Search Results

https://expose-news.com/2025/01/19/can-bill-will-end-private-property/?jetpack_skip_subscription_popup The Climate and Nature Bill has its second reading in Parliament on 24 January 2025. If it becomes law, it will bring in compulsory re-wilding of more than 30% of the UK and place controls on travel and consumption. “You may think that all the bills that have gone through Parliament already in the last six months have been disastrous and have been an attack on our way of life our culture and our economy. But there’s something else coming up which is as bad or even worse as everything that has gone before. And this is something called the Climate and Nature Bill,” David Kurten said. “It will destroy the economy, essentially, and it will give the Government powers over your private property …  Because of [something to do with] the climate or … nature then the government can essentially take your property,” he warned.  “Because everything that happens in the country will have to be beholden to the targets in this Climate and Nature Bill.” David Kurten: The Climate and Nature Bill will destroy the economy and end private property, 14 January 2025 (21 mins) Below is a summary of David Kurten’s video.  But before we get to that, a brief mention of the UK constitution. The UK constitution is a complex system of rules and principles that govern the United Kingdom (“UK”). Unlike many other countries, the UK has no single codified constitution document.  The sources of the UK constitution are Acts of the UK Parliament, conventions, common law and authoritative works such as Albert Venn Dicey. The UK constitution puts the people in charge and limits the powers of the Government. The legislature, being the House of Parliament and the House of Lords, are permitted to make legislation but they are subject to constitutional law.  As William Keyte explained to Richard Vodes in 2023, “Constitutional law … absolutely limits what [the Government] can do legitimately.  They could still go outside that but then they would be acting criminally.” Richard Vobes: This is Big! 2 February 2023 (48 mins) Magna Carta (1215) , one of the sources of the UK Constitution which Keyte views as THE constitutional document, is still binding on the UK government today. Also known as the Great Charter of Freedoms (or Liberties), it established the principle that the king and government were subject to the rule of law and limited their powers.  “[Magna Carta] leaves [the people] to be self-masters, essentially, and the government to get out of the way and leave them alone,” Keyte said. “[Magna Carta] elevates the people above their own government.” Further resources: Common Law Constitution Magna Carta explicitly refers to the Spiritual Constitution and the Temporal Constitution.  The spiritual realm refers to the Christian church.   The temporal realm refers to secular or worldly matters.  The Commons refers to the people. In the context of the English Bill of Rights , “Lords Spiritual,” “Lords Temporal,” and “Commons” refer to bishops of the Church of England who sit in the House of Lords, secular members of the House of Lords and elected representatives of the people, forming the House of Commons, respectively. Related: English Bill of Rights: You are English, not British This is the meaning of the paragraph at the beginning of the Climate and Nature Bill. Climate and Nature Bill (As Introduced) Both King Charles and the Government are subject to the rule of law and the constitution. If they are found to be acting outside what the constitution permits, they are acting criminally.  Magna Carta “reserves to … all Persons, as well Spiritual as Temporal, all their [free Liberties] and free Customs, which they have had in time passed. “And all these Customs and Liberties aforesaid, which We have granted to be holden within this our Realm, [as much as appertaineth to Us and our Heirs, we shall observe; and] all Men of this our Realm, as well Spiritual as Temporal, [as much as in them is, shall observe the same against all Persons, in like wise.” In other words, neither the king nor the government, nor anyone else, can remove our liberties and customs that we have had for thousands of years. The earliest surviving record of our liberties is King Alfred’s Doombook (c. 600 A.D).  It was the foundation on which Magna Carta was built. The Ten Commandments were a particularly important model for the drafting of Anglo-Saxon law codes and formed part of the preface to King Alfred’s law book, grounding the secular laws in biblical precedents. God’s law is also specifically referenced in the longest Anglo-Saxon law code, which was issued by King Cnut. Rather than specifying what people can do, the majority of the Ten Commandments specify what people cannot do.  In short, if it is not prohibited by God then it is one of our liberties or inalienable rights. Read more: Charles III and Keir Starmer have violated the rule of law and must step down If, through the Climate and Nature Bill, King Charles and the Government remove any of our ancient liberties or customs then the monarch and the Government are acting unconstitutionally, and criminally. Keep in mind what our liberties and inalienable rights are as we read a summary of David Kurten’s explanation of what hundreds of politicians are attempting to push through as legislation. Table of Contents The Climate and Nature Bill: An Overview Nature and Biodiversity Provisions The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework 2030 Agenda and Rewilding Implications Impacts on Homes, Consumption and Personal Freedom Economic and Societal Consequences The Climate and Nature Bill: An Overview The Climate and Nature (“CAN”) Bill , first introduced by former Green Member of Parliament (“MP”) Caroline Lucas, has been reintroduced by Liberal Democrat MP Ros Savage and is set to have its second reading in the House of Commons next Friday, 24 January.  The Bill has gained significant support from more than 190 politicians across the Commons, Lords and local councils, largely due to lobbying efforts by the non-governmental organisation Zero Hour .  (You can see a full list of MPs supporting the CAN Bill  HERE  and view an interactive map of MPs supporting the Bill  HERE .) The Bill builds on the existing Committee on Climate Change, established in 2008, and would give this committee more power to dictate the country’s climate strategy and targets.  It aims to require the UK to achieve climate and nature targets, giving the Secretary of State the duty to implement a strategy to achieve these targets, and establishing a climate and nature assembly to advise on the strategy. It would also grant the government powers to take control of private property if deemed necessary for climate or nature-related reasons, potentially destroying the economy and undermining private property rights. The ultimate goal of the bill is to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, with interim targets and a binding strategy to be implemented by the Secretary of State for Climate.  It requires the UK government to fulfil its obligations and commitments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, which involves cutting carbon dioxide emissions and limiting global temperature increases. The CAN Bill aims to ensure the United Kingdom reduces its overall contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions to “Net Zero” by 2030, at a rate consistent with limiting the global mean temperature increase to 1.5° C compared to pre-industrial levels. Its objectives are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (“IPPC’s”) definition of pre-industrial levels, which dates back to around 1750, a time after the medieval warm period and before the mini ice age. Nature and Biodiversity Provisions In addition to addressing climate change, the Bill also focuses on nature and biodiversity, with the government aiming to halt and reverse its overall contribution to the degradation and loss of nature in the UK and overseas. The Government’s objectives include increasing the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species populations, habitats and ecosystems, with the goal of putting nature on the path of recovery by 2030. It references the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which is a framework for meeting biodiversity targets and objectives. However, the bill’s measures may not effectively address the issues of nature and biodiversity, and may even exacerbate the problems. For example, the implementation of the bill’s objectives may involve measures that could have unintended consequences, such as the destruction of habitats and the killing of birds due to the construction of wind turbines and solar panels. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework considers biodiversity fundamental to human well-being and a healthy planet and economic prosperity, and is being taken seriously by politicians who are introducing legislation to meet its goals. The framework recognises and considers diverse value systems and concepts, including the rights of nature and the rights of “Mother Earth,” which is being used as the basis for a bill in the UK that would require the country to obey this framework. 2030 Agenda and Rewilding Implications The CAN Bill is tied to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which is a way to introduce communism and take away property rights under the guise of sustainability and a climate emergency. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework has 23 targets, including ensuring that at least 30% of degraded terrestrial, inland water and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration by 2030. This target is about rewilding and giving the government control over land, which would be particularly destructive in densely populated countries like the UK, where over 80% of the land is used for agriculture. The CAN Bill aims to achieve sustainability targets by 2030 and additional targets by 2050, which may be destructive to the agricultural sector.  It would give the Committee on Climate Change the power to tell the Secretary of State for Climate to requisition land and rewild it, potentially stopping agriculture on certain lands.  The implementation of this bill would be devastating to farmers, farms and agriculture in the UK, which is already under attack through inheritance tax and extra business taxes. Impacts on Homes, Consumption and Personal Freedom Homeowners may be required to demolish and rebuild their houses to meet energy efficiency standards, with the possibility of remote control over energy usage. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s Target 16 aims to encourage sustainable consumption choices, reduce global consumption footprint and minimise waste by 2030, which may involve legislation and regulations to enforce lower consumption. The World Economic Forum has expressed desires to limit meat consumption, private car ownership, air travel and clothing purchases, which could lead to a loss of individual liberty and freedom. The implementation of 15-minute cities may restrict car travel, promoting active travel like walking and cycling, and limiting access to public transport for long-distance travel. The proposed limits on clothing purchases are an overreach, infringing on individual freedom and the free market. The overall goal of these measures is to reduce waste and promote sustainability, but they could, and will most likely, go too far, resembling communism and restricting personal choice. Economic and Societal Consequences The CAN Bill will be extremely destructive to the economy and way of life, as it will give the government power to essentially destroy private property and “decarbonise” the economy by getting rid of all carbon-based energy, including imports of gas and LNG from overseas. The bill will restrict people’s freedom to decide what to do with their own money and use the free market, and will instead allow the government to control the economy. It will have a devastating impact on the economy, potentially leading to its collapse, and will leave people with limited options for making a living, such as growing their own vegetables and selling them. It’s worth noting the hypocrisy of those people who are pushing for the Bill.  They will be the same people who attend climate summits and global summits and are often the most wasteful, using private jets to travel to these events four or five times a year. We are at a crucial moment to stop the Bill from progressing through Parliament.  To stop the bill, write to your MP and ask them to vote against it on 24 January.

Best 20 minutes rant in European Parliament I've ever seen; truth-bombs the CoviFlu nonsense like nothing else! (note this speech was delivered in the summer of 2023).

https://expose-news.com/2025/01/20/christine-lagarde-memo/?jetpack_skip_subscription_popup Featured image: Christine Lagarde (left).  Source: Monthly Review . Christine Lagarde 2022 (right). Source: RTHK News The “ Christine Lagarde Memo : FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, from ‘the Coalition’ ” is a memo that discusses concerns about “longevity” and its impact on the global economy. The memo, purportedly leaked from a high-ranking staffer’s waste basket at the European Commission, was addressed to heads of state and finance ministers, including Angela Merkel, Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron. It suggests that the increasing lifespan of the elderly population poses a significant risk to the global economy and calls for urgent action to address this issue. The memo proposes several strategies to mitigate the economic burden of “longevity,” including raising the retirement age and cutting entitlements. It also suggests using ungendered terminology like “old people” to avoid public-relations difficulties associated with targeting older women specifically. While the authenticity of the memo cannot be verified, its contents are alarming and explain the attack we are witnessing on the elderly in Western nations. A few days ago we published an article that included an excerpt from the Christine Lagarde Memo .  We encouraged our readers to read the remainder of the memo to understand the possible reasons for the assault on our elderly.  We have no way of authenticating the memo or where it was found. However, that a renowned prize-winning author is stated to have published it, lends it credibility. We are highlighting this memo again by republishing it below. Unfortunately, it is not the entire memo as it would appear the memo had been torn into more than one piece and only the first part of it was recovered. The ‘Christine Lagarde Memo’: FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, from ‘the Coalition’ By Margaret Morganroth Gullette as published by Monthly Review on 9 October 2018 “Las personas mayores viven demasiado tiempo y eso es un riesgo para la economía global. Tenemos que hacer algo, y ya!”—Chritine Lagarde, Director del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI)  “Old people live too long and this is a risk for the global economy. We must do something, urgently.”—Christine Lagarde, Director of the International Monetary Fund (Translated from the Spanish) “This secret memo was discovered in the waste basket of a high-ranking staffer in the European Commission. It was sent to us by Dr. Margaret Morganroth Gullette, author of ‘ Ending Ageism, or How Not to Shoot Old People ’ (2017).“ The memo from “the Coalition” begins “Dear Angela, Teresa, Emmanuel…” and has a further list of first names (heads of state and secretaries or ministers of finance, health and human services),  mostly scribbled over with marker. Monthly Review is pleased to be publishing this important leaked document here for the first time.”—Eds [Monthly Review] Dear Angela, Teresa, Emmanuel … FOR YOUR EYES ONLY [Please note:  The Exposé has not edited the memo in any way.  It is exactly as it was published by Monthly Review , including typographical errors, American English etc.] Here at the Coalition we were impressed by Christine’s bravery, saying publicly that old people “live too long” and those in charge of the global economy must do something about it, urgently. Recently, a photo of her, with potentially incendiary language from her speeches, has gone viral, without raising any resistance. Since older people do vote more reliably, her implication that old people are “superfluous” and “expensive” would seem troubling for the stability of political elites. But since then, Christine has kept her job while continually stressing the same themes, so it’s clear that the Americans who dominate the International Monetary Fund feel it’s safe to sow doubt on the need for knee-jerk protection of old people’s interests. This they have demonstrated vividly many times since the 2016 election. At Davos everyone was repeating the message. The Coalition welcomes this new moment for advancing our sensible coordinated agenda toward the superannuated, increasingly justified as all our budgets are swallowed up by entitlements, our streets and ICUs are clogged with old people, medical expenses for the senile are soaring, and adult children are burdened with costs and guilt. While exploiting this opening for positive action, however,  nota bene , this encrypted memo is not for distribution. Its frank and open discussion of the graying nations problem means holdings its suggestions within a tight circle. Please print and delete. Lagarde gets away with promoting our policy recommendations by doing the numbers on longevity. Numbers don’t lie. Our advice is to advertise the magnitude of the problem by evoking the dire situation of Japan. Their data scares other nations into compliance with raising the age of retirement and cutting entitlements. Helpfully for us in the U.S., the Alzheimer’s associations already publicize the data we need. Repeating the percentages of old people alive now in your country, and projecting the appallingly larger numbers in the future (2040 or 2050), along with the percentages of dementia cases now and later, is a fool-proof tactic for creating fruitful anxiety and underscoring the need for dramatic bipartisan responses to the crisis. Some wimps and wets will complain about “ageism” but the good news is that this charge does not matter. Few people in any society know the term. In Spain, they use the English loan-word, “ageism.” In the U.S., a recent study shows that ageism comes last in a list of the other “isms” people are concerned about, after sexism—sexism now, with the #MeToo movement and the circus around Justice Kavanaugh, has risen to the top of the list—and then racism and homophobia. Ageism is simply not seen as an oppression.  In the U.S. the Supreme Court has not added age as a protected category, and indeed has denied midlife workers some of the blanket protections of the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act. When asked, old folks often say ageism refers to young people offering them a seat on the bus. Or that it refers to  words , like “wrinklies” (in Britain) or “geezer” (in the U.S.). Letters to the editor or columns that battle over how to respond to trivial nomenclature issues are a useful distraction from our economic agenda. Those of you in the U.S. deal with the entire FDR legacy; others confront the postwar socialist consensus that Margaret and Ronald, gutsy as they were, barely began to dismantle. Progress on our agenda has been made since the 1980s. It now seems quite possible to reform the safety nets further without attracting undesirable attention. Although older people vote, they seem unable to unite to defend themselves. “Raising the deficit” is a nonpareil strategy, enabling many governments to target national health systems they really must reduce. The U.S. tactic of repeating that Social Security and Medicare are soon to be insolvent, and that people who are young now will not benefit in old age, is proving successful. For years we have clearly stated that reducing expectations would work. Calling anger at inequality “divisive class warfare” is a recommendation we support, now that unionization has been discredited for providing over-paid jobs for subordinate groups who clearly do not merit special scrutiny. We suggest that as inequality rises, you divert attention from  class  envy to age-related Schadenfreude, pitting generation against generation. In comment sections and op-eds, young Americans, without being paid to say so, voluntarily deride anyone trusting in U.S. Treasury bonds. They angrily turn on the aging Boomers, who they firmly believe will be the last generation to receive benefits. This belief leads to inaction. We intend to make this belief a self-fulfilling prophecy. We foresee progress on other fronts. In the U.S., the Republicans are cutting some belly bloat by trimming rural offices of the Social Security Administration. Some cautious souls briefly argued that cutting services does not save enough money to counter the nuisance value of having longer phone wait times and fewer and more distant offices, which court media complaints and irate letters to editors. Still, it is a useful model of inserting invisible thin wedges when trying to destabilize the “third rail” of American politics, as Social Security used to be called. No longer so electrified, we are happy to note. Then-candidate Donald Trump, for example, promised again and again during his campaign to defend the FDR legacy programs. Promises seem all that is necessary to sway the electorate. Medicaid has been next. Cutting off people who don’t work, the first move in Arkansas, has dropped all but 2% off the roles. This  provides savings for a well-run state to use for more productive citizens (an ever smaller group, as robotization and computerization take over). Cutting back on protections for people in nursing homes is another U.S. tack. For at least a decade, however, our Coalition anticipates, entitlement reformers will have to take into consideration older people who become homeless, because the press is becoming surprisingly alert on this score. The unusually cold weather last winter has been at fault here. Old men who become suddenly homeless can be portrayed as the victims of their vices. But demented old women on street corners begging or crying will almost certainly need a different publicity campaign to make this seem inevitable. The trope of the unwelcoming Boomer daughter, perhaps? The problem is that old women, although they live longer, retain some prestige as mothers and grandmothers and thus present the main public-relations difficulty in this sector. We have been suggesting using ungendered terminology, like “old people.” Since everyone knows old people are sexless, this usage is not likely to be noticed, let alone attacked. The Coalition has decided to focus special attention going forward on longevity, the bugbear of the rational modern state. The medical and scientific establishments boast about it as their success ,  and they cannot and should not be stopped from doing so, or the whole notion of pharmaceutical and surgical progress is thrown out the window. Imagine the outcries of the Big PhaRMA lobby and the medical associations were any health minister to  complain  about life expectations rising. Yet that rise is the problem we face as long as collective answers to social problems persist. Remember what Margaret taught us all to say. “There is no such thing as society, only individuals.” Seizing the moment, Consortium thought-leaders have decided to tackle the challenge of making “longevity” itself seem a negative outcome. The press and publishers have needed no impetus from us—except the indirect incentive that some of our funders own them—to let authors and journalists demonize Alzheimer’s patients, and, despite the denials of a few gerontologists who have somehow become public figures, to equate Alzheimer’s and old age. This is the best advertising for our position. Funded by many of you with generous donations, this campaign by the Coalition will continue to devise humane and unobtrusive ways to reduce the vast number of the superannuated in the advanced economies. Some pensioners retire abroad to low-income countries, emptying our streets and turning over housing stock to younger people, but, on the other hand, spending their disposable income as consumers elsewhere. Those who remain, more frequently live with their own kind, out of sight, and stay inside, properly respectful of the needs of young people to talk and walk rapidly on the public sidewalks on their way to perform their essential tasks without having to worry about running into slow confused codgers. We continue to urge the expansion of the “overtreatment” meme—overtreatment as a harmful and unnecessary expense. In many countries the campaign against overtreatment in hospitals and medical practices is solidly underway. Doctors are warning about the risks and lower quality of life of later-life medical interventions. The press once again voluntarily help whenever they link the emotional term “burden” to the gross expenses of care. Note to media moguls: feel free to risk more.  Time  published one man’s complaint about the cost of his mother’s $100,000 heart operation, even though the mother lived another ten years. The commentary that serves best is of the “I wouldn’t want to live past 75,” type—exemplified by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who called his own father at age 77 “sluggish” after his heart operation and said  he  would not want to be remembered as sluggish. His authority as a bioethicist in the National Institutes of Health gave him a free pass. Barack Obama, talking about his own grandmother to the  New York Times , lamented the expense of end-of-life care. Editors can be encouraged to publish adult children’s unhappiness with the national costs of caring, especially if the writers have relatives said to be senile or close to death. The next economic crisis—not that we expect one—will facilitate more such poignant worries. During this campaign, we warn public figures to use caution and display positive sentiments, always, when alluding to the horrors of later life and the diseases of seniors. It’s easier to let younger people do the negative work. Nowadays, many more are eager to say openly they will refuse “to be hooked up to machines.” “I’ll die before I get that way,” they say. We, of all people, rife with pro-life, as i like to say, should set a respectful tone toward “dying with dignity.” Data may never be forthcoming about the effectiveness of emphasizing surgical “overtreatment” on reducing medical costs, but I can attest that it distracts from other costs that many of our allies in Big  Pharma  prefer the press and public not get into. Moreover, people are becoming convinced that there is a duty to die—a duty they feel toward their children of course, rather than the state. As long as (costly) overtreatment remains the target of choice in the mainstream, as long as the acquiescent press likens Alzheimer’s patients to zombies, as long as editors publish the very natural concerns of adult children about the soaring costs of parental medical choices, as long as every economic downturn or voluminous tax cut produces deficit worries and increased long-term unemployment, this trend toward demoralizing generation after generation about getting old will grow. In reducing the numbers of the supernannuated, people in their middle years who have become permanently unemployed have been committing suicide in increasing numbers, some from opioid overdoses, according to several reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. So-called deaths of despair among older men have become common. Old women, despite fearing becoming burdens to their children, hang on. In response, the Consortium suggests that age-shaming, to which older women seem more easily prone, may be the simplest means by which to achieve… [Here the text ends, the rest of the paper apparently having been ripped off.]  About Margaret M. Gullette ‘ Ending Ageism, or How Not to Shoot Old People ’, Gullette’s most recent book was featured in  The New Yorker  in November 2017 and won the 2018 American Psychological Association’s Division 35 Florence L. Denmark Prize for contributions to women and aging that promote social justice. A  review of  Ending Ageism  in  Tikkun  calls anti-ageism “the next big social movement.” She has published other prize-winning books about the cultural contexts of age, and her essays have appeared in  New Political Science, Nation, Dissent, Ms., American Prospect . One essay won the  Daniel Singer Millennial Award . Her essays are often cited as notable in  Best American Essays . She is a Resident Scholar at the Women’s Studies Research Centre at Brandeis University. Update: In 2024, Margaret Morganroth Gullette published another book ‘ American Eldercide: How It Happened, How to Prevent It ’ regarding the death of 200,000 nursing home residents during the covid-19 pandemic.  The book has been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and a National Book Award.  Katherine S. Newman, Provost and Executive VP of Academic Affairs of the University of California, wrote : “With unflinching detail, American Eldercide indicts government indifference and failed regulation during the covid pandemic. Poignant portraits of real people bring us face-to-face with individuals who are all our responsibility. This powerful book should be read by anyone who cares about public health, dignified ageing and government accountability.”

https://expose-news.com/2025/01/20/your-government-wants-you-dead/ The British government has a policy of ignoring the needs of the elderly, with doctors and nurses instructed to withhold treatment and let old people die to save hospital beds and cut costs. The cut-off age for resuscitation is often 55 or 50, with anyone over 60 considered old and a burden on society. Elderly patients are frequently left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, and denied food and water, with many cases of neglect, abuse and unfair treatment reported in hospitals and care homes. “The only -ism that no one cares about is ageism,” Dr. Vernon Coleman writes. By Dr. Vernon Coleman In Britain, it is now official Government policy to ignore the needs of the elderly. This policy is common throughout the world. Doctors and nurses are told to let old people die – and to withhold treatment which might save their lives. Hospital staff are told to deprive the elderly of food and water so that they die rather than take up hospital beds. Nursing home staff have even been given the right to sedate elderly patients without their knowledge. The only -ism that no one cares about is ageism. But at what age are patients simply allowed to die? And how old is too old for patients to be resuscitated? At what point does society have the right to say `You’ve lived long enough, now you must die and make way for someone else’? And why should resuscitation be decided by age? It is possible to argue that it would make as much sense to decide according to wealth or beauty. But ageism is now officially accepted. Anyone over 60 is now officially old, though in a growing number of hospitals the cut-off age for resuscitation is 55 or even 50. We live in a politically correct world but the elderly don’t count – particularly if they are white and English. Report after report after report shows elderly patients being left in pain, in soiled bed clothes. Elderly patients in hospital are ignored by staff and left to starve to death, denied even water if they cannot get out of bed and fetch it themselves. Old people are a burden which the Government cannot afford and so the politicians will continue to authorise whatever methods are necessary to ensure that the number of burdensome old people is kept to a minimum. The existence of an absurd branch of medicine called geriatrics is used as an excuse to shove old people into backwater wards and to provide them with second-rate medical treatment. In February 2011, an official report condemned the NHS for its “inhumane treatment of elderly patients” and stated that NHS hospitals were “failing to meet even the most basic standards of care” for the over-65s. It is no exaggeration to say that the NHS treats the elderly with contempt. (It used to be said that you can judge a civilisation by the way it treats its elderly.) It was back in February 2005 that it was revealed that the Government had advised that hospital patients with little hope of recovery should be allowed to die because of the cost of keeping them alive. The Labour Government suggested that “old people” be denied the right to food and water if they fell into a coma or couldn’t speak for themselves. So much for any hope for stroke victims. The Government suggested that the need to cut costs came before the need to preserve the lives of patients and decided it had the right to overturn a right-to-life ruling which had been made when a judge ordered that artificial nutrition and hydration should not be withdrawn unless the life of a patient could be described as “intolerable.” (The judge had added that when there was any doubt, preservation of life should take precedence.) Of course, depriving the elderly of food and water is sometimes more a consequence of incompetence than official policy. When my mother was in hospital in Exeter, she couldn’t feed herself but the staff didn’t feed her. If no relative could get to the hospital to feed her she didn’t eat. Drinks were put on her tray and then taken away untouched. “Not thirsty, today?” an idiot would ask merrily. Meanwhile, the Government pours money into subsidising the lives of the lazy and the work-shy. Healthy 30-year-olds sit around growing chip backsides and beer bellies, slumped in front of their high-definition digital television sets watching their choice of State-subsidised satellite television, opening the windows to let the heat out because it’s easier than turning down the central heating. The elderly are classified as the “Unwanted Generation”: a political embarrassment. Elderly people facing blindness from age-related macular disease are denied drugs that might have prevented their blindness. The elderly are considered expensive, useless and expendable. The theory is that they don’t contribute and rarely vote and can, therefore, be disregarded. But those who believe this will be old sooner than they think. And the definition of “old” is getting younger by the year. Wars have taught us that people seem to be prepared to accept as normal all sorts of terrible things. But how unbelievably awful it is that doctors and nurses accept that the elderly (officially the over 60s) must be allowed to die because keeping them alive isn’t cost-effective. The official attitude seems to be that old people don’t matter and don’t have rights simply because they are old. In mid-August 2007, a Select Committee on Human Rights, comprised of MPs and peers, reported that 21% of hospitals and care homes failed to meet even minimum standards of dignity and privacy for older people. The Committee said it had uncovered evidence of neglect, abuse, discrimination and unfair treatment of frail, older people. (Their discovery came as no surprise to those of us who have been uncovering such abuse for decades.) How have we managed to forget that in the 1930s the Nazis deliberately starved and dehydrated elderly and vulnerable patients because they were regarded as a useless burden on society? That is exactly what we are doing today. An astonishing (and horrifying) survey conducted among readers of the journals  Nursing Standard and Nursing Older People  showed that fewer than one in six nurses said that nothing would prevent them from reporting abuse of older people in their care. In other words, five out of six nurses would, at least sometimes, fail to report abuse of the elderly people they were being paid to look after. So, in my view, five out of six of nurses aren’t fit to be nurses. Would these same nurses ignore the abuse of children so easily? I suspect not. This is utterly appalling and an indictment of the modern nursing profession. The same survey showed that six out of ten nurses would turn a blind eye to the abuse of the elderly. They would say nothing if they knew that an elderly patient or care home resident was being beaten, bullied or robbed. Why are nurses failing their patients? One reason is cowardice. Unbelievably, it seems that nurses are frightened to report abuse in case they themselves are abused by the person doing the abuse. Oh, please. Another reason is, apparently, “fear of misinterpreting the situation.” What sort of politically correct garbage is that? Hospital patients and nursing home residents now often suffer malnutrition and dehydration, abuse and rough treatment, lack of privacy, neglect, poor hygiene and bullying. Thousands and thousands of elderly people are left for hours in soiled clothes. Could it be because too many modern nurses are lazy, stupid and incompetent? Too many are far too self-important to do anything other than stare at a computer screen all day long. In my view, nurses who say nothing when they see abuse are as guilty as the abusers. A once great profession is, today, in a worse state than it was in the days of Dickens. Is it so very old-fashioned of me to believe that every nurse should always report every incident of abuse? Always. Without exception. Ageism is, it seems, now endemic in health care. A reader wrote to tell me that when she visited her doctor complaining of painful knees her doctor told her, very abruptly, that her problem was that she was living too long. She was devastated. “It wasn’t said as a joke,” she told me. “He meant it.” In the months before he died my father repeatedly complained: “People treat me like a fool because I am old.” A 79-year-old reader told me: “If you are over 55 they want you dead because you’re too expensive alive.” We now live in a world where it is considered acceptable for men and women to have to share a ward; where hospital bathrooms are so dirty that patients dare not use them; where dentists are so scarce and expensive that people have to resort to pulling their own bad teeth with the aid of a length of string tied to a doorknob. But it is the elderly who, above all others, are regarded as disposable and irrelevant. It is the elderly who have no rights. Sexism and racism are outlawed but ageism is not. Indeed, it seems clear that ageism is now a State-sponsored prejudice. Violent, feral youths who are caught assaulting elderly law-abiding citizens are likely to be “punished” with a fistful of vouchers entitling them to a handful of free CDs (the lyrics of which may well encourage more violence) but honest, elderly citizens who cannot afford to pay their council tax bill will end up in prison. When doctors are owned by the Government then the Government’s priorities take over. And so the elderly, who are regarded as an expensive burden, are considered expendable. Note: The above essay is taken from Vernon Coleman’s book entitled ` Why and how doctors kill more people than cancer ’. The book is available via the bookshop on his website . About the Author Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc practised medicine for ten years. He has been a full-time professional author for over 30 years . He is a novelist and campaigning writer and has written many non-fiction books.  He has written over 100 books which have been translated into 22 languages. On his website, HERE , there are hundreds of articles which are free to read. There are no ads, no fees and no requests for donations on Dr. Coleman’s website or videos. He pays for everything through book sales. If you want to help finance his work, please just buy a book – there are over 100 books by Vernon Coleman in print on Amazon .

Did you know that Los Angeles is home to numerous fake buildings that conceal a surprising secret? Discover the hidden world of oil drilling operations cleverly disguised as everyday structures throughout the city. From nondescript office buildings to entire islands, these camouflaged facilities blend seamlessly into the urban landscape, masking the true nature of their activities. Join me as we unveil the fascinating story behind these deceptive facades and explore how they impact the city. Don't miss out on this eye-opening journey into the secretive side of LA! 🍿 VIDEO CHAPTERS 00:00  Intro 02:42  Black Gold: Brief History of Oil in LA 04:20  Edward Doheny - First Oil Man 06:15  1930s - Booming LA 07:34  Hollywood Meets Oil Industry 09:04  Industry in Decline 10:05  Fallout 12:10  Where Are The Oil Wells Now? 14:19  Venice Beach Oil Field 16:08  Astronaut Island 18:49  Outro - Tower Of Hope

Disclosure is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. There is only one agenda: to deceive.

https://expose-news.com/2025/01/18/ecb-is-looking-forward-to-2025/ Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank (“ECB”), is expecting European legislation for the digital euro. According to her, the European Commission will propose legislation for establishing a digital euro in the near future. “We are in the preparation phase and we are expecting European legislation,” she said in her New Year’s message. On the first day of the new year, Lagarde posted a video message announcing that the development of the European Union’s central bank digital currency (“CBDC”) – the digital euro – was in phase 2 and the ECB is “expecting legislation.” “Another significant development on the horizon is our digital euro. We are in the preparation phase and we are expecting European legislation,” she said. “Once that is done, we will decide whether we move forward with developing a digital form of cash.” Source: Christine Lagarde on Twitter , 1 January 2025 Lagarde wished those who watched her video a “very, very great start to 2025.” Well, the ECB’s aspirations, as she described them, begin the year on a very, very bad note and in wishing Europeans well she is speaking with a forked tongue.  Take for example the two blatant lies Lagarde told in her message.  Firstly, they would not be legislating for a digital euro if they were not intending to “move forward” with the agenda.  So, it’s not a case of deciding “whether” to move forward but rather the decision has already been made. Secondly, CBDCs are not a “digital form of cash.”  They are tokens which can be programmed to be used only for certain items or services and to expire – much like a gift voucher system which retailers use.  Vouchers are for a specific amount to be used on specific items or in specific retailers and expire within a specified time; the retailer’s rules and conditions apply.  It is because of the programmable and centralised nature of CBDCs that they will be used to control who can buy or sell what, when and where; the central bank’s rules and conditions will apply. Do You Trust Christine Lagarde?  If So, You Shouldn’t Here are some other reasons why you should not trust Christine Lagarde and, by extension, the ECB that has chosen to employ her. Convicted Criminal Christine Lagarde , the former French finance minister and the head of the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) (2011-2019), was convicted of criminal charges on 19 December 2016, for her role in a €400 million ($429 million; £340 million) government payout to businessman Bernard Tapie. The court found her guilty of negligence for failing to challenge the state arbitration payout, which was given to a friend of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Despite the conviction, Lagarde was not given any sentence and will not face any punishment. The Court of Justice of the Republic, a special tribunal for ministers, could have sentenced her to up to one year in prison and a €13,000 fine. However, the ruling did not impose any penalties on her. Read more: Christine Lagarde convicted: IMF head found guilty of criminal charges over massive government payout , Independent, 19 December 2016 Eugenicist and Depopulationist Christine Lagarde, the then Director of the IMF, said “old people live too long” and this is a “risk for the global economy.” Attempting to debunk the statement, in 2021 Chequeado, a “fact-checker” for Facebook in Argentina, claimed : – “There are no written or audiovisual records that the statements attributed to the former IMF director are hers.”  Well, that’s easily sorted out by censoring and cleansing the internet of any incriminating evidence. – “Furthermore, the European Central Bank assured that Lagarde had not said that phrase.”  Yes, well they would say that. – “Part of the phrase attributed to the President of the European Central Bank (ECB) comes from a 2012 report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in whose presentation Lagarde was not present … In 2012, the IMF published the ‘ Report on Global Financial Stability (GFSR) ’, in which presentation Lagarde was not present. In that document, the IMF warned – in Chapter 4 – about the financial impact of longevity risk. ‘The financial implications of people living longer than expected (the so-called longevity risk) are very large’, the document says.” This is an interesting admission because according to the IMF’s report “longevity risk” is “the risk that actual life spans of individuals or whole populations will exceed expectations.” (See ‘Chapter 4: The Financial Impact of Longevity Risk’, page 3 of chapter 4 or, if you down the PDF of the report, page 137 of the PDF document.) Contrary to the claims of Facebook’s “fact-checker,” Lagarde’s negative sentiments towards the elderly were confirmed in a 2018 memo from “the Coalition.” The leaked memo, discovered in the waste basket of a high-ranking staffer in the European Commission, was sent to heads of state and finance ministers, urging them to address the issue of longevity as a risk to the global economy.  Heads of state that the memo was addressed to were “Angela, Teresa, Emmanuel …” presumably referring to Germany’s Angela Merkel , UK’s Theresa May and France’s Emmanuel Macron . The memo, as published by Monthly Review , stated: Here at the Coalition we were impressed by Christine’s bravery, saying publicly that old people “live too long” and those in charge of the global economy must do something about it, urgently. Recently, a photo of her, with potentially incendiary language from her speeches, has gone viral, without raising any resistance. Since older people do vote more reliably, her implication that old people are “superfluous” and “expensive” would seem troubling for the stability of political elites. But since then, Christine has kept her job while continually stressing the same themes, so it’s clear that the Americans who dominate the International Monetary Fund feel it’s safe to sow doubt on the need for knee-jerk protection of old people’s interests. This they have demonstrated vividly many times since the 2016 election. At Davos everyone was repeating the message. The Coalition welcomes this new moment for advancing our sensible coordinated agenda toward the superannuated, increasingly justified as all our budgets are swallowed up by entitlements, our streets and ICUs are clogged with old people, medical expenses for the senile are soaring, and adult children are burdened with costs and guilt. The ‘Christine Lagarde Memo’: FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, from ‘the Coalition ‘ , Monthly Review, 9 October 2018 It is worthwhile reading the entire memo that was purportedly leaked.  Although there is no way of validating its authenticity, it is a real eye-opener if you want to understand the possible reasons for the assault on people who have outlived “expectations.” Rather than basing decisions on someone’s age, might we suggest that it is people such as Lagarde and “the Coalition” that are the cause of longevity risk, that it is they who are clogging up our streets and are a burden to society, and that they have perhaps lived longer than “expectations”? Further reading: Digital euro legislation planned for 2023. Lagarde confirms wholesale CBDC considered , Ledger Insights, 27 September 2022 Christine Lagarde: Digital euro – a common European project , BIS, 8 November 2022 and Digital euro: a common European project , European Central Bank, 7 November 2022 European Commission to soon propose legislation on a digital Euro , AMB Crypto, 8 November 2022 Digital Euro at Least 2 Years Away, ECB’s Lagarde Says , Coin Desk, 26 September 2023 Eurosystem proceeds to next phase of digital euro project , European Central Bank, 18 October 2023 Christine Lagarde on European competitiveness, US tariffs, and creating a digital euro , Atlantic Council, 23 October 2024

Los Angeles wildfires set to be costliest disaster in US history.

He says Trump has decided to “lift all the remaining restrictions” on US munitions, allowing Israel to resume the war with “tremendous force.”

https://expose-news.com/2025/01/15/climate-and-nature-bill-is-the-uns-agenda-2030/ Featured image: George Orwell to be honoured on new £2 coin by Royal Mint. Source: The Guardian On yesterday’s episode of Trending , Gareth Icke and Richard Willet dive into the UK Climate and Nature (“CAN”) Bill, currently sneaking its way through Parliament without scrutiny. Very much like the WHO Pandemic Treaty, the CAN Bill would give unelected bodies sweeping powers to take over land, prevent travel, and control meat consumption, among other draconian powers, in the event of a “climate emergency.” Icke and Willet also discussed the Los Angeles wildfires and the possible connection to the LA Smart City 2028 agenda, the BBC’s climate change propaganda, including the vilification of family pets as a cause for climate change, and the UK’s release of a new two pound coin to commemorate the life of 1984 author George Orwell. The coin features the Big Brother eye. We Are Ickonic: Trending | Ep7 | What Is The Climate & Nature (CAN) Bill? 14 January 2024 (30 mins) In the following, we focus on Trending ’s discussion of the CAN Bill. The Climate and Nature (“CAN”) Bill has largely gone under the radar. It was reintroduced in the UK House of Commons by Liberal Democrat MP Roz Savage on 16 October 2024 and has its second reading scheduled in 9 days, on 24 January. “The reason it’s gone under the radar is they don’t want any scrutiny of it. The reason they don’t want scrutiny of it is because it ain’t going to be very good for us,” Icke said. The Bill is a rebadged version of the UN Agenda 2030. The Bill includes provisions for forced rewilding, which is another way of saying that the government will grant itself powers to seize land from farmers and others if they do not meet sustainable goals. It also includes retrofitting of homes, which would require homeowners to make changes such as installing insulation, heat pumps or solar panels at their own expense. Of course, the rules which allow the government to grab land and property or require homeowners to make changes to their homes are made by a select few using arbitrary arguments and can change at a whim. The Bill aims to ban fossil fuels, which would lead to pressure on the energy supply and drive up prices, making energy unaffordable for some people. The government would have control over various aspects of people’s lives, including energy use, food consumption, travel and what can be fitted or not fitted in their homes, with smart meters playing a role. “They’ll be able to order you not to travel, not to leave certain areas, not to fly …  they’ll be able to control food consumption what you’re allowed to [eat] … What will also tie into this is what you say,” Icke said. “Another thing that’s on there is energy use, so they can control how much energy you use.” “It should also be pointed out,” said Willet, “This will all be monitored on your digital ID system.  So all of this data will be collated on a digital ID system.” Usually, a bill has two or three sponsors.  The CAN Bill has over 200 sponsors in Parliament, indicating strong support for it to pass in Parliament.  The acronym “CAN” could easily be a psychological trick, so the public views the Bill with a positive connotation, even though in reality it is sinister. The justification for the CAN Bill is to address climate change, but the reality is it gives the government power to declare emergencies, and then implement policies and control people’s behaviour in response to that emergency without public input. Section 2 of the Bill proves the undefined, arbitrary and changeable nature of the yardsticks that the appointed enforcers will have at their disposal to invoke their powers: (1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a strategy (“the strategy”) to achieve the objectives [of reducing its overall contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero and halting and reversing its overall contribution to the degradation and loss of nature in the United Kingdom and overseas]. (3) The strategy must include measures that … will achieve the objectives … by – (a) limiting the United Kingdom’s total emissions of carbon dioxide to no more than its proportionate share of the remaining global carbon budget; (c) reducing the United Kingdom’s emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide at rates consistent with a proportionate United Kingdom contribution to limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Climate and Nature Bill (As Introduced), Zero Hour Neither the objectives nor 3(a) nor 3(c) can ever be specific, measurable or realistic, it is simply not possible even if anthropogenic climate change were real – it is all made-up nonsense, the Bill’s premise, the strategy it is attempting to legislate and any targets that are spun out from it.  And there are 200 supporters for this Bill?! Wikipedia notes : “At the time of Roz Savage’s announcement that she will reintroduce the CAN Bill on 10 October 2024, 182 MPs (from 11 political parties), 64 peers, 371 local authorities, and the London Assembly were backing the Bill.” Every single one of them should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. You can find a list of MPs who are supporting the horrendous Climate and Nature Bill HERE and all other supporters of it HERE .

Journalist & Researcher Jon Fleetwood joins Maria Zeee to discuss the evidence for the planned launch of "bird flu," detailing how the industry of biomedical terrorism plans to continue their war on humanity. Listeners may be surprised to learn who some of the key players are.