Law Professor Attacks Homeschoolers – Believes State Should Choose Parents for Babies

Christian parents need to do their homework on this article. Because he is absolutely correct, if the baby was born in a hospital and the parents did not make a proper claim at birth. The state takes jurisdiction and grants the parents privileges, i.e., parental rights over the child which can be revoked. However, if the parents make the proper claim at birth and do not grant jurisdiction to the state, the state has no say in how the parent decide to educate their children and can not revoke parental rights.

____________________________________________

 

by Terri LaPoint
Health Impact News

A law professor at the oldest law school in the nation believes that there is no inherent right to parent one’s own children.

In an interview for CRTV about homeschooling, Professor James G. Dwyer told syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin that:

The reason that parent-child relationship exists is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws.

An investigation into Dwyer’s writings and history reveals that this alarming statement was not an exaggerated statement taken out of context or misrepresented by a conservative journalist. Instead, the statement appears to be a foundational core belief held by a man who formerly worked in New York state family courts as a Law Guardian, which is the equivalent of a Guardian ad Litem.

Dwyer’s writings now influences policy within the family court system.

James Dwyer teaches college students at William and Mary College in historic Williamsburg, Virginia. Thomas Jefferson, the third United States President and primary author of the Declaration of Independence, was instrumental in establishing William and Mary’s law school program

Dwyer has been a prolific writer on the subject of children’s rights, and his views stand in direct contrast to the Founding Father who penned these immortal words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …

Instead of proclaiming the historical, biological, unalienable right of parents to have the liberty to teach their own children, Professor Dwyer told Michelle Malkin that:

That’s the state that empowers parents to do anything with children, to take them home, to have custody, and to make any kind of decisions about that.

That philosophy plays right into the hands of Child Protective Services officials who believe that it is the state’s right to decide who may or may not parent their own children.

As far back as 1994, Professor Dwyer wrote “Parents’ Religion and Children’s Welfare: Debunking the Doctrine of Parents’ Rights,” published in the California Law Review. In it, he challenged the assumption that “parents should have some rights in connection with the raising of their children,” going as far as to discuss provisions “under the legal regime I propose.”

Question of WHO Controls Children – Parents or State?

It is clear from the 1994 article that he resents any schooling taught from a religious perspective, whether it is from parents sending their children to a Christian school, or from parents rejecting the secularism taught in public schools who choose to homeschool and teach religious principles at home.

Perhaps not surprising is the fact that his own parents sent him to a private Catholic parochial school. (Source) His distaste for that experience colors his writings and philosophy.

Ironically, he wrote almost 25 years ago that:

No one should possess a right to control the life of another person no matter what reasons, religious or otherwise, he might have for wanting to do so.

However, if government, both state and federal, were to implement his philosophy and suggestions into the family court system, then the logical outcome is what currently happens to thousands of children within the foster care/adoption system – the lives of the children are controlled by the foster parents and the social workers.

Testimony given to Health Impact News from both parents and former foster children show that once Child Protective Services is involved, their lives are no longer their own, and CPS micromanages almost every aspect of their lives.

Should the State Choose Parents for All Babies Born?

It is readily apparent from his writings that he values “children’s rights,” but the basic inherent right of any child to have a relationship with their own biological parents seems to elude him. He even believes that it is the right of the state to choose the parents for a child.

In his article, “A Constitutional Birthright,” Dwyer argues:

Courts should recognize that newborn babies, much more clearly than birth parents, have fundamental interests at stake in the state’s selection of legal parents and, therefore, a much stronger claim to constitutional protection.

The reality is that children who are adopted almost universally have a drive as they grow older to find their “real parents.” It is largely adults who were adopted as children who push for open adoption. There is something within them that needs to find out where they came from and who they are.

In the name of “children’s rights,” lawyers and policy makers such as James Dwyer would deny them the fundamental right to know their own heritage and parents in the event that the state decides to “select” their parents for them.

This convoluted logic is the antithesis of parental rights, and at the same time, it stands in stark contrast to the biological, psychological, emotional, spiritual, physiological, and even health needs of children.

Children need their parents. Studies and child welfare data shows that children thrive and grow better in their own homes than in foster care. Even if their own home is less than ideal, children who are taken from their families and placed into foster care or adopted out are at least 6 times more likely to be raped, molested, abused or killed than if they were left at home

Foster Care Children are Worse Off than Children in Troubled Homes – The Child Trafficking Business

Lone Radical Voice or Influence for Government Policy?

Unfortunately, as radical as Professor Dwyer’s philosophy of parental and child rights is, he appears to have influence in policy making.

dwyer-photoset

Professor James Dwyer (Source)

His works were cited as sources for an article, “The Harms of Homeschooling,” by Robin L. West, published in Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly.

The author sees homeschoolers as a threat to the state system, and says that the vast majority of referrals to Child Protective Services – 95% – come from public school teachers and administrators. (Note: The data we have found indicates that the figure was less than 20% in 2015, but school personnel still represent the largest group of reporters to CPS, followed by law enforcement, and medical personnel – Source.)

Other professors and colleagues at William and Mary College have praised his influence. Neal Devins has high praise for him, which should be alarming to every person in the United States who is concerned about parental rights:

Jim Dwyer has done what most academics aspire to–to change the conversation in their field. Jim’s work on children’s rights and his questioning of widely shared assumptions about parental authority have transformed the academic dialogue about the parent-child-state relationship.

State Control Over Children to Implement Mandatory Vaccines?

Dwyer argues that homeschooling can shield parents from being reported to CPS.

Another concern presented by West is that homeschooled children are less likely to be fully vaccinated, and thus present a theoretical public health risk.

Many parents would argue that the risk is in the vaccinations, but those who embrace the philosophies of Dwyer and West are more likely to ignore those parental concerns.

Dwyer Praises Clinton’s Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 Which Increased Child Trafficking

Among parents fighting to get their children home and out of the control of Child Protective Services, probably the most hated piece of legislation is the Clinton’s Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA).

The law provides financial incentives to state social workers and agencies to steal children away from their families, even if they have not abused or harmed their children.

There are billions of dollars secured by states through the Title IV-E funding in ASFA.

Child Kidnapping and Trafficking: A Lucrative U.S. Business Funded by Taxpayers Called “Foster Care”

Professor James Dwyer sees this as moving in the direction that he advocates. He praises ASFA and says that family law is:

becoming more child-centered and protective in order to avoid the social costs of harm to children. A great example is the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, which requires states to authorize termination of parental rights in some cases before a child has been maltreated, … (Source)

And so the war for America’s children continues, pitting parents against the State. Those who choose to homeschool their children are clearly standing in the way of the objectives of the State.

REPORT: NSA OFFERED TO GIVE FBI ALL OF HILLARY CLINTON’S MISSING EMAILS. COMEY SAID NO.

I was taught as a young boy by my mother, “…be sure your sins will find you out.” You see the truth is like cream – it always rises to the top. Whenever someone tries to suppress it with lies and deception, it never works – sooner or later the truth comes out. Hopefully, these treasonous conspiratorial perpetrators –  the Clintons, Comey, Lynch, Mueller, et al. will be exposed for the criminals they are…

What former FBI Director James Comey did is disgusting, despicable and a breach of trust of his duties as the highest ranking law enforcement agent. In my view, he, along with Lynch and the Clintons ought to be indicted and imprisoned for their crimes against the American people.

_______________________

SOURCE: DC WHISPERS

The New York Post’s John Crudele had an interesting column outlining how the bogus Democrat/Media/Deep State instigated Trump investigation is backfiring on Democrats as the American people grow increasingly weary of repeated allegations without actual proof.Beyond that fatigue is something even more concerning for Democrats. The investigation is actually shedding light on wrongdoing by figures like Hillary Clinton and James Comey – NOT Donald Trump.

Check it out:

————

There’s a lot going on in the Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump/Russia investigation that all the highfalutin’ newspapers that cover politics are still trying to ignore.

Well, investors had better know this stuff before it bites them in the assets. So here goes.

Numerous reports coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week said that former FBI Director James Comey made the decision not to refer Clinton for prosecution long before he even interviewed key witnesses, including Hillary.

Remember, the Republicans now control this committee. So bad news isn’t going to be stifled anymore.

Clinton, you probably remember, “lost” her private emails, which she’d been storing on a personal computer server. Comey chastised her harshly in a televised speech but then said there was a unanimous decision not to recommend prosecution.

Clinton’s emails, which were stolen by the Russians, have never been found. But as I’ve mentioned numerous times, the messages are still in the possession of the National Security Agency (NSA), which offered to give them to the FBI.

Comey turned down that offer, according to a source who has been very reliable.

I’ve also mentioned that Comey fibbed when he said his agents unanimously agreed that prosecution was unnecessary. In fact, my source says that FBI agents were irate about the decision not to go after Clinton.

The controversy got pretty intense, which may be why Comey forced agents who worked on the Clinton matter to sign additional nondisclosure agreements.

There was another important development last week when a federal judge ordered the FBI to disclose more details about how it handled the Clinton investigation. That could put Comey in a hotter spot than he’s already in.

What’s this got to do with the investigation of Trump and any influence the Russians may have had over the last presidential election? Absolutely nothing.

But as I’ve said before, any investigation of Trump was likely to backfire when investigators started to look at the Democrats and their dealings.

And that’s exactly what is starting to happen.

Full report: HERE

——————-

Clearly James Comey was involved in covering up for Hillary Clinton while at the same time weaponizing the FBI to be used against Donald Trump – both very serious miscarriages of justice.

Here’s the thing – Comey has already indicated how his actions were colored by input from then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch of the infamous secret snakes-on-a-plane meeting with Bill Clinton.

Loretta Lynch answered only to Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett.

Indeed.

 

Former U.S. Attorney On Awan Indictment: “There Is Something Very Strange Going On Here”

This is a story getting very little attention in the main stream media, and yet it has huge potential for exposing blatant fraud, the complete corruption of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Clinton’s, the Global Initiative Foundation; and their involvement in the homicide of Seth Rich – the now deceased DNC staffer found dead after allegedly leaking the DNC “John Podesta” emails to Wikileaks.org right before the 2016 Presidential Elections.

________________________

Former U.S. Attorney On Awan Indictment: “There Is Something Very Strange Going On Here”

Tyler Durden's picture

We’ve written frequently over the past couple of months about the litany of unanswered questions surrounding the mysterious case of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s (DWS) IT staffers.  Why did DWS seemingly threaten the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with “consequences” for holding equipment that was confiscated as part of an ongoing legal investigation?  Why did DWS keep Awan on her taxpayer funded payroll all the way up until the day he was arrested by the FBI at Dulles airport while trying to flee the country to Pakistan?  What, if anything, does the Awan family know about the DNC hacks that may have caused DWS to act in this way?

Now, Andrew McCarthy III, the former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York who led the prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, says there is “something very strange” about the recent indictment filed against Imran Awan and his wife Hina Alvi in the District of Columbia.

In a National Review article, McCarthy points out that it’s not what’s in the indictment that is necessarily surprising but rather what is seemingly intentionally omitted.  For instance, McCarthy points out that “the indictment appears to go out of its way not to mention” that Imran was apprehended while in the process of fleeing the country, a fact that would seem to be the best evidence available to prove the fraud charges.

Source: Zero Hedge

Chief Obamacare Architect Sacked After Fraudulent Billing Investigation

Chief Obamacare Architect Sacked After Fraudulent Billing Investigation

For all the Affordable Care Act supporters, here you have it. The Chief architect caught fraudulently billing the State of Vermont for work not actually done. Jonathan Gruber was the chief architect of the Affordable Healthcare Act; its no wonder this legislation is so bad. He should be thrown in prison and his health care bill needs to be repealed and replaced with a more honest healthcare plan.

For those who don’t know Jonathan Gruber. He is famous for his quote regarding the Affordable Healthcare Act: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he said during one health care conference.

_______________________________

Vermont’s Attorney General has settled the state’s claims of fraud against Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who served as a technical consultant for President Barack Obama and as one of the chief architects of Obamacare.

Under the terms of the settlement, Gruber will no longer work as a taxpayer-funded economic consultant for the state’s health care system and he won’t seek to be paid any money he might be owed, reports the Rutland Herald, a Vermont newspaper.

Source: The Daily Caller

Suicided? Despite No Gun, Police Say Lawyer Connected to DNC Fraud Suit Shot Himself

How is it the body count continue to climb where the Clintons are involved and yet, no one seems to care or even notice? What’s most troubling is half of the American people voted for her in the last Presidential election. The Clinton cabal needs to be dwelt with and put in prison where they belong. Trump drain the swamp.

The Best in uncensored news, information, and analysis

Source: Suicided? Despite No Gun, Police Say Lawyer Connected to DNC Fraud Suit Shot Himself

USA Today predicts: ‘You Will Get Chipped – Eventually’

This has been the goal of the Rothchild family for years according to an interview done by Aaron Russo before his untimely death. They are going to continue to push this agenda until it becomes a reality unless “we the people” wake up and rebel against it.

The Best in uncensored news, information, and analysis

Source: USA Today predicts: ‘You Will Get Chipped – Eventually’

U.S. Top Country for Gun Ownership, Not Even in Top 10 for Firearm Deaths

On October 22 The Telegraph published a map showing the U.S. leads the world in private firearm ownership but does not even crack the Top 10 when it comes to firearm-related deaths.

According to the Telegraph, the countries with highest per-capita gun ownership are:

  1. USA – 112.6 guns per 100 residents
  2. Serbia – 75.6
  3. Yemen – 54.8
  4. Switzerland – 45.7
  5. Cyprus – 36.4
  6. Saudi Arabia – 35
  7. Iraq – 34.2
  8. Uruguay – 31.8
  9. Sweden – 31.6
  10. Norway – 31.3

Note–the Telegraph presents gun ownership as so expansive in the U.S. that guns actually outnumber people. Yet the U.S. does not appear on the list of the Top 10 countries for firearm-related deaths. Those countries are:

  1. Honduras – 67.18 per 100,000 residents per year
  2. Venezuela – 59.13
  3. Swaziland – 37.16
  4. Guatemala – 34.1
  5. Jamaica – 30.72
  6. El Salvador – 26.77
  7. Colombia – 25.94
  8. Brazil – 21.2
  9. Panama – 15.11
  10. Uruguay – 11.52

The map and the accompanying Telegraph article were drawn from the Small Arms Survey and the 2012 Congressional Research Service Report. As Breitbart News previously reported, the CRS report shows privately owned firearms jumped from 192 million in the U.S. in 1994 to 310 million in 2009. At the same time, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate–which was 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993–fell to 3.6 per 100,000 by 2000. Gun sales continued to surge and the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate fell to 3.2 in 2011.

Think about it–as gun ownership rose, the murder rate plummeted in the U.S. Couple that with the fact that only one of the Top 10 countries for gun ownership is also in the Top 10 for firearm-related deaths–Uruguay is number eight for gun ownership number 10 for gun deaths–and the point is clear: More guns correlate with less crime.

Ironically, the city of Chicago has one of the nations toughest gun laws, and so far in 2016 there have been over 3,500 shootings. This would tend to contradict President Obama’s remarks made back in October 2015.

We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals [to] still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence.

Kurtis Richard Kallenbach

New Video Series – A Must Watch!

What does one do when they realize all of what they’ve been taught their whole in life by people they’ve trusted and believed without question, is simply not true.

It causes what is known as “cognitive dissonance,” a psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously. This occurs because the truth of the matter is actually diametrically opposed to, or opposite what you’ve been taught.

After years of combing through ancient ecclesiastical archives and records, Kurtis Richard Kallenbach uncovers a deeply hidden system of pledging biological material, which unknowingly implicates everyone by presumption, and they become unsuspecting subscribers to the ROMAN CATHOLIC, Gregorian [circa 1582] anno Domini calendar timeline story, which in Medieval Latin, means in the year of the Lord 1 

Remember the famous quote by Colonel Edward Mandel House:

“Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that’s you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging….” 2

Watch this series of videos to gain insight into the reality we find ourselves despite what you think you know or understand, or have been taught your whole life.

His contact information: www.kurtisrichardkallenbach.xyz

 

Notes:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini#cite_note-8
  2. 1913 to 1921 (exact date unknown):  Colonel Edward Mandel House to Woodrow Wilson found in Wilson’s personal diary/logs.

A world war has begun. Break the silence.

by John Pilger | 20 March 2016

I have been filming in the Marshall Islands, which lie north of Australia, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Whenever I tell people where I have been, they ask, “Where is that?” If I offer a clue by referring to “Bikini”, they say, “You mean the swimsuit.”

Few seem aware that the bikini swimsuit was named to celebrate the nuclear explosions that destroyed Bikini island. Sixty-six nuclear devices were exploded by the United States in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958 — the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs every day for twelve years.

Bikini is silent today, mutated and contaminated.  Palm trees grow in a strange grid formation. Nothing moves. There are no birds. The headstones in the old cemetery are alive with radiation. My shoes registered “unsafe” on a Geiger counter.

Standing on the beach, I watched the emerald green of the Pacific fall away into a vast black hole. This was the crater left by the hydrogen bomb they called “Bravo”. The explosion poisoned people and their environment for hundreds of miles, perhaps forever.

On my return journey, I stopped at Honolulu airport and noticed an American magazine called Women’s Health. On the cover was a smiling woman in a bikini swimsuit, and the headline: “You, too, can have a bikini body.”  A few days earlier, in the Marshall Islands, I had interviewed women who had very different “bikini bodies”; each had suffered thyroid cancer and other life-threatening cancers.

Unlike the smiling woman in the magazine, all of them were impoverished: the victims and guinea pigs of a rapacious  superpower that is today more dangerous than ever.

I relate this experience as a warning and to interrupt a distraction that has consumed so many of us.  The founder of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays, described this phenomenon as “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the habits and opinions” of democratic societies. He called it an “invisible government”.

How many people are aware that a world war has begun? At present, it is a war of propaganda, of lies and distraction, but this can change instantaneously with the first mistaken order, the first missile.

In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make “the world free from nuclear weapons”. People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

It was all fake. He was lying.

The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories.  Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion.

A mini nuclear bomb is planned. It is known as the B61 Model 12. There has never been anything like it. General James Cartwright, a former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, “Going smaller [makes using this nuclear] weapon more thinkable.”

In the last eighteen months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two — led by the United States — is taking place along Russia’s western frontier.  Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.

Ukraine – once part of the Soviet Union –  has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority.

This is seldom news in the West, or it is inverted to suppress the truth.

In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — next door to Russia – the US military is deploying combat troops, tanks, heavy weapons. This extreme provocation of the world’s second nuclear power is met with silence in the West.

What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against China.

Seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a “threat”.  According to Admiral Harry Harris, the US Pacific commander, China is “building a great wall of sand in the South China Sea”.

What he is referring to is China building airstrips in the Spratly Islands, which are the subject of a dispute with the Philippines – a dispute without priority until Washington pressured and bribed the government in Manila and the Pentagon launched a propaganda campaign called “freedom of navigation”.

What does this really mean?  It means freedom for American warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China.  Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California.

I made a film called The War You Don’t See, in which I interviewed distinguished journalists in America and Britain: reporters such as Dan Rather of CBS, Rageh Omar of the BBC, David Rose of the Observer.

All of them said that had journalists and broadcasters done their job and questioned the propaganda that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; had the lies of George W. Bush and Tony Blair not been amplified and echoed by journalists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq might not have happened, and  hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today.

The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or  China is no different in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western “mainstream” — a Dan Rather equivalent, say –asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea.

The answer ought to be glaringly obvious. The United States is encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear -armed bombers.

This lethal arc extends from Australia to the islands of the Pacific, the Marianas and the Marshalls and Guam, to the Philippines, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and  across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India. America has hung a noose around the neck of China. This is not news. Silence by media; war by media.

In 2015, in high secrecy, the US and Australia staged the biggest single air-sea military exercise in recent history, known as Talisman Sabre. Its aim was to rehearse an Air-Sea Battle Plan, blocking sea lanes, such as the Straits of Malacca and the Lombok Straits, that cut off China’s access to oil, gas and other vital raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.

In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist.  He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure.  That alone should arouse our scepticism.

Trump’s views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.

According to one prodigious liberal commentator, Trump is “unleashing the dark forces of violence” in the United States. Unleashing them?

This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans. This is the country that has attacked and sought to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed from Asia to the Middle East, causing the deaths and dispossession of millions of people.

No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America’s wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as “a world substantially made over in [America’s] own image”.  The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. Heretics would be converted, subverted, bribed, smeared or crushed.

Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn’t want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted “exceptionalism” is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.

As presidential  election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies – just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about “hope”. And the drool goes on.

Described by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones as “funny, charming, with a coolness that eludes practically every other politician”, Obama the other day sent drones to slaughter 150 people in Somalia.  He kills people usually on Tuesdays, according to the New York Times, when he is handed a list of candidates for death by drone. So cool.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran with nuclear weapons.  As Secretary of State under Obama, she participated in the overthrow of the democratic government of Honduras. Her contribution to the destruction of Libya in 2011 was almost gleeful. When the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was publicly sodomised with a knife – a murder made possible by American logistics – Clinton gloated over his death: “We came, we saw, he died.”

One of Clinton’s closest allies is Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of State, who has attacked young women for not supporting “Hillary”. This is the same Madeleine Albright  who infamously celebrated on TV the death of half a million Iraqi children as “worth it”.

Among Clinton’s biggest backers are the Israel lobby and the arms companies that fuel the violence in the Middle East.  She and her husband have received a fortune from Wall Street. And yet, she is about to be ordained the women’s candidate, to see off the evil Trump, the official demon. Her supporters include distinguished feminists: the likes of Gloria Steinem in the US and Anne Summers in Australia.

A generation ago, a post-modern cult now known as “identity politics” stopped many intelligent, liberal-minded people examining the causes and individuals they supported — such as the fakery of Obama and Clinton;  such as bogus progressive movements like Syriza in Greece, which betrayed the people of that country and allied with their enemies.

Self absorption, a kind of “me-ism”, became the new zeitgeist in privileged western societies and signaled the demise of great collective movements against war, social injustice, inequality,  racism and sexism.

Today, the long sleep may be over. The young are stirring again. Gradually. The thousands in Britain who supported Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader are part of this awakening – as are those who rallied to support Senator Bernie Sanders.

In Britain last week, Jeremy Corbyn’s closest ally, his shadow treasurer John McDonnell, committed a Labour government to pay off the debts of piratical banks and, in effect, to continue so-called austerity.

In the US, Bernie Sanders has promised to support Clinton if or when she’s nominated. He, too, has voted for America’s use of violence against countries when he thinks it’s “right”. He says Obama has done “a great job”.

In Australia, there is a kind of mortuary politics, in which tedious parliamentary games are played out in the media while refugees and Indigenous people are persecuted and inequality grows, along with the danger of war. The government of Malcolm Turnbull has just announced a so-called defence budget of $195 billion that is a drive to war.  There was no debate. Silence.

What has happened to the great tradition of popular direct action, unfettered to parties? Where is the courage, imagination and commitment required to begin the long journey to a better, just and peaceful world? Where are the dissidents in art, film, the theatre, literature?

Where are those who will shatter the silence? Or do we wait until the first nuclear missile is fired?

This is an edited version of an address by John Pilger at the University of Sydney, entitled A World War Has Begun. Follow John Pilger on Twitter @johnpilger

U.S. Approves United Nation’s Use of Military Force on American Soil

United States Politicians Gleefully Approve of United Nations Invasion of America

Kristan T. Harris | American Intelligence Report | July 13, 2016

United Nation military troops may soon arrive and see action on American soil following the United States’ announcement of support for “a set of principles that give a green light for U.N. peacekeeping troops and police to use force to protect civilians in armed conflicts,” Military Times reports.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told attendees at an important U.N. meeting that the United States was “proud” and “humbled” to be a included in the new agenda and promised to follow by the 18 pledges, Fox News reports.

The arrival of the United Nations requires federalization of police in order to set a global standard of law enforcement. President Barrack Obama has pounced on the opportunity to exploit recent shootings to push for the federalization of local police forces.

More federalization of local police, collaborated with the arrival of the United Nations military presence, could mean big trouble for liberty and freedom of speech in America.

Videos are flooding the internet documenting the slow-moving invasion of United Nations military-like vehicles across America.

This is not the first time American politicians have attempted to sell their citizens out to the powers of the United Nations.

The UN’s first attempt to capture America was in 1951, under a top secret program titled, “operation AGGRESSI.”

In strange fashion, forces flying the flag of the United Nations began to occupy small towns and cities across the United States. This was intended to test the will of the people and see if they would accept a UN “takeover.” The test failed and sparked controversy and concerns over a “revolution-in-the-making” that would destroy any plot formulated by the Council on Foreign Relations and the United Nations.

Project AGGRESSI forces were quickly met with much resistance and silently left occupied government buildings and removed United Nation flags nationwide. Jewish broadcaster Myron C. Fagan documented the secretive operation in the 1960’s claiming “the UN ‘invasions’ were intended to be completely hush-hush. The Mass Media were very accommodating and the local newspapers and Radio Stations in the ‘invaded’ cities were kept silent under order of the UN. However, in several of the cities the local police refused to be ‘captured’. That caused quite an uproar — true, only locally, but it threatened to spread nationwide, especially after troops and officers assigned to additional ‘invasion units’ refused to ‘serve’. The alarmed plotters hastily halted all further ‘invasions’.”

Webster’s dictionary defines “treason” as: “the crime of trying to overthrow your country’s government or of helping your country’s enemies during war.” Let that sink in.