Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Food As A Weapon, The Illusion Of Freedom





Farmer issues dire food warning for America – Starvation policy using food as a weapon – Intellihub



If you think that what we’re seeing in the videos below couldn’t happen in America, you simply need to remember what happened in October of 2013 as EBT systems across the country went down and local stores quickly turned into mad houses with looting and chaos. If you think your last visit to Wal-Mart was bad, you haven’t seen anything yet.


Despite the fact that many Americans are still ‘asleep at the wheel’ or dependent completely upon the government when it comes to being prepared, they’ll have to awaken quickly as we take a look below videos at a recent SQAlert in which a farmer in America’s heartland warns us that we better get set for ‘off the chart’ beef prices with the arrival of something “unlike anything America has ever known before.” (see the alert after the videos below)

As Daisy Luther at the Organic Prepper recently reported, the government of Venezuela has just forced farmers to hand over their food to the government. Anyone who thinks that couldn’t happen here needs to read Barack Obama’s numerous executive orders dealing with the nationalizing of resources to realize that the government has been preparing for something huge for a very long time.

Telling us that what we’re watching now in Venezuela is reminiscent of Stalin’s starvation policy in the Ukraine 70+ years ago, videographer Operacion Libertad Venezuela reports that a kilometer long line formed yesterday morning in Colinas de Neveri, Barcelona, Anzontegui at 6 am and is just one of hundreds of such lines and signs of a widening humanitarian crisis across the country. From videographer.:

Another huge problem in Venezuela…Venezuelan bakers have gone without flour for close to a month and now there is a severe bread shortage nationwide.
If America soon loses our world’s reserve currency status in the US dollar, is this what may soon be happening here?
We see in the next video that food shortages aren’t just now happening in Venezuela but elsewhere around the world as well. Are lines such as this and the resulting chaos of not knowing where people are going to get their next meals in America’s future?








Being a citizen in the American corporate state is much like playing against a stacked deck: you’re always going to lose.

The game is rigged, and “we the people” keep getting dealt the same losing hand. Even so, most stay in the game, against all odds, trusting that their luck will change.

It really doesn’t matter what you call them—Republicans, Democrats, the one percent, the elite, the controllers, the masterminds, the shadow government, the police state, the surveillance state, the military industrial complex—so long as you understand that while they are dealing the cards, the deck will always be stacked in their favor.


Incredibly, no matter how many times we see this played out, Americans continue to naively buy into the idea that politics matter, as if there really were a difference between the Republicans and Democrats (there’s not).


Politics is a game, a joke, a hustle, a con, a distraction, a spectacle, a sport, and for many devout Americans, a religion.

In other words, it’s a sophisticated ruse aimed at keeping us divided and fighting over two parties whose priorities are exactly the same. It’s no secret that both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty.


Most of all, both parties enjoy an intimate, incestuous history with each other and with the moneyed elite that rule this country. Don’t be fooled by the smear campaigns and name-calling. They’re just useful tactics of the psychology of hate that has been proven to engage voters and increase voter turnout while keeping us at each other’s throats.

Despite the jabs the candidates volley at each other for the benefit of the cameras, they’re a relatively chummy bunch away from the spotlight, presenting each other with awards (remember when Jeb Bush presented Hillary Clinton with a Liberty Medal for her service to the country), attending each other’s weddings (Bill and Hillary had front-row seats for Trump’s 2005 wedding), and embracing with genuine affection.

Are you starting to get the picture? It doesn’t matter who wins the White House, because they all work for the same boss: Corporate America. In fact, many corporations actually hedge their bets on who will win the White House by splitting their donations between Democratic and Republican candidates.

We are living in a fantasy world carefully crafted to resemble a representative democracy. It used to be that the cogs, wheels, and gear shifts in our government machinery worked to keep our republic running smoothly. However, without our fully realizing it, the mechanism has changed. Its purpose is no longer to keep our republic running smoothly. To the contrary, this particular contraption’s purpose is to keep the corporate police state in power. Its various parts are already a corrupt part of the whole.

Our failure to remain informed about what is taking place in our government, to know and exercise our rights, to vocally protest, to demand accountability on the part of our government representatives, and at a minimum to care about the plight of our fellow Americans has been our downfall.

Now we find ourselves once again caught up in the spectacle of another presidential election, and once again the majority of Americans are acting as if this election will make a difference and bring about change—as if the new boss will be different from the old boss.









Every several years or so a legislator is called upon to cast a momentous vote in which the stakes are high and both sides of the issue are vociferous in their views.

Over the years, I have learned that the best way to treat such decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full, unfiltered explanation of those for and against, and then, without regard to pressure, politics or party, make a decision solely based on the merits.

I have spent the last three weeks doing just that: carefully studying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reading and re-reading the agreement and its annexes, questioning dozens of proponents and opponents, and seeking answers to questions that go beyond the text of the agreement but will have real consequences that must be considered.
In making my decision, I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after ten years, and non-nuclear components and consequences of a deal. In each case I have asked: are we better off with the agreement or without it?

In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) – the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.

Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.
Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.


Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.


Those who argue for the agreement say it is better to have an imperfect deal than to have nothing; that without the agreement, there would be no inspections, no snapback. When you consider only this portion of the deal – nuclear restrictions for the first ten years – that line of thinking is plausible, but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses mentioned above make this argument less compelling.

Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict Iran’s nuclear development after ten years.
If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.

In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.


Finally, the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States. Restrictions should have been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources.

When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.



Also see:




















13 comments:

Elisabeth Smith said...

Interesting, Scott. I was coming here to ask this question BEFORE I even saw your new post! How do you feel about prepping? I know we are to trust on the Lord and not be fearful. I want to be prudent (not fearful) and I'm thinking I'd like to start storing some food and if I don't need it, we can always eat it later. I have a Berkey water filter. We are near the contaminated river but I don't think the Berkey is enough for what is in that water :(

Scott said...

I actually think its a good idea in a general sense. I can recall when hurricane Fran went through our area and we were without power for around 2 weeks. What struck me was how fragile the infrastructure of society is. In fact its almost a facade. You were completely on your own. I thought i was prepared but not even close. So even if just for natural disasters its a good idea to have food and water for several months. And this is the case regardless of our pending economic collapse. People assume we will always remain in the status quo but thars not the case if you look at various empires throughout history. In fact j just finished a long study of the book of Daniel and what struck me was how FAST empires can crumble and the US is no exception. So i think its always a good idea to be prepared for a breakdown in society for whatever reason

Alice said...

Sitting here at lunch with my prophecy sisters reading your blog. We decided we're prepping for DEPARTURE!!!

Caver said...

Yikes.....sure seem to be a lot of fuzes burning kind of short here lately. Everywhere you look, actually. Can't imagine keeping all these balls in the air for much longer.

As far as prepping....Shucks, the Lord has shown us what's happening, He's warned us about famine and pestilence, and He's given us the ability to weather the storm and be a blessing for others. Why wouldn't we get prepared?

Elisabeth Smith said...

Oh I hope so Alice! I recently planted an orchard at my place and made a very large garden. The labor was tremendous to prepare these spaces and required a lot of demo and such. Not fun in over 100 degree temps! My son made a comment that I don't remember but I told him I have never thought I was setting up this orchard and garden for us. I truly believe it will be for someone left behind. Same with the food I do have and that I will be adding to. So beyond ready to go home!

Mike Lupica said...

Elizabeth watch JD FARAG U Tube video Topic...WHY THE RAPTURE OF THE CHURCH HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE THE 7 YR TRIBULATION. ..That will answer your questions & anyone else's questions. He has been given much knowledge.

Mike Lupica said...

I listen to the cries of my brothers & sisters, for the dear lady who told me she worries about her grandchild & the new one on the way! I say to her no worries I promise. ......also to u all

Peter said...

Except that is contradicted by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse and Paul in the Thessalonian letters, not to mention the OT prophets.

Scott, I got the pre-wrath book by Showers. He has some good stuff in there. It might actually make me post-trib! In all seriousness, I'm going to focus on the imminency chapter because that's really the point of contention.

Scott said...

Oh nooooo not a postie!!! Lol

Scott said...

The rapture was introduced by Paul as a "mystery". It wasnt revealed to the old test prophets. Also read my book which guves a lot of detail to Olivet and the rapture. Imo Jesus certainly did discuss the rapture.

Lance M said...

Pre trib rapture is the only rapture that makes sense. If the rapture were pre wrath and we had to survive through the first part of the 70th week, then wouldn't God have to resurrect every Christian that has died to this point? If we have to go through it, then so do all prior Christians....and, more importantly, if we are to go through it, then Christ's death was insufficient.
Post-wrath - God promised to keep us from the time of testing that will come upon the whole Earth. If that means that he keeps us safe "through" the time of testing, then something goes very wrong because Christians are killed all throughout Revelation (beginning in Ch 13). Can God not deliver on his promise....absolutely, He can and will.
The rapture is another instance of God's incredible grace, and IMO, to consider another view other than pre-trib is parallel to a works based belief system. Just my opinion...are we there yet?!?!

Scott said...

I think at this point ill close this as the debate will go on endlesly. But soon probably on a weekend, i think ill list basics around pre trib view and open up a robust discussion. I think thats a good idea at this point

Mike Lupica said...

Thanks lance