As the U.S. continues to deal with the fallout from devastating the opioid epidemic that has killed over 500,000 people in the country since 1999, we speak with Academy Award-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney, whose latest documentary, “The Crime of the Century,” looks at the pharmaceutical industry’s methods in promoting and selling these powerful drugs. “I realized that the big problem here was that we had been seeing it as a crisis, like a natural disaster like a flood or a hurricane, rather than as a series of crimes,” says Gibney. “You had these terrible incentives, where the incentive is not to cure the patient. The incentive is to just make as much money as possible.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says U.S. drug overdose deaths skyrocketed to a record 93,000 last year — a nearly 30% increase. It is the largest one-year increase ever recorded, with overdoses rising in 48 of 50 states.Democracy Now
Limited job opportunities and social resources make the competition for young people in modern China increasingly fierce. But there is a group of young people who think differently, they do not compete, will not get married, will not have a child, and will not buy a house. This is now popular among young people in China – the “lying flat” doctrine.Three-child Policy
In Paris, protesters and police clashed during a march against France’s so-called health pass. The pass requires proof of vaccination against COVID-19 or a negative test to enter many public venues. And lawmakers are now debating making it even stricter, in the hope that it will persuade more people to get the jab. But the demonstrators say the measures breach their civil liberties.DW News
“…The Times synchronized and mapped thousands of videos and police audio of the U.S. Capitol riot to provide the most complete picture to date of what happened — and why.”
The New York Times
As part of a six-month investigation, The Times synchronized and mapped thousands of videos and police audio of the U.S. Capitol riot to provide the most complete picture to date of what happened — and why.The New York Times
“…who is benefiting and at what cost?”
When COVID-19 struck, the Federal Reserve stepped in to try to avert economic crisis. As the country’s central bank continues to pump billions of dollars into the financial system daily, who is benefiting and at what cost?FRONTLINE PBS | Official
“The depth of corruption and impropriety here is off the charts.”
“‘MacArthur Inc.’ has been exposed by Julie Roys of The Roys Report. While his hypocrisy has been growing more troubling for many, his millionaire lifestyle was not so known. We knew he was in business, but just how prosperous that business was to him personally still maintained some mystery… until a few days ago. But it’s not just MacArthur’s 3 luxury homes. It’s the corruption in ministry, the nepotism, the cronyism, the kickbacks, the potential illegal transfer of money to key employees like Phil Johnson for home loans. The depth of corruption and impropriety here is off the charts.”Servus Christi
The following link entitled “Agenda – Grinding America Down” is a documentary about the liberal agenda into change America to a communist state through the infiltration of Marxist and socialist philosophies into every aspect of life in America. The film documents the details of this plan to change the country by citing the long list of agendas of communists and socialists for America.
Related links are listed below:
Reporter John Sweeney’s last investigation into the Church of Scientology resulted in an explosive confrontation with church officials. This time, in a Panorama Special, one of those officials has turned whistle-blower to help him reveal the dark secrets of the church, which boasts Hollywood A-listers Tom Cruise and John Travolta among its devotees.
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Related articles listed below:
In President Obama’s “Today Is A Shameful Day for Washington” speech, the Senate was criticized for not approving of the new bill for gun control, and were blamed for being intimidated by a minority of voters who would no longer support the various senators if they approve of the new gun measures. But is this really the case? President Obama claims that the bill would not violate any constitutional rights. But can this claim be taken serious? Could the Senate, and their alleged fear of a minority of voters, actually be the reason for the lack of cooperation with Obama’s gun control agenda? Or is it more likely that the president’s stretching of the laws, and his changing of the laws, to work in favor of radical liberal agendas has cost him credibility with many Americans, who now are convinced that the president has little to no concern for the constitution, and, therefore, cannot be trusted, nor cooperated with, in cases of gun laws, and constitutional rights?
There have, in fact, been times when the president has violated American’s trust, and has shown himself to be a radical liberal, who is willing to work in secret against the people of the U.S. and engage in subtle doubletalk, in his speeches, to fool unsuspecting people into thinking that he is only trying to do what’s best for the country. Examples of these would be his administrations’ labeling of Christians as possible domestic terrorists, the many promises which he both made and broke in his first term, his willingness to work with the U.N. on gun safety, his efforts to have the unjust law of the NDAA passed, which allows for American citizens to be detained for an indefinable amount of time without first committing a crime, his radical support of, the Islamic Brotherhood controlled, Egypt, his weak stance on real terrorism, his radical liberal, socialist, healthcare bill, and the Give Act, just to name few.
Therefore, the Senates lack of willingness to submit to “common sense” in regards to Obama’s gun measures cannot be perceived by these same American’s, who no longer have any confidence in Obama as a fellow American, but instead, is now viewed by them as a communist, or communitarian, as negligence, and fear of a minority of voters. Instead, to these Americans, who are not liberals, the Senate’s lack of cooperation should be viewed as true common sense, and gratefully welcomed.
In short, only true Americans, who do not violate traditional constitutional values, can be cooperated with, and trusted, by the country on gun control laws, and not radical liberals, who use Saul Alinsky tactics to manipulate ignorant people into radically changing the country for the worst.
Related articles are listed below:
The claims in the articles below suggest a hidden agenda for the institution of marriage. It is an agenda to change, and ultimately destroy, marriage. The articles reveal a forgotten side of the gay rights movement that the mainstream media is not reporting, yet is still an issue today. This issue is a deep rooted determination, among gay activists, to be liberated from traditional relationships, and from the traditional institution of the family.
Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage
Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio [RN Podcast] show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.
Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:
“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
Most homosexuals don’t want to ‘marry’ or adopt, French homosexual leader admits
The co-founder of a new French homosexual organization, Homovox, says that most homosexuals do not want to marry or adopt children, and are not supporters of the socialist government’s proposed legislation to create homosexual “marriage.”
French lesbian Nathalie de Williencourt says she decided to create the group as a result of her frustration over a vocal homosexual lobby that has been unquestioningly accepted as the mouthpiece of all of the country’s homosexuals.
The homosexuals Williencourt knows “don’t have any desire to marry nor to adopt.”
“They don’t feel represented by activists that they haven’t chosen, who steal the stage from a silent majority,” she told the French magazine Christian Family. “Many feel belittled, mistreated by this array of demands that stigmatize them.”
Homovox, which was established in November of last year, has created a website displaying testimony by numerous homosexuals who disavow the push for homosexual “marriage.” Willeincourt says that the organization marched on Sunday with up to one million other French citizens protesting the proposed legislation.
The gay radicals of the past didn’t want equality: they wanted liberation, and thought marriage was oppression
Some overexcited observers are describing last night’s passing of the gay marriage bill as the glorious endpoint to nearly 50 years of agitation for gay rights. Finally, and courtesy largely of David Cameron, New York City’s Stonewall rioters of 1969 and the daring organisers of Britain’s first-ever Gay Pride parades in the early 1970s have seen their dreams of equality come true. They had a dream, those early warriors for homosexual rights, and now that dream is a reality. Let us rejoice!
There is only one problem with this narrative – it is the biggest load of bunkum. It glosses over the fact that those early gay radicals were not remotely interested in getting married, or in winning equality, the only thing that today’s super-square gay campaigners and their cheerleaders go on about. The Stonewall radicals wanted liberation, not equality, and they wanted to destroy marriage, not buy into it. The Gay Liberation Front that emerged out of the Stonewall riot insisted that “complete sexual liberation for all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished”.
It was pretty clear that one of the social institutions that would have to be done away with was marriage. A Gay Manifesto, an influential radical pamphlet published in 1970, described marriage as “a rotten, oppressive institution”. In Gay is Good, lesbian activist Martha Shelley’s explosive and much-loved 1972 booklet, homosexuals were described as “women and men who, from the time of our earliest memories, have been in revolt against the sex-role structure and the nuclear family structure”. As for Britain’s early Gay Pride get-togethers – they viewed marriage and the family as “a patriarchal prison that enslaves women, gays and children”. To depict last night’s passing of the gay marriage bill as a victory for these early campaigners is a bit like saying the nuking of Hiroshima was the joyous outcome of CND marches.
Writing in 2002, on the 30th anniversary of Britain’s first Gay Pride parade, Peter Tatchell said: “There were no calls for equality; our demand was liberation. We wanted to change society, not conform to it.” So in essence, the gay marriage campaign of today, with its drab demand that homosexuals be granted equal access to the social institution of “rotten, oppressive” marriage, represents not the fulfilment of early gay radicals’ demands but the warping of them, the stomping of them into the dirt of history. It is a well-known fact that most radicals end up going straight, eventually donning a suit and tie and accepting a fat wage packet in return for tempering their ideals. But the gay movement, in switching from loathing marriage to longing to enter into it, and from demanding that the state get our of their lives to pleading with the state to officiate their relationships, has performed an about-face that is unprecedented even in modern radical politics.
Related Articles are listed below:
- “War on Consciousness Pt. 21 – The Jesuits & The Gay Rights Movement“
- “Changing Laws Pt. 10 – France Set to Ban the Words ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ from Official Documents“
- “War on Consciousness Pt. 20 – The U.N.’s Sexual Perversion of Children through World Sex Education Curriculum“