scholarly journals Environmental Warfare against American Citizens: An Open Letter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 382-397
Author(s):  
J. Marvin Herndon ◽  
Mark Whiteside

While the public perception of the recent attempts to unseat duly-elected U.S. President Donald J. Trump is thought to be solely of national origin, there is strong evidence of a more pernicious, United Nations’ sanctioned environmental assault on America and on American citizens. The United States and other sovereign nations are in the midst of a highly organized, covert environmental warfare assault, underlain by deception and deceit, orchestrated by a foreign entity, and perpetrated in America by the U.S. Air Force and its contractors, and facilitated by intelligence-agency operatives. The intent, to slowly and insidiously sicken, weaken, and debilitate citizenry, cause weather and climate chaos, cripple agriculture, and devastate the environment, is so cleverly underwritten and camouflaged as to have gone unnoticed in the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America and, presumably, is unknown to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But it is described here. American military officers have the responsibility to protect their own citizens, especially as they possess the means to destroy human and environmental health. Systematically poisoning the air Americans breathe, harming human and environmental health, causing weather and climate chaos, damaging agriculture, and deceiving the public as to the adverse human and environmental health consequences – all under secret orders originating from a foreign entity – we allege, violates not only their Oath of Office, but is tantamount to treason. The United States Air Force co-optation, deceit, and unquestioning capitulation to a foreign entity should be of grave concern to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. With due humility we must emphasize that no military asset is worth damaging human and environmental health, especially on a national or planetary-scale, and especially due to a deceptively-worded, Trojan horse, United Nations international treaty whose signatories presumably were duped into signing in the false belief that they were preventing hostile environmental warfare.

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (17) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Binder

After the terrorists' attacks of September 11, 2001, a lot of war rhetoric came out of the public and private sphere within the United States of America. On October 7, 2001, however, the rhetoric turned into reality as President George W. Bush countered the terrorist attacks and the threat of future terrorism with military means. While waging that new war U.S. governmental officials constantly make one important point, and that is that the United States are just exercising their right of self-defense. Moreover, on the day after the attacks, the Security Council of the United Nations unanimously reaffirmed the inherent right of self-defense as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. Does that mean that international law is just that clear?


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-295
Author(s):  
Keith Allan Clark II

In 1955, Jiang Tingfu, representing the Republic of China (roc), vetoed Mongolia’s entry into the United Nations. In the 26 years the roc represented China in the United Nations, it only cast this one veto. The roc’s veto was a contentious move because Taipei had recognized Mongolia as a sovereign state in 1946. A majority of the world body, including the United States, favored Mongolia’s admission as part of a deal to end the international organization’s deadlocked-admissions problem. The roc’s veto placed it not only in opposition to the United Nations but also its primary benefactor. This article describes the public and private discourse surrounding this event to analyze how roc representatives portrayed the veto and what they thought Mongolian admission to the United Nations represented. It also examines international reactions to Taipei’s claims and veto. It argues that in 1955 Mongolia became a synecdoche for all of China that Taipei claimed to represent, and therefore roc representatives could not acknowledge it as a sovereign state.


2009 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D. Akers ◽  
Jennifer M. VanDemark-Teplica ◽  
Alex Kiss ◽  
Donna M. Alfieri ◽  
Maureen B. Jennings

Background: The purpose of this study was to ascertain public perception of the terms podiatry and DPM. Methods: We distributed a survey to 847 people in ten states across the United States. It was hypothesized that most respondents would be less familiar with the DPM degree than the term podiatrist. It was also expected that people would choose MD over DPM for more complex procedures. Results: The majority of respondents selected a podiatrist and a DPM as a foot specialist, almost one-half selected DPM for foot surgery, but only one-third stated they would have foot surgery done by a DPM if they had a heart problem. In addition, it was hypothesized that respondents would choose the contrived PMD over DPM simply because PMD looks more like MD; this was not shown to be true. Conclusions: Although there are gaps in the public knowledge, our study revealed a greater familiarity with podiatry and the DPM degree than originally thought. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 99(3): 223–231, 2009)


1959 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 352
Author(s):  
C. J. C. ◽  
William A. Scott ◽  
Stephen B. Withey

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document