The Rise of History's Biggest Empire

Storyline

The new documentary titled The Rise of History's Biggest Empire explores the origins and current mechanics behind America's forceful dominance on the world stage. According to the views expressed in the film, the United States frequently hides behind the guise of diplomacy and democratic outreach in its quest to force its will upon foreign regions throughout the globe. The wealthiest interests are the primary beneficiaries of these actions while the less fortunate are discarded and marginalized as never before.
Throughout history, the American empire has been established and sustained through episodes of intervention - usually in the form of military might - in places like the Middle East, Latin America, and even within its own borders. The film sets forth a series of examples in support of its thesis, including incendiary actions in Guatemala in 1952, Chile in the 1970's, and the invasion of Iraq in the past decade.
In some of the instances presented in the film, the United States operates in shadow to overthrow democratically elected leaders and to replace them with figures who are more sympathetic to U.S. interests. These interests are often not in step with those of their own people.
Another area of controversy explored in the film regards the countless military bases operated by the United States all over the world. The messages received from the highest levels of governmental authority assure the people that these bases are erected and continue to operate as a means of spreading and maintaining peace throughout each region. "These bases all too often are actually increasing military tensions," claims David Vine, an anthropology professor at American University, author of Base Nation, and a key interview subject in the film. "I think it's worth considering for people in the United States how we would feel with a foreign base on our soil."
The premiere episode of an investigative series from world news organization teleSUR, The Rise of History's Biggest Empire is a compact treatment of a complex history. Nevertheless, as with all worthwhile documentary works, the film presents its provocative material in a manner that inspires valuable thought and discussion.

Public mostly unaware of the pending Euthanasia Law in Canada

I still find it hard to believe that most people I speak do not know about the pending euthanasia law.  They do not even know what a DNR is.  So how can this nightmare be happening.  No one seems to trust doctors and yet we are giving them legal license to help someone commit suicide.  This law can also be used by hospital administrations (and the government) to hasten death in order to save a few dollars.

The consultation process is a joke; it is only a public relations vehicle that is being manipulated by the pro euthanasia lobby.  And who are those who want euthanasia: they are predominately white, middle aged, educated professionals who are control freaks wanting a safe and painless death with the help of a doctor.  The rest of us will be collateral damage.

Giving doctors the power to cause your death assumes that all doctors are ethical and all acts with be done within the law.  This a a big assumption and carries no guarantees.  Safeguards cannot stop human nature from make mistakes.  It was for this reason that capital punishment was eradicated.

As for capacity, the definition rests with the doctors.



.

Euthanasia dead in Britain 11 September 2015

Saturday, 12 September 2015

Defeat of the Marris Assisted Dying Bill – some reflections on how MPs voted

The Assisted Dying (No 2) Bill of Labour MP Rob Marris was the eleventh attempt in twelve years to legalise assisted suicide through British Parliaments.

But its overwhelming defeat yesterday (11 September 2015) by a margin of 212 votes (330 to 118) should settle this matter for a decade.

It is striking (and indeed fitting) that this happened the very day after World Suicide Prevention Day. The bill now cannot proceed further. It is dead.

There is clearly no chance at all of a similar bill passing through the Commons in the current parliament and even in the (now) unlikely event of a Labour victory in 2020 it is virtually inconceivable that the views of MPs will change enough to make it likely in the next parliament either.

MPs dealt the bill a resounding defeat largely driven by concerns about the risks it posed to vulnerable people who would have felt under pressure to end their lives so as not to be a burden to family, relatives, caregivers or a society short of resources. Six in ten who die under a similar law in Washington State US give this reason.

Overall 74% of MPs voted against the bill, a proportion almost identical to the 72% who opposed the last bill of its kind in the House of Commons in 1997. So there has been essentially no shift in parliamentary opinion in the last 20 years.

Rob Marris conceded in a BBC interview after the debate that he did not foresee another attempt in the Commons in this parliament and in fact called on the government to invest more in palliative care, a move which I would strongly support. Patients whose symptoms are properly controlled do not generally want help to kill themselves. 

You can read the full four hour parliamentary debate on Hansard and see reaction to the result on you tube along with my comments on what it means.

The Daily Mail has also given a full list of how MPs voted by party which I have reproduced below.

Overall out of 650 MPs, a total of 448 took part in the vote.

118 MPs supported the bill (27 Conservative, 72 Labour, 14 SNP, 3 Lib Dem and 1 Green).

330 voted against it (210 Conservative, 91 Labour, 11 SNP, 3 Lib Dem, 1 UKIP, 8 DUP, 3 SDLP, 1 Independent).

Here are some preliminary quick reflections on how people voted.

1. This was a huge (almost unprecedented) turnout considering this was a private member’s bill debate on a Friday when most MPs would be expected to be in their local constituencies. It is a measure of how important they considered the issue to be. 

2. Over half of all MPs (330) voted against it meaning that it would have been defeated even if all 650 MPs had been present.

3. More Labour MPs (91) voted against the bill than supported it (72) and the SNP and Lib Dems were more or less evenly split. This is hugely significant as it signals that assisted suicide is not a simple left/right political issue. In fact suicide prevention and protection of vulnerable people from exploitation and abuse resonate strongly with left wing politicians.

4. Most party leaders did not vote. Prime Minister David Cameron (Conservative) was not present. Nor was Tim Farron (Lib Dem), Angus Robertson (SNP) or Jeremy Corbyn (Labour). However all four had previously signalled their opposition to the bill.

5. Former Labour leaders and Blairites generally supported the bill. These included former Labour leader Ed Miliband and Deputy Leader (and recently acting Leader) Harriet Harman.

6. Medically qualified MPs were generally strongly opposed, notably former cabinet minister Liam Fox (Conservative), Sarah Woollaston (Conservative) and SNP health spokesperson Philippa Whitford.

7. Many current cabinet ministers opposed the Bill including Theresa May (Home Secretary), Michael Fallon (Defence), Michael Gove (Lord Chancellor), Iain Duncan Smith (Work and Pensions), Jeremy Hunt (Health), Chris Grayling (Leader of the House of Commons), Justine Greening (International Development), Patrick McLoughlin (Transport), Theresa Villiers (Northern Ireland), Stephen Crabb (Wales), Oliver Letwin (Duchy of Lancaster), David Mundell (Scotland), Robert Halfon (without portfolio), Greg Hands (Treasury),  Mark Harper (Chief Whip) and Jeremy Wright (Attorney General).

8. Other prominent MPs who opposed the bill included former London Mayor Boris Johnson, former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, former Conservative cabinet ministers Eric Pickles and Peter Bottomley and former Labour Cabinet ministers Alan Johnson and David Lammy.

9. Former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Keir Starmer, now a Labour MP, voted in favour of the bill. Perhaps this explains his apparent reluctance to prosecute people whilst in office. It will certainly raise further discussion about whether or not his published prosecution criteria amounted to stealth legalisation.

re number 9:

Is this what they are doing in BC re illegal DNRs resulting in death: not prosecuting doctors. There has to be others besides me who have complained about illegel DNRs.

the Vancouver Province and Elaine Peaston v. BC College of Physicians and Surgeons

I tried to find out more about Elaine Peaston vs BC College of Physicians and Surgeons (see post August 29 2015) and I searched the Province newspaper for her name.  Quess what.  I could not find it in the Province search function.  It is gone like it never was there.  It reminded me of wanting to find out what happened to Mary Turner in 2013.  I put an ad in the Prince George paper and it was to be on-line.  I could not find it.   VCH knew I wanted to know what happened to Mary and now Elaines litigation is not on its database.  When I checked the court registry on Randys case to find Dr. Dunnes Affidavit and the Affidavit of Kip Woodwards secretary, both were missing.  Is this called damage control. Well, I can only speculate that the medical establishment seems to have tremendous power with the courts and the press.

I feel vomitoid.

PS Sept 2 2015, I found the Province article on a post. Elaines segment had  5,322,247 page views. So much for damage control. I hope she is aware of what happened was read by millions.  Why cannot doctors tell the truth and then there would be no need for risk management departments to hide the truth (evidence). To think the College of Physicians and Surgeons might have gone that far to protect itself.  But then it might have been Elaine who did not want it in the newspapers.  I do not know. 


What tangled webs we weave when we set out to deceive.


from Voice of Gone Ballistic blog September 1 2015
Audrey Jane Laferriere
5976 Cambie Steet
Vancouver, BC
604.321.2276;778.689.2276
amended 3 Septemer 2015



see Bullyville.com partners with Guns N'Roses Lead Guitarist DJ Ashba, search Elaine Peaston BullyVille.com

page views at September 4, 2015 at 7;00 pm :5,336,289

How many of you are aware of what is happening to Planned Parenthood in the United States.  It is going to be the end of Hillary Clinton.  Planned Parenthood is a non-profit but it gets half of its yearly $billion budget from the US government to do abortions.  It also sells aborted baby parts (see videos).  I can not find any information on this aspect of Planned Parenthood in the Canadian media but it is on the internet and LifeNews is a good source.The President of Planned Parenthood and her high level executives who are not even doctors make more money than the President of the United States.


.

.


.

.



.

Trust the medical profession, I think not.

I was psychologically harassed (bullied) by George Pearson Center and Risk Management Vancouver General Hospital for years, It is not bullying to them, it is just the way it is and has always been.--and then I read the article below.  The harassment starts at the very top.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following an article from the Vancouver Province. And the College Physicians and Surgeons

A former top official at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. is suing her former bosses for wrongful dismissal, alleging she was harassed and bullied on the job.

Elaine Peaston, the deputy registrar of the college’s legal department, names college registrar Dr. Heidi Oetter and Michael Epp, the chief operating officer, as defendants along with the college.

She says that in the spring of 2009, as a result of a significant increase in work hours and responsibilities, she began to experience depression and stress and felt generally overwhelmed.

In a notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Peaston says her doctor wrote a note to the college stating that for medical reasons she needed to limit her work schedule.

Oetter and the college ignored the note and refused to accommodate her medical needs, says Peaston, who was hired by the college initially in 1994 and became a deputy registrar in 2004.

In January 2010, her condition had not improved, another medical letter was sent to the college and she provided “considerable detail” about her issues, thereby exposing her vulnerabilities in expectation Oetter wouldn’t harass or bully her, she says.

The college, the regulatory body for B.C.’s doctors, still refused to accommodate her medical problems and in the summer of 2011, the workload increased and she had to cancel her holidays.

She sought legal advice on how to deal with what she calls the “growing culture” within the college of hostility directed by other departments at her department.

Then a dispute arose over staffing levels and she asked whether Oetter was trying to get rid of her but was told everything was fine, she says.

Concerns came up about a performance evaluation that Peaston said was “devastating” and inconsistent with assessments and comments from other college officials.

A former president of the college described Oetter’s conduct as bullying, she says.

The writ describes what it calls ongoing harassment, bullying and intentional infliction of mental distress from January to June 2012.

Oetter and Epp directed resources away from the legal department, leading to two stress leaves, it says.

The stress was exacerbated by sexual and non-sexual harassment by a staff member of a female employee of the legal department.

While the harassed employee did not report the incidents due to the environment created by Oetter and Epp, others did report it but nothing was done, says the writ.

Peaston met with Epp to discuss the reductions and was advised that “When Heidi asks you to jump, the only question is how high,” the plaintiff says.

On June 8, 2012, she says she suffered a breakdown and took medical leave.

She was told that she could remain on the job part-time but to stay in her current job she’d have to work more hours, an assertion that caused her “great distress.”

At the direction of Oetter and Epp, the college blocked her access to her work computer network, including her emails and disconnected her voice-mail access to her cellphone, she says.

She filed a complaint that she’d been bullied and harassed and an investigation was conducted but the college did not disclose the results, she says.

“The court will be asked to draw the reasonable inference that the complaints as made by Ms. Peaston have been substantiated.”

In February this year, she was fired and the college said in a letter that her allegation that Oetter had acted in a manner unbecoming of the profession was “unfounded and irreparably” damaged her employment relationship.

But in a letter in March, the college admitted Peaston had not alleged the registrar had acted in an unprofessional manner, Peaston says.

The “illusory” basis for the termination was devised to disguise the fact that the college’s decision to terminate her was in retaliation for the complaints she filed, she adds.

“As a result of the defendant’s intentional or reckless infliction of mental distress, intimidation, bullying and retaliation, the plaintiff has and continues to suffer from psychological and psychiatric injuries including major depression.”

Peaston is seeking unspecified damages for the alleged bullying and harassment and punitive, aggravated and “moral” damages.

In an email, the college said it was aware of the lawsuit.

“The College completely and strongly denies the allegations of wrongdoing contained in the claim and is confident that it will be properly adjudicated by the court. As the matter is before the court, the College will not make any further comment about the claim at this time.”



Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Former+official+College+Physicians+says+bullied+sues+bosses+wrongful+dismissal/8317003/story.html#ixzz2S3BK99pH
Read more at http://www.bullyville.com/?page=story&id=6448#xr8AH8qVrFys4E9I.99

Bullyville.com partners with Guns N'Roses Lead Guitarist DJ Ashba.

8th Planned Parenthood Video: consent mostly not asked for

Full, Unedited 8th Video Confirms Planned Parenthood Sells Fully Intact Aborted Babies

National   Steven Ertelt   Aug 28, 2015   |   8:31AM    Washington, DC

• 
  

Today, the Center for Medical Progress released the full, uncut video of the conversation between undercover investigators form CMP and top officials with StemExpress, which buys aborted babies and their body parts from Planned Parenthood. The full footage is of a shorter video that summarized the meetings earlier this week.

The release of the full, unedited video also comes one day after Planned Parenthood released a new report claiming the eight videos released exposing it were “altered.” The abortion giant says the videos were manipulated and therefore not eligible for serious inquiry by Congress, which has launched two joint investigations of the abortion corporation. Still, Planned Parenthood’s own paid for experts admitted that there was no evidence of any manipulation of the audio in any of the eight shocking videos.
The full two-hour-long video appears below:

While the videos have focused on the Planned Parenthood abortion business, the biotech firm StemExpress, which buys and resells aborted baby body parts from the abortion giant, has filed a lawsuit seeking to block some information the Center for Medical Progress obtained in its three year undercover operation. Just a short time after a judge issued a ruling that the biotech firm StemExpress can’t block the Center for Medical Progress from releasing videos, it put together a preview of its latest installment.
StemExpress is a for-profit biotech supply company that has been partnered with Planned Parenthood clinics across the country to purchase human fetal parts since its founding in 2010. StemExpress’ Medical Director, Dr. Ronald Berman, is an abortion doctor for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in California.
In the video, Cate Dyer, the CEO of StemExpress, is shown in a lunch meeting with undercover operatives posing as representatives of a biotech firm. Dyer is laughing about how StemExpress purchases fully intact aborted babies from Planned Parenthood. She laughs about how shippers of the aborted babies would give a warning to lab workers to expect such a baby.
“Oh yeah, if you have intact cases — which we’ve done a lot — we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” she says.
“Tell the lab its coming,” she laughs about the intact unborn babies. “You know, open the box and go ‘Oh my God,’” Dyer adds.
The eighth video in the ongoing controversy over Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts shows the CEO of StemExpress, a major buyer of fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood, admitting the company gets “a lot” of intact fetuses, suggesting “another 50 livers a week” would not be enough, and agreeing abortion clinics should profit from the sale.
In the video, actors posing as another human biologics company meet with StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer, plus Vice President of Corporate Development and Legal Affairs Kevin Cooksy, and Procurement Manager Megan Barr. StemExpress and the actors are discussing a potential partnership to supply extra fetal body parts to each other.
“So many physicians are like, ‘Oh I can totally procure tissue,’ and they can’t,” expresses Dyer, seeming to indicate that abortion doctors must do the procedure in a special way to obtain useable fetal parts. Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).
“What about intact specimens?” asks one of the actors. “Oh yeah, I mean if you have intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” replies Dyer. “Case” is the clinical term for an abortion procedure. An “intact case” refers to an intact abortion with a whole fetus. “The entire case?” asks an actor. “Yeah, yeah,” says Dyer. “The procurement for us, I mean it can go really sideways, depending on the facility, and then our samples are destroyed,” she explains past botched fetal dissections, “so we started bringing them back even to manage it from a procurement expert standpoint.”
Feticidal chemicals like digoxin cannot be used to kill the fetus in a tissue procurement case, so a fetus delivered intact for organ harvesting is likely to be a born-alive infant.
“What would make your lab happy?” asks one of the actors. “Another 50 livers a week,” says Dyer. “We’re working with almost like triple digit number clinics,” Dyer explains, “and we still need more.” She later notes, “Planned Parenthood has volume, because they are a volume institution.”
Dyer also agrees that payments to abortion clinics for fetal body parts should be financially beneficial to them.
“Do you feel like there are clinics out there that have been burned, that feel like they’re doing all this work for research and it hasn’t been profitable for them?” she asks. “I haven’t seen that.” StemExpress publishes a flyer for Planned Parenthood clinics that promises “Financial Profits” and “fiscal rewards” for clinics that supply aborted fetal tissue. It is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Chief Medical Officer Dr. Dorothy Furgerson.
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). The Sacramento Business Journal reported in June that StemExpress has an annual revenue of $4.5 million.
David Daleiden, the head of CMP, commented on the newest video in a statement to LifeNews.
“StemExpress is the ‘weakest link’ that unravels Planned Parenthood’s baby parts chain–they readily admit the profit-motive that Planned Parenthood and their proxies have in supplying aborted baby parts,” he said. “Congress and law enforcement should immediately seize all fetal tissue files from StemExpress and all communications and contracts with Planned Parenthood. The evidence that Planned Parenthood profits from the sale of aborted baby parts is now overwhelming, and not one more dime of taxpayer money should go to their corrupt and fraudulent criminal enterprise.”
After the swarm of negative publicity surrounding Planned Parenthood selling aborted babies and their body parts, StemExpress was forced to cut ties with the abortion company.
Meanwhile, two committees in the House of Representatives have already launched investigations of Planned Parenthood. One committee is looking into whether or not the abortion business is breaking federal law by altering abortion procedures to better obtain aborted baby body parts for sale. Another committee, among other things, is investigating the Obama administration and whether there is any connection between it and the abortion giant.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wants to know if the Obama administration, via the Department of Health and Human Services, provided any federal grants to Planned Parenthood that ultimately went to pay for the sales of aborted baby body parts and if they were used by Planned Parenthood to “support transactions involving fetal tissue.”
The expose’ videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all eight:

• In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
• In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.
• In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.
• In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”
• In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”
• In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
• In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”

So far, 12 states have responded to the Planned Parenthood videos and launched investigations into their abortion and organ harvesting business including South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Texas and Louisiana. The district attorney in Houston Texas is also investigating after the Houston-based Planned Parenthood abortion facility was caught selling aborted babies.
Congress has expanded its investigation into the Planned Parenthood abortion business and five states have revoked taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business, including Utah, Arkansas, Alabama, New Hampshire and Louisiana and Iowa’s governor has ordered a review of Planned Parenthood funding.
The full, unedited videos have confirmed that revelations that some aborted baby remains sold by Planned Parenthood go to biotech companies for the purpose of creating “humanized” mice. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has been exposed as having sold body parts from aborted babies for as much as 15 years.
The federal law that technically prohibits the sale of aborted babies and their body parts was written by a pro-abortion Congressman decades ago and essentially spells out a process by which sellers of aborted baby body parts can meet certain criteria that allows the sales to be legal. That’s why a Colorado congressman has introduced legislation to totally ban the sales of aborted baby body parts.

Share this story:

• 
  

C

Planned Parenthood aborts baby while heart still beating

Did you watch where Planned Parenthood aborted a tiny baby boy, and while his heart was still beating, the technicians removed his brain through his face? They murdered this baby so they could sell his organs.