition of the pretext that led us into the GWOT from the start. [5]

Sources:
1) “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”-Robert H. Jackson.
2) Definition: “A general rule for how to behave that says that you should treat people the way you would like other people to treat you.”
3) “The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows. Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the reservists we have called to active duty.” White House, September 20, 2001.
4) Please see question 5 regarding FBI entrapment, a proliferation of terrorism, rather than a prevention of it.
*Muslims in America and across the world have felt targeted by Islamophobic-motivated attacks since the War on Terror, and since it’s done nothing to reduce the presence of terrorist groups either (no thanks to the terror industrial complex) these same terrorist groups also target Muslims simultaneously. In essence, an environment of hostility against peaceful adherents to the Islamic faith is backed by both state terrorism and non-state terrorism.
Examples: U.S. Muslims feel targeted by terror policies – August 30, 2011.
All terrorists are Muslims, except the 94% that aren’t – January 20, 2010.
Leap in anti-Muslim hate crimes following 9/11 attacks – November 26, 2002.
Wikipedia: War against Islam.
5) YouTube: 9/11 motive & media betrayal – September 11, 2011. “Michael Scheuer (former CIA intelligence officer and CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief 1996-99) points out that our politicians are lying to us about why our lives are being put at risk with regard to the motivation of the terrorists attack the U.S. Why they hate us ISN’T “hatred of our freedoms” but rather hatred of specific foreign policies of the U.S. government which are, in fact, unjust, immoral and illegal. The top grievance is anger at the U.S. government’s policy of aiding and abetting Israeli crimes.”
-‘End The Terror War’ is a cause that does NOT endorse Islamophobic or anti-Semitic attacks as a means to address grievances.

13) DOES THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CONSIDER AMERICANS AS TERRORISTS, AND AMERICA AS A BATTLEFIELD?

A: Yes. In an excellent article by Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux from The Intercept, quote, “The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watch-list system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document. The “March 2013 Watch-listing Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counter-terrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watch-lists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.” It also allows for dead people to be watch-listed.” [1] That’s just the start of their investigative journalism on this subject, and it’s quality information for an uninformed public. To name just a few things from Michael Synder’s list of 72 categories that earn you a “terrorist” label in America, I will pick a few examples: Those that talk about individual liberty, anyone that considers the State to be unnecessary/harmful/undesirable, anyone opposed to a New World Order, anyone concerned about FEMA detention, anyone frustrated with mainstream political ideology, anyone anti-globalization, anyone suspicious of centralized federal authority. [2] Indeed, America is recognized as a battlefront in the War on Terror. [3]

Sources:
1) The Intercept, The secret government rulebook for labeling YOU a terrorist – July 23, 2014.
2) The Truth Wins, 72 types of Americans that are considered potential terrorists in gov. documents – August 26, 2013.
3) End The Lie, The entire U.S. is a warzone: NDAA 2012 passes – December 2, 2011.

14) HAS THE TRANS-SAHARAN COUNTERTERRORISM INITIATIVE (TSCI) STOPPED TERROR IN THE AFRICAN SAHARA?

A: In December 2005, SFGate reported that, quote, “if anything the (initiative) will generate terrorism, by which I mean resistance to the overall U.S. presence and strategy,” said Jeremy Keenan, a Sahara specialist at the University of East Anglia in Britain. Repressive governments in the region are taking advantage of the Bush administration’s “war on terror” to tap U.S. largesse and deny civil freedoms. Aside from the 2003 kidnapping issue, U.S. and Algerian authorities have failed to present “indisputable verification of a single act of alleged terrorism in the Sahara,” Keenan said. “Without the GSPC, the U.S. has no legitimacy for its presence in the region,” he said, noting that a growing American strategic dependence on African oil has led the United States to bolster its presence in the region.” [1] In another article by Keenan, in the New Internationalist, quote, “My first book on the Global War On Terror in the Sahara, The Dark Sahara (Pluto 2009), described and explained the development of this extraordinary relationship. It revealed why it was that the Bush administration and the regime in Algiers both needed a ‘little more terrorism’ in the region. The Algerians wanted more terrorism to legitimize their need for more high-tech and up-to-date weaponry. The Bush administration, meanwhile, saw the development of such terrorism as providing the justification for launching a new Saharan front in the Global War On Terror. Such a ‘second front’ would legitimize America’s increased militarization of Africa so as better to secure the continent’s natural resources, notably oil. This, in turn, was soon to lead to the creation in 2008 of a new US combat command for Africa – AFRICOM.” [2]

Sources:
1) SFGate, U.S. takes terror fight to Africa’s ‘Wild West’ – December 27, 2005
2) New Internationalist, How Washington helped foster the Islamist uprising in Mali – December 2012

15) HAS OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM STOPPED TERRORISM IN THE SOMALIAN PENINSULA?

A: The Global Terrorism Index at VisionofHumanity.org has reported that since 2002, Somalia’s ranking has started from 3.23 (2002), 3.18 (2003), 3.11 (2004), 3.86 (2005), 4.21 (2006), 6.44 (2007), 7.10 (2008), 7.17 (2009), 7.04 (2010), 7.17 (2011), 7.24 (2012), 7.41 (2013). This includes a rise in fatalities, injuries and property damages since the War on Terror began. [1] Antifascist Calling reported in February 2010, quote, “During a January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Under Secretary of State for Management, Patrick F. Kennedy, testified that the visa of accused bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, wasn’t revoked at the specific request of secret state agencies. Claiming that “revocation action would’ve disclosed what they were doing,” Kennedy said that allowing the alleged terrorist to keep his visa would have “helped” federal investigators take down the entire network “rather than simply knocking out one solider in that effort. A “soldier” (indicted criminal) who would have murdered 300 air passengers if the detonator concealed in his underpants hadn’t serendipitously failed to explode the device.” [2] If this isn’t convincing evidence that the DHS doesn’t care for “stopping terror” in any genuine manner, I don’t know what to tell you. Evidently, “Operation Enduring Freedom” has only endured in terror proliferation throughout the world – in perfect alignment with the Terror Industrial Complex.

Sources:
1) Global Terrorism Index.
2) Flight 253: Intelligence Agencies Nixed State Department Move to Revoke Bomber’s Visa – February 7, 2010.

16) Does Full Spectrum Dominance help or hinder terror prevention?

A: First, FSD must be defined. Here is the definition of FSD: “the ability of U.S. forces, operating unilaterally or in combination with multinational and inter-agency partners, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the full range of military operations.” SPACOM’s “Vision for 2020” envisions FSD as containing the following three goals: Peacetime engagement, deterrence & conflict prevention, fight & win. [2] Domination is an adversarial strategem itself, ensuring hindrance to counter-terrorism objectives, unless the goal isn’t actually to “stop terror.” [3] The use of “unconventional warfare” under the guise of global dominance is an admitted use of proliferating terrorism, rather than genuinely seeking an end to international terrorism. [4] By seeking dominance over designated “enemy” or adversary nation-states and people’s, FSD does nothing for seeking world peace and everything to motivate terror attacks. I would say, definitely and conclusively, FSD has hindered means of seeking serious prevention of genuine terror threats. If anyone is serious about counter-terrorism measures, FSD is an ideological and practical failure to achieve that goal – unless of course, as mentioned above, the strategy is unconventional warfare, which motivates terrorist “actors” to play their role according to a predetermined plan by military guidelines of deception.

Sources:
1) Merriam-Webster.
2) FAS, Vision for 2020, February 1997.
3) “The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it,
and destroy it where it grows. Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the reservists we have called to active duty.” White House, September 20, 2001.
4) Army Special Operations Forces: Unconventional Warfare, September 2008.

17) If you don’t support the government’s War on Terror, do you sympathize with terrorists?

A: Absolutely not. On a personal level, speaking for myself, I resent the state terrorism of the U.S. government as much as I despise non-state terror groups throughout the world. (To extend that point, also hypocritically U.S.-government backed terrorist outfits as well [1]). In this context, there is no “sympathy for terrorists.” All forms of terror are condemned, with nobody recieving special privilige or immunity over anybody else. I don’t play favoritism when it comes to the subject of terrorism. Nobody is under mandatory obligation to support the GWOT [2], and even if they were, that is an unacceptable societal and globalized normalization that must be overcome.

Sources:
1) Wikipedia: United States and state-sponsored terrorism.
2) Global War on Terrorism.

18) Do FBI entrapment plots or sting operations stop, or proliferate, terrorism?

A: There is no substantial evidence that FBI entrapment has done anything worthwhile in countering serious terrorist threats to the United States, much less stopping terrorism in general. We have several examples to examine, and you can draw your own conclusions: In the case of Michael Reynolds, the FBI promised $40,000 monetary incentive as a goading motivator to CAUSE a terrorist attack, rather then preventing one. [1] An FBI informant planned to LEAD the “Fort Dix Six” into attacking U.S. military personnel and installations and confessed as much [2]; the FBI sent an informant to infiltrate and MOTIVATE the “Newburgh Four” into attacking synagogues and airplanes [3]. In the words of the Judge regarding the Newburgh Four case, she said, quite admirably: ““[The government] CREATED ACTS OF TERRORISM out of [the defendant’s] fantasies of bravado and bigotry, and then MADE THOSE FANTASIES COME TRUE. The government did not have to infiltrate and foil some nefarious plot – there was NO NEFARIOUS PLOT TO FOIL.” [4] In another peculiar case, the FBI GAVE an unsuspecting man the means to bomb The Pentagon, by equipping him with C4 and a remote controlled plane. [5] The FBI GAVE a fake gun and suicide vest to motivate a terrorist attack in the Capitol, who they later busted, undoubtedly to pat themselves on the back for stopping a plot that they themselves assisted in manifesting into reality. [6] An FBI informant MOTIVATED would-be attackers into targeting a bridge in Cleveland, and assisted in the conspiracy to blow up said bridge. [7] In an outrageous case of attempting to CAUSE TERRORISM, the FBI in ’06 had posed as Al Qaeda members to goad the so-called “Liberty City Seven” into attacking the Sears Tower in Chicago, as well as other buildings. [8] For additional information, I recommend the book “The Terror Factory.” [9] Decide for yourselves, but it seems to me that the FBI doesn’t care for “stopping terror” as much as it cares for fabricating it.

Source:
1) Wikipedia: Michael Reynolds.
2) New Jersey News, Informant: “I offered to lead plot” – November 11, 2008.
3) The Guardian, Newburgh Four: poor, black, and jailed under FBI entrapment tactics – December 12, 2011.
4) NYDailynews, Judge slams gov’t in bomb plot case, June 29, 2011.
5) The Australian, U.S. man charged with Pentagon bomb plot, September 29, 2011.
6) Washington Post, Federal agents arrest Amine El Khalifi, February 17, 2012.
7) Los Angeles Times, Cleveland bomb case: Role of FBI informant will be key – May 2, 2012.
8) Wikipedia: Liberty City Seven.
9) Amazon, The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism (January 2013).

22) What effect does Zionism have on the terror industrial complex?

A: Ideologically speaking, Zionism has already achieved it’s stated goal of having a Jewish state in Palestine. [1] Unless the question is meant to address the post-Zionist (Israel already established) geopolitical environment, answering the relevance to the TIC (terror industrial complex) is a bit of a difficult task. The Yinon Plan [2] may be a factor in the modern War on Terror, but it’s academically a conundrum on whether or not Yinon himself sought out Israel Shahak [3] as his medium for whistle-blowing or if Mr. Shahak fabricated the “Yinon Plan” without consulting Oded himself. It’s not my place to get in the middle of whatever the legality of their professional relationship towards each other may be in the context of this document. Historically speaking, this may or may not led credence to the Yinon Plan document, but it’s significant that Israel (the state) supported and continues to work in parallel with Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood in carving out regional neighbors into redrawn borders in the name of it’s own security and sovereignty. [4] Israel’s geopolitical relationship with terrorist groups, in alliance with the U.S. government is consistently examined in question #6, clearing showing that Israel is no less a hypocritical player in the “counter-terrorism” narrative than the U.S. government itself. [5] Whatever your political affiliation or religious adherence, as a question of having a moral compass, both the U.S. and Israeli governments show an astounding double standard and apathy regarding support of terrorists and the goal of allegedly “stopping terror” (George W. Bush’s stated centralized goal for the Global War on Terror) [6] and addressing how “enemy states” support terrorists simultaneously. [7] Just because “they” do it, doesn’t make it right that “we” follow in their footsteps. Benjamin Netanyahu’s “Clean Break: A new strategy for securing the realm” seems to parallel the Yinon Plan, no matter how fictitious or reality-based it may be. [8]
Sources:
1) “Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law.”-Basel Declaration, First Zionist Congress, 1897.
2) The Zionist plan for the Middle East by Israel Shahak.
3) The accredited translator and editor of the above document.
4) Robert Dreyfuss thoroughly examines this relationship in Devil’s Game. To cite a few examples of my point, I’ll provide the following quotes: “In Afghanistan, Israel quietly supported the jihad against the USSR, backing the Muslim Brotherhood-linked fundamentalists who led the mujahideen.” (pg 206) “Israel was not the only support of Ahmed Yassin and the Muslim Brotherhood. Religious elements in Saudi Arabia, too, wanted to undermine the secular PLO, and wealthy Saudi business leaders helped finance Yassin, although his ability to operate in Gaza depended on the goodwill of the Israeli authorities.” (pg 197) The modern terrorist group Hamas, deplorable as they are, were born of an alliance between Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the MB to curtail Arab secularism during the Cold War. This of course, assisted in the rise of regional Islamic terrorist outfits later on, compliments to Israel and it’s “counter-terror” facade.
5) Mujahideen-e Khalq and Jundullah are notable examples. New Yorker, Our men in Iran, April 5, 2012.
6) “The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows. Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the reservists we have called to active duty.” White House, September 20, 2001.
7) Wikipedia, State sponsors of terrorism.
*The foreign governments deemed as such are listed chronologically as: Syria, Libya, Iraq, South Yemen, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. Whether or not you are convinced these governments truly are sponsors of terrorists is entirely up to your own research. In whatever examples that can be convincingly proved for these categorizations, they are also participants in the terror industrial complex (TIC) and deserve equal condemnation for hypocrisy and endangerment to the lives of others. ETTW (end the terror war) is a cause to call out ALL forms of terrorism, state and non-state alike – there are no exceptions.
8) A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm – 2000

23) How was the Muslim Brotherhood started?

A: Hassan Al-Banna is recognized as the founder of the MB. [1] “Hassan al-Banna (1906-1949), learned Islamism from Rashid Rida’s The Lighthouse, and who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928. Banna begat many offspring. Among them were his son-in-law, Said Ramadan, the Muslim Brotherhood’s international organizer, whose headquarters were in Switzerland, and Abul-Ala Mawdudi, the founder of the Islamic Group in Pakistan, the first Islamist political party, who was inspired by Banna’s work. Banna’s other (ideological) heirs set up branches of the Brotherhood in every Muslim state, in Europe and in the United States. Another of Banna’s offspring, a Saudi who took part in America’s Afghan jihad, was Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, the family’s blackest sheep.” [2] “Banna’s death provided an exclamation point for the end of the first era of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the beginning of another. In the wake of Banna’s death, various factions of the MB competed for control, and the party itself drifted in and out of legality, first banned and then tolerated. The new supreme guide, succeeding Banna, was Hassan Ismail al-Hudaybi, an Egyptian judge whose brother was chief of Farouq’s royal household, and whose appointment was engineered by a wealthy landowner in Egypt. The Brotherhood’s factions would each maintain ties to parts of the Egyptian body politic, keeping lines open to the palace, infiltrating the army and the police, and establishing covert contacts with the burgeoning movement of Free Officers who, in 1952, would seize control of Egypt.” [3]
Sources:
1) Wikipedia: Hassan al-Banna
2) Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game, pg 20
3) Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game, pg 63
24) How was ISIS started?
A: Let’s examine the history of ISIS, and what role it plays in the terror industrial complex.
First, history. ISIS can be traced back to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Organization of Monotheism and Jihad). [1] Among the earliest tactics reportedly carried out by the Organization were destruction of embassies, bombings of hotels, mosque bombings, truck bombings, attempted use of chemical weapons, suicide attacks towards oil installations in the Persian Gulf, attacks against churches, attacks against Iraqi National Guard, attempts to destroy border crossings, sectarian violence, beheadings and abductions. After these series of horrendous terrorist attacks against Muslims, Christians, and anyone that won’t bow to their authoritarian Theocratic dictates, the Organized renamed itself into Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, or Al Qaeda in Iraq/Mesopotamia. [2] AQI, the renewed organized was responsible for kidnapping, beheading, dismemberment, car bombs, attacks on Iraqi tribes who resisted it’s influence, attacks on voters, suicide bombing prisons, attacks on security convoys, execution of ambassadors, marketplace bombing, attacks against unemployed Shiites in Baghdad, mosque attacks, hotel attacks, bombing near shrines, killing of diplomats, torture, taking of Baqubah, actual chemical bombings (chlorine), war on Shia Muslims, contest power with the Anbar Awakening, and forming the Mujahideen Shura Council, renamed itself into the “Islamic State of Iraq”, further attempts at attacking border crossings, attacks on naval vessels, targeting of Israeli city (Eilat), rocket attacks on Israel from Lebanon, killing of tourists in Egypt, ties to Fatah Al-Islam and may have connections to Tawhid and Jihad in Syria as well as Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin. (The Armies of Monotheism and Jihad in Palestine) [3] Now, let’s examine the Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC). [4] After it’s disbandment, the TSC became the so-called “Islamic State of Iraq.” The MSC formed an entity called the “Mutayibeen Coalition” showing that the Anbar Awakening had suffered defeats and had since been co-opted by the terrorist group for it’s own purposes of recruitment. The Coalition announced the implementation of Sharia, further attacks on Shiites, kick out the U.S.-NATO occupation (“crusaders”), and to claim violence against anyone who doesn’t accept their brand of “Islam.” The beginnings of the “Islamic State” by a Sunni alliance between the cities of Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salaheddin, Niniveh and parts of Babel and Wasit had been in motion, leading to ISIS as we know it today. Abu Ayyub al-Masri, leader of the MSC sought to rename themselves into ISI (Islamic State of Iraq). Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) [5] is responsible for trying to make a modern-day Caliphate of their own designs, began the formation of it’s own governant “cabinet”, “ministers”, and “supervisors.” This is clearly when the organization transferred from a non-state terrorist outfit into it’s very own terrorist state. ISI has been recorded as responsible for extortion of Iraqi wealth, hijackings, counterfeiting, commanding rations, taking Iraqi ammunition, took oil (Bayji) for the black market, had funding via jihadists in Syria, the hierarchy of AQI/ISI was set that non-Iraqis ruled from the top while Iraqis were bottom-feeders, indicating some sort of nationalist discrimination. (This may or may not be influenced by Zarqawi’s Jordanian identity). They had developed their own bureaucracy, containing governmental records, weapons smuggling from the Syrian border was also one of their operations, they gained a monopoly foothold over Al Anbar province in Iraq. The 2012 withdrawal of U.S. forces allowed ISI to expand it’s fighting forces. AQI held various strongholds throughout Iraq (Fallujah to Qaim and Mosul), using Baqubah as it’s capital city. They are responsible for attempting to assinate the Sunni PM Salam al-Zaubai of al-Maliki’s Iraqi government. Bombing of Iraq’s parliament, further attacks on Iraqi tribes, suspected attacks towards Yazidi, expulsion of Christian Assyrians if they chose not to become adherents to ISI’s version of “Islam”, threatened war against Iran (2007), various Sunni entities held ISI responsible for attacking them (1920 Revolution Brigades, Islamic Army of Iraq, Army of the Mujahideen, Anbar Salvation Council). The 2007 U.S. “surge” was reportedly a response to ISI’s growing violence in Iraq. The 2008 Operation (Phantom Phoenix), under Barack Obama, attempted to survey and hunt down the group. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi assumed leadership of ISI after the deaths of Abu Ayyub al-Masri, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. After the regime change to oust Saddam, many of his former military apparently joined ISI. After obtaining State-status for itself, AQI had apparently expanded like the Muslim Brotherhood, into an international terrorist organization. [6] AQI/ISI sought another name change around 2012-2013, becoming temporarily “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”/ISIL. ISIL expanded into Syria, attacking Assad (cui bono?) and recruiting from Syrian prisons. Jabhat al-Nusra was a sub-organization of ISIL in it’s attacks within Syria, and continues to be just that. There was an apparent split between ISIL and Al-Nusrah (Abu Mohammad al-Golani & Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi contested being a merged force or separate) [7], but for all intents and purposes, they are the same entity derived from Zarqawi’s cloth. ISI prodded itself into the business of the Egyptian revolution of 2011, calling for yet another “Islamic government.” On April 2013, ISI renamed itself conclusively into ISIL/ISIS, these are interchangeable terms. [8]
Before looking at ISIS’ role in the terror industrial complex, I would like to mention the fact that on my blog (endtheterrorwar), during April 2014 I made an official denouncement of ISIS and all they stand for. I will reiterate the message here: “Iraqis don’t deserve religious or political terrorism in ANY form. The presence of one occupation (Al Qaeda) isn’t justified, and doesn’t miraculously nullify the actions of the previous one. (U.S.-NATO) Replacing a country under contested control to one that will absolutely be presented with abusive authoritarians (extremist Sharia adherents) is unjustifiable. No amount of emotional, physical, or intellectual blackmail is respectful. (Claiming the wrong military actions taken against civilians in Fallujah by the previous occupiers somehow resolves the present situation is unconscionable, because it doesn’t). I sincerely doubt the “Islamic state” was born non-violently, any number of so-called “infidels” may have been abused into compliance or killed until its authority was solidified. You want Iraq to be in better conditions? Fine, good. None of the above is any way to go about making that happen. I have no sympathy for willful geopolitical tools or sympathizers of abusive Islamists towards any community. Replacing one abusive power for another is hardly a revolutionary or welcoming societal change for any community in the region, if anything, it’s just another wrong and two wrongs don’t make a right. I object to these obscene suggestive implications by Tumblr user “abu-macintosh” in their recent post about the situation in Fallujah currently. It’s hypocritical of them to denounce the evils of one, while cheering for a different form of evil of another. Just because a centralized authority has named itself doesn’t guarantee peace for Iraq (or anywhere else). Violently-imposed “order,” most certainly, but never peace.” [9] ETTW (End The Terror War) has consistently condemned Zarqawi and his ever-evolving organization, and that fact will never change.
Secondly, let’s see what role ISIS plays in the terror industrial complex. They appear to qualify as “irregulars” of some sort [10], complying with doctrines to subvert Syrians into their own governance while attempting to assist in the regime change of Assad’s Syria. [11] This curiously plays right into Netanyahu’s “Clean Break” doctrine, which fails to address the issue of terrorists [12], please see question #22 regarding Israel’s role in the TIC. Tony Cartalucci’s Land Destroyer blog provides some intriguing perspective on the role of ISIS, amongst his many quality articles regarding this subject are: “U.S. in Iraq: Geopolitical Arsonists Seek to Burn Region” [13], ‘ISIS a pretext for US-sponsored regime change in Iraq’ [14], and ‘ISIS: Region-wide Genocide Portended in 2007 Now Fully Realized’. [15] Finally, I would say ISIS, wittingly or unwillingly, is playing right into the hands of Ralph Peter’s “Blood Borders” [16] and the CENTCOM monopoly over all Middle Eastern governments via Full Spectrum Dominance. This is also aligned with the so-called “birth pangs of a New Middle East” mentioned by Condolezza Rice following the disputed assassination of a Lebanese politican, conveniently pinned on Syria, that may or may not have been a false flag. [17] Unconventional warfare permits ISIS to act as proxies, where intelligence operatives and other U.S. armed forces personnel can take a back seat (covert operations) while Zarqawi’s terrorist organization does their work for them: depopulation, forcibly redrawn borders, targeting America’s designated enemy states – notably neighboring Iran and Syria. For further analysis on the Hairiri assassination, I recommend the following article: “The Hariri Assassination: Israel’s Fingerprints.” [18]
Sources:
1) Wikipedia: Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad
2) Wikipedia: Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn
3) Wikipedia: Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin.
4) Wikipedia: Mujahideen Shura Council (Iraq)
5) Wikipedia: Islamic State of Iraq.
6) “Foreign Terrorist Organizations”. Country Reports on Terrorism 2011.
7) Abouzeid, Rania (23 June 2014). “The Jihad Next Door”. Politico.
8) “ISI Confirms That Jabhat Al-Nusra Is Its Extension In Syria, Declares ‘Islamic State Of Iraq And Al-Sham’ As New Name of Merged Group”. MEMRI. 8 April 2013.
9) Tumblr, Iraqis don’t deserve religious or political terrorism in ANY form – April 20, 2014.
10) Army Special Operations Forces: Unconventional Warfare, September 2008.
11) Preparing the battlefield, July 7, 2007.
12) A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm – 2000
13) Land Destroyer, US in Iraq: Geopolitical Arsonists Seek to Burn Region – June 18, 2014.
14) Land Destroyer, ‘ISIS a pretext for US-sponsored regime change in Iraq’ – August 18, 2014.
15) Land Destroyer, ‘ISIS: Region-wide Genocide Portended in 2007 Now Fully Realized’ – August 20, 2014.
16) Armed Forces Journal, Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look – June 1, 2006.
17) Washington Post, Secretary Rice Holds a News Conference, July 21, 2006.
18) Globalresearch, The Hariri Assassination: Israel’s Fingerprints – July 23, 2010.

 

Video: Tactics Of Trolls & The Truth About FPRN Radio

trollsThis is a public service video. YouTube user/channel, “Hellwarz News” has demonstrated the use of tactics commonly used by agents of disinformation and/or deception. We have chosen to stop further interaction with this user/channel based on analysis being presented in this video, however, he continues to make videos containing lies and slander to this day even though there has been no exchange of words/text since October, 2014.

The purpose of presenting this information is to help the community of honest YouTube users know that false or misleading information is being presented as well as deceptive tactics being used and how to identify them.

Authenticity and reputation are at stake if we don’t speak out against the spreading of lies and sowing of division by specific accounts.


www.fprnradio.com
www.fprnradio.com/about

Shocking Evidence Proving The Iconic Sandy Hook Evacuation Photo Was Taken Prior To Dec. 14th, 2012

Newtown Bee Stinger (video by QKultra)

Video Description:

Resources:
Newtown Bee YouTube Videos

Shannon’s Slideshow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmSBq…

Voket’s Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFP62…

Download Videos with intact meta data with Offliberty:
http://offliberty.com/

Find interesting Exif Meta Data information using Jeffrey’s Exif Viewer:
http://regex.info/exif.cgi

See for Yourself! Try this at home.

I originally found this EXIF stuff while using an offline tool, but the above link is just as good, and produces the same results.

Please subscribe to QKultra’s Youtube channel and support the great work he puts out!

Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_w_cRZ-wOXypj4EMGNH6fw

BREAKING VIDEO: 3 California Hwy Patrol Cars Full Of Officers Overtaken By Crowd

 

B3VTxjwCMAEAkp7.jpg large B3VTwp2CMAAfK7r B3VTwywCcAAuu_D B3VTws6CAAAqV-Q.jpg large

The post BREAKING VIDEO: 3 California Hwy Patrol Cars Full Of Officers Overtaken By Crowd appeared first on breaking911.com.

Ferguson Riots Were 100% Planned (Whole Plot Revealed)

Download and share this! Very serious! [Thanks to Black Child]

The Monsanto Sponsored Ebola Vaccine Will Kill More People Than Ebola Itself

Money-vaccineMonsanto, or Monsatan as many call them, has partnered with the Department of Defense to use a proxy third party company to develop a vaccine against Ebola. The seed money began at $1.5 million. The value of the deal could grow to an estimated $86 million dollars. The company’s name is Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation (TKMR)(TKM.TO), a leading developer of RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics. TKM-Ebola, an anti-Ebola virus RNAi therapeutic, is being developed under a $140 million contract with the U.S. Department of Defense’s Medical Countermeasure Systems BioDefense Therapeutics (MCS-BDTX) Joint Product Management Office”.  As breaking and shocking of a news story as this has the potential to be, the real story is that this is not the most important part of the Ebola threat which has invaded the United States.

The most three evil corporations, in no particular order are Standard Oil, Goldman Sachs and Monsanto. So, has this announcement raised eyebrows? Of course it has. Everything Monsanto touches has a distinct trail of greed, corruption and influence peddling.
On last night’s broadcast of The Common Sense Show, I hosted Joe Hagmann of the Hagmann and Hagmann Report. Joe expressed the view that the real threat to our citizens may not come from the Ebola itself, but it likely would come from the resulting vaccine. In a mid-afternoon phone conversation  I had with Joe Hagmann, prior to the show, I asked him if he had heard about Monsanto being given control of the development of an Ebola vaccine with DOD seed money. Subsequently, the News Director of my show, Annie De Riso discovered that this was the case and the information was less than 48 hours old.

Will the Threat Be In the Form of Ebola Or Will It Come From the Vaccine?

Late last week, I reported the following

A desperate search is on to find the hundreds of passengers who flew on the same jets as Sawyer (i.e. Patient Zero). A total of 59 passengers and crew are estimated to have come into contact with Sawyer and effort is being made to track each individual down. There is an inherent problem with this “track down.  Presumably, some of the passengers connected to other flights, which known to be the case. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that only 20 people, a low estimate given the nature of the airports that Sawyer was traveling in, were connecting to other flights, the spread of the virus would quickly expand beyond any possibility of containment because in less than a half a day, nearly a half a million people would be potentially exposed. Within a matter of a couple of hours, Sawyer’s infected fellow travelers would each have made contact with 200 other passengers and crew. Hours later, these flights would land and these people would go home to the friends, families and coworkers across several continents”.

I believe that as many have reported in the past 48 hours, Ebola has broken any possibility of containment and has now been unleashed on every continent. Many of my medical sources are telling me that modern medicine really does not know what the potential is for Ebola to spread from a significant, regionalized threat to a threat to become a global pandemic which would be as bad or worse than the 1918 Spanish Flu.

On last night’s show, Joe Hagmann expressed the opinion that perhaps the threat would be from the Ebola but from the vaccine. However, I am aware of 100,000 West Africans that are coming into this country, primarily acting as drug couriers. These men come from the seven country region in West Africa where the Ebola outbreak is raging out of control. And course, as I have stated many times, this has led even prominent physicians (e.g. Dr. Jane Orient) to state that it is not a matter of if, but when Ebola is spread throughout America and the world.

The UN Has Been Preparing to Assist with Health Crisis

Since the knowledge that UN military vehicles were being transported around the United States back in May, I have developed two sources from the DEA. One source is newly retired and maintains frequent contact with me. The other source has gone dark for the past 10 days and the covert communication method we were to use does is not working.

how-much-should-people-worry-about-the-unprecedented-ebola-outbreak-in-guineaAt the moment that I was signing off of my show last night, the retired DEA agent called me. He told me that the friendly debate over Ebola that I was having with Joe Hagmann was a meaningless conversation. He said that one of the five strains of Ebola has been weaponized and was developed at Ft. Detrick. He further stated, that this strain of Ebola was released 8 months ago.  What he described is the classic Hegelian Dialectic in which the problem is created and a desired solution is enacted. Joe Hagmann may have been correct  in that the goal is to develop a vaccine. That is where the money is and that is where the future power over the people lies.

History Speaks Will America Listen?

During the H1n1 scare of a few years ago, we know that law enforcement officials in several states practiced a DUI roadblock kind of scenario in states in which they were equipped with mock vaccine testing equipment to tell whether someone, or not, had been given the new vaccine against the virus. The roadblock consisted of a large van for processing, a couple of buses and chase cars on the flanks to run down people who tried to avoid the checkpoint. According to my well-placed sources in Colorado, this was rehearsed over and over. These law enforcement officers were told that their families would be collected by DHS and protected in isolation against the spread of the pathogen and any resulting rioting. Former and highly decorated State Trooper from Kansas, Greg Evensen, stated on my show that these families would be not held for safekeeping, they were to be held hostage to force the law enforcement officials to do the bidding of the powers that be.

The bidding that Greg Evensen was speaking of was the fact that if you did not demonstrate that you had the vaccine, you would be given two choices, immediate injection with the vaccine or your car would be impounded and you would be sent to a medical FEMA camp by one of the busses present at the scene.

At one point during the H1N1 scare, I thought the public’s reaction to forced vaccinations, which began in many hospitals, forced the government to abandon its plans to launch the program. In the present time, I think that this was a beta test designed to put the mechanisms into place and to condition the public that this will someday happen.

I am presently traveling and I contacted two of my sources in law enforcement to ask them if they had done any drills with regard to the outbreak of Ebola. I was told that they had not. However, one source stated that a recent DHS memo reminded the officials that they were to remain current on their containment and interdiction procedures with regard to any virulent outbreaks.

The sum total of what we are looking is this. The short-term goal according to my DEA source is to make money off of the vaccine. The long-term goal is to begin to lockdown the country by using fear and the natural course of Ebola spreading. He stated that once people see communities being exposed, we will accept any restriction including mandatory vaccinations. I told him that no vaccine could be developed, tested and effectively used in a short time. He responded by stating that that the public is too stupid to know the difference. He has a point because that was what the government had done with the vaccine related to the H1N1 scare.

I have real concerns over the safety of such a vaccine. First, there is the Monsanto reputation issue in which they repeatedly proven that they cannot be trusted. Second, producing a vaccine in such a short amount of time is fraught with problems. Third, the use of the infamous adjuvants will no doubt resurface. During the H1N1 scare, it is was discovered that the vaccine was using MF59 and Squaylene in the vaccine to increase the volume of an existing batch. The adjuvants were linked to serious central nervous system damage.

There is another concern that I have as well. In December of 2012, I reported that I had a contact from a FEMA employee who retired and “bugged out” to a communal safe haven with like minded officials from DHS and FEMA. His primary fear was the spread of a pandemic which he expected to happen within two years. His expertise was in counter-bioterrorism. You can read these stories at this link.

In San Diego, in October  31, 2012, DHS ran a Zombie Preparedness Drill and of all things the drill centered around shooting “crazed zombies”. I was told that the new weaponized strain temporarily turns people into people who act like they are on PCP.  The drill was participated in by Navy special forces and the Marines. The drill was later repeated in Idaho by the same entities. And let’s not forget that the homeless are being collected across the country and forcibly detained in makeshift shelters. I would submit that this is another dry run.

Conclusion

What does it all mean? The trend curve of information is pointing to the fact that Ebola is spreading but that the greater threat to the most people will not come from the Ebola but for the treatment of Ebola.  Monsanto needs to watched very carefully because my DEA source states that  vaccine will be on the market by year’s end.

source: dcclothesline.com

  • mostrecentshows
  • Can A Country Survive With Open Borders? - Disassociation Nation - 11/28/16

    Can A Country Survive With Open Borders? - Disassociation Nation - 11/28/16Niz and Paul welcome Shane Radliff to talk about his Direct Action series and a discussion burning up the Liberty community, Muh Borders! It's Spy vs. Spy vs You as the UK sets up to pass the largest domestic spy legistaltion in Western History. What happened to Kanye West? We announce our Tyrant of the week, and find out what's in your Aloe Vera. Disassociation Nation reveals the sordid underbelly of the dystopian reality of the American Dream.  We explore that reality while examining the principles of liberty that could liberate us all from the coercive enterprise that is the United States [more]

    Disassociation Nation - Guests: Lousander Feen & Danny Roldan - 11/21/16

    Disassociation Nation - Guests: Lousander Feen & Danny Roldan - 11/21/16Tonight on Disassociation Nation, Niz and Paul we're joined by Danny Roldan former member of 'We are Change' and Lousander Feen one of the hosts from Freedom Feens. The conversation started with the anti-gun referendum before the conversation switches to a debate on minarchism versus anarchy and how to end the state.  We end the show with Lou, Niz and Paul discussing the EU's attempt to pull Britain back in and how decentralized technologies are undermining the myth of the state.   Disassociation Nation reveals the sordid underbelly of the dystopian reality of the American Dream.  We explore that reality while examining [more]

    Liberty Under Attack - Government Regulations & The Vaping Industry with Guest, Jeff Nyzio - 11/17/16

    Liberty Under Attack - Government Regulations & The Vaping Industry with Guest, Jeff Nyzio - 11/17/16On tonight’s final live broadcast of Liberty Under Attack Radio on the Freedom Phalanx Radio Network, we were joined by Jeff Nyzio, host of Disassociation Nation, another show on the network. For most of the show, we discussed the impact the recent vaping regulations will have on the industry, as well as how it crushed his entrepreneurial venture. In the final segment, we do Fascistbook news and he tell us how to make our own vape juice, and provides some warnings for those that are considering entering the black/grey market. Make sure to find our future shows on iTunes, Tunein Radio, Stitcher [more]

    Disassociation Nation - Guest: Alex James from Backwordz - 11/14/16

    Disassociation Nation - Guest: Alex James from Backwordz - 11/14/16Tonight on Disassociation Nation, Niz and Paul are joined by Alex James from the Band Backwordz to talk about their upcoming album release. The conversation after the half time turns to the incremental organization of state abolition.   Disassociation Nation reveals the sordid underbelly of the dystopian reality of the American Dream.  We explore that reality while examining the principles of liberty that could liberate us all from the coercive enterprise that is the United States of America. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll disassociate from the state. No flag waving here, folks, just unadulterated liberty. Click for More about Disassociation Nation LIVE: Mondays 8:00pm-10:00pm Eastern [more]

    Liberty Under Attack - Moderated Debate on Peaceful Parenting & Spanking - 11/10/16

    Liberty Under Attack - Moderated Debate on Peaceful Parenting & Spanking - 11/10/16On tonight’s broadcast of Liberty Under Attack Radio, we hosted a Peaceful Parenting debate between Kevin Geary and Kyle Rearden; Kevin is for the concept, and Kyle is against it. Please make sure to check out the Twitter link below and let us know who you think won. If you enjoyed this broadcast and appreciate the work we do, please consider contributing financially. Just visit www.libertyunderattack.com and use the buttons on the sidebar. To purchase the direct action series in its entirety, see below. Links: Let us know who you think won [Poll]: https://twitter.com/LUAradio/status/796911801610993665 Check out Kevin’s website: http://revolutionaryparent.com/ Check out Kyle’s website: www.thelastbastille.com Kyle’s [more]

    Liberty Under Attack - The "Sovereign Citizens" are Co-opting the CYVR Remedy - 11/03/16

    Liberty Under Attack - The On this broadcast of Liberty Under Attack Radio, Kyle Rearden joins me as we complete part three in our "sovereign citizen" trilogy. First, I discuss my recent meeting with some college students from the political organization Turning Point USA. Secondly, we discuss the method of strategic withdrawal that we promote, known as cancelling the voter registration. We close out the show with an in-depth discussion regarding a potential co-opting of the CYVR method by those who call themselves "_______ State Nationals" (i.e. Texas, Iowa, Illinois). This is certainly a broadcast you don't want to miss. If you enjoyed this broadcast and [more]

    Liberty Under Attack - Scientific Consensus Series pt. 2 - 10/27/16

    Liberty Under Attack - Scientific Consensus Series pt. 2 - 10/27/16On tonight’s broadcast of Liberty Under Attack Radio, we present part 2 of our scientific consensus series (or, science more generally). Darrell Becker and Dr. Stephanie Murphy join me as we discuss the notion of scientific consensus, concerns with scientific research today, the fascinating human mind when it comes to placebo (and nocebo effects), Stephanie’s experience getting her Ph.D, and much more. The show was entirely off-the-cuff, as the outline wasn’t even touched upon. It was a fantastic discussion. If you enjoyed this broadcast and appreciate the work we do, please consider contributing financially. Just visit www.libertyunderattack.com and use the buttons on [more]

    Disassociation Nation - Taxation is Slavery, and You Love It - 10/24/16

    Disassociation Nation - Taxation is Slavery, and You Love It - 10/24/16Tonight on Disassociation Nation Niz and Paul are joined by Lousander Feen from the Freedom Feens as well as Lisa DeLasho from Nutritional Anarchy. The show kicks off talking about Lisa's current projects. After the 30 minute mark the conversation shifts to taxation and government sanctioned theft. The show wraps up with a few tips on how to avoid the taxman without getting shot. Disassociation Nation reveals the sordid underbelly of the dystopian reality of the American Dream.  We explore that reality while examining the principles of liberty that could liberate us all from the coercive enterprise that is the United [more]

    Liberty Under Attack - Oh, You Think Your Vote Matters in a Presidential Election? That's Cute - 10/23/16

    Liberty Under Attack - Oh, You Think Your Vote Matters in a Presidential Election? That's Cute - 10/23/16Tonight’s broadcast of Liberty Under Attack Radio is titled, “Oh, you think your vote matters in a Presidential election? That’s cute.” Kyle Rearden, our creative consultant, joins us to offer his thoughts and conclusions on the subjects at hand. Namely, the fact that the President is not elected by popular vote (that is, the electorate); rather, the President is chosen by the electors. In other words, your vote especially doesn’t matter in Presidential elections, although that is the one that is the most heavily focused on. We also tell you how government officials in the other two branches of government constitutionally gain [more]

  • addwaystolisten
    archives
    tunein
    itunes
    FPRN Archives
    Whether you want to listen to the newest show, or take a trip to the past & check out some of our oldest broadcasts, you can find it all in the archives. Feel free to browse, download, or just stream, you can do it all right from the show's profile page:

    1. Head to the FPRN Radio Archives.
    2. Select the show of your choice (for show descriptions/bios, see our All Shows Page).
    3. Once on the profile page of the show you selected, you can listen to and/or download the latest broadcast, as well as any previous broadcast.
    Tune In Radio
    Begin listening to the FPRN Radio live stream on your smartphone or mobile device NOW from virtually anywhere with Tune In Radio for Apple iOS and Android:

    1. Go to the App Store on your smartphone or mobile device.
    2. Do a search for Tune In Radio.
    3. Download the App to your smartphone or mobile device.
    4. Once the download is complete, open the App and type FPRN Radio in the search bar.
    5. Click Enter and begin listening.
    6. To save FPRN Radio in the presets, tap on the heart while listening to the stream.
    iTunes
    Listen to your favorite shows on-demand on your PC, smartphone or mobile device when you subscribe to the FPRN Radio iTunes Podcast. Here's how:
    1. To subscribe with your computer, open iTunes, go to the iTunes Store & search for FPRN Radio and subscribe.
    2. To subscribe with your smartphone or mobile device, you will first need a podcasting app.
    3. We recommend Apple's Podcast App(free with the latest iOS), Downcast($1.99 for iOS) or OneCast(free for Android).
    4. Once downloaded, open the app & Browse or Search for FPRN Radio and Subscribe to the podcast.
    stitcher
  • vtuner
    streema
  • streamfinder
    internetradio
  • schedulebanner