Is it Honorable to be in the Military?

Is it Honorable to be in the Military?



Courageous. Noble. Honorable. Just some of the adjectives used to describe military men. In most parts of the United States, being a soldier comes with a guarantee of respect. Americans seem to thank soldiers at every opportunity for “defending our freedom.” The story goes like this:

Young men and women risk their lives to defend the United States. They are willing to die for their country, which is a reflection of their noble character. Without them, we wouldn’t be free. Therefore, they deserve respect.

I disagree with this narrative. In fact, I’d say nearly the opposite is true: in most cases, being in the military is nothing admirable; it’s dishonorable. Pitiful, even. I mean this quite precisely, not as an insult. Allow me to make my case.

The central point is this: fighting for your country is insufficient reason for respect. What matters is why the country is fighting. Since most military action in the last half-century has been for illegitimate purposes, most soldiers are fighting for an illegitimate cause. Therefore, they are not honorable; they are dishonorable and dangerous.

A Simple Example

The first point is easy to make. Merely risking your life in the military cannot be respectable by itself. Take the simplest, most extreme case: Nazi soldiers. They were young men, fighting for their country and family, until the point of death. Yet, we view Nazi soldiers as not only dishonorable, but downright evil. Why? The cause for which they fought. Nazism was immoral. Therefore every single soldier was promoting and defending an immoral cause. In fact, it’s precisely the soldiers who deserve the most blame. They were the ultimate enforcers of Nazism, not Hitler.

Note: consider the young Nazi soldier who doesn’t actively hate Jews. He doesn’t desire world domination. He’s “just doing his job” – just making a paycheck for his family. Does he deserve respect? Of course not. His labor still contributes to an evil organization; his paycheck comes from despicable thugs.

Consider the Nazi who even disagrees with Hitler. He doesn’t support the war. He even complains to his superiors and becomes disillusioned. But, he is still employed by them and reluctantly gathers their military intelligence. He begrudgingly contributes to their cause. Is he innocent? No. Even if he thought, “Well, I don’t really agree with the cause, but my job isn’t to make the big decisions,” that’s not a sufficient excuse – any more than the soldier who imprisons a Jew but grumbles “Sorry, I don’t really want to do this.”

If Nazi soldiers do not deserve admiration, though they were willing to die for their homeland, then we need some further justification for the American soldier.

But America is Special

Perhaps it’s because the United States is a morally superior country to Nazi Germany? Well, let’s scrutinize the idea. We can call this the “intrinsically moral country” argument. First of all, it’s clear that this argument cannot apply universally, as people from different countries could all claim their country is “morally superior” to the others. The patriotic American and the patriotic Russian (or German, or Saudi Arabian) could say identical things about their homeland, but their conclusions would be mutually exclusive – i.e. America is morally superior to Russia, and Russian is morally superior to America.

What about the values of America in particular? Supposedly, this country is morally exceptional, because it’s founded on the virtues of individual freedom, rule of law, etc. If American soldiers are fighting for American values, does that make them respectable?

Again, the answer is no. Stated values are an insufficient reason to fight for a country. What matters is the actual mission. Merely saying, “We’re fighting a war in Iraq for the cause of freedom!” doesn’t mean that’s the actual mission, nor an accomplished result. The Soviet Union claimed they existed to help improve the life of the common man. So did Maoist China. But rhetoric aside, those governments ended up killing hundreds of millions of innocent people. Their language didn’t matter; their actions did.

So, unless we are willing to defend the Soviet soldier, who dutifully executed the orders of Stalin, we cannot pardon the American soldier, just because of the stated values of America. What matters, in every case, is the actual cause for which they fight.

Thus, we’re left with the question: are American military operations justified around the world? If we discover that they are unjustified, then we must conclude that the soldiers are acting immorally. They are contributing to an unjust cause.

I will not make the case against the actions of the US military – that’s for each person to research. Though, for starters, I will note that over half a million children died in Iraq due to political sanctions. Hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Soldiers have been caught murdering civilians overseas, then keeping their dismembered body parts as trophies. The list is lengthy of American soldier atrocities overseas, but that’s not the point of this article.

Problematic Structure

Rather than condemn the actions of individual soldiers, I want to focus on the bigger issue: the very idea of enacting the vision of political leaders – enforcing their commands. Or, what I believe is the most accurate way of phrasing it: being a pawn in a political chess game.

Consider the structure of the military. It is notoriously hierarchical. Rank-and-file soldiers are – first and foremost – to obey orders. Their position is not to be philosophers; if the sergeant says “Jump!”, you jump. If he says “Open fire!”, you squeeze the trigger. The military is not a playground for skeptical inquiry. An armed platoon will not operate smoothly if each member is questioning why they are there – if they are challenging their officers on principle.

The soldier’s role is not to understand the motivation for a mission. It’s not to see or agree with the big picture. It’s to do what he’s told.

And the officers, too, find themselves in a hierarchy. They are not to be autonomous actors. Their orders come from their superiors, and refusing to obey orders will ultimately lead to ejection from the hierarchy. This chain of command goes all the way to the top – perhaps a group of military officials, perhaps the President, perhaps an army general. At some point, a person or group of people, not the rank-and-file soldier, is calling the shots.

So I ask you: is submitting to the commands of other men respectable? Is doing what you’re told – even if you don’t understand or agree with it – honorable? Or, is the opposite true: it’s a sign of weakness. It’s reflective of a lack of character – a missing backbone. Those military men who enforce the orders of autocrats, who act as the armed muscle of politicians – they concretely demonstrate their lack of autonomy.

Then Why Join?

Without meaning to insult anyone, I must confess: this theory has been validated by nearly every soldier I’ve met. From my conversations and experiences, I honestly think I see why most people join the military. One of two reasons:

Insecurity or confusion.

The desire to be honored, to be respected – or perhaps to be financially secure – appears to be a large motivator for the average soldier. I’d guess it’s precisely because young men and women are insecure, the military seeks to recruit them. Malleability is a desirable trait in an organization based on hierarchy.

Look at the advertisements for the military. They look like scenes from Star Wars, complete with zapping lasers and hi-tech button pushing. Other ads craft an emotional story: the noble teenager wanting to protect his neighbors and countrymen from attack. They portray the military as “a key” to success and honor. The young all-American seeking to “make something” of his life; the romantic, dangerous sacrifice reserved only for selfless, courageous soldiers. “The few, the proud, the Marines”: a select group of tough guys, protecting civilians from foreign evil.

Though it will undoubtedly anger military men and families, the truth hurts: the romance surrounding the military is only propaganda. Intentional propaganda, designed to persuade the right people for the job. And the right people are impressionable, submissive, and will allow their own moral and intellectual compass to be turned off, if ordered to do so.

In fact, I’d say it is precisely the weak who are willing to enforce the commands of others – the Nazi soldier with a weak moral compass; the Soviet soldier who was dependent on the paycheck; the Afghani terrorist who gets whipped into a frenzy by Islamic radicals.

If the military recruiters are compelling enough – if they can sufficiently obfuscate, confuse, and manipulate the good intentions of an impressionable youth – then they are rewarded with obedience: an enthusiastic pledge of their own mortality to the cause.

And here’s the unfortunate reality: almost universally, their peers do end up giving them respect. Military propaganda is incredibly successful. Nazi culture worshipped the noble young soldier. The Jihadists are seen as doing God’s work. The American soldier is portrayed as the very definition of the word “hero”, and they are also frequently put into a religious narrative. Their employment is portrayed as essential for civilized life.

But it isn’t true. American soldiers (and country X’s soldiers) are only essential to the political and military agenda – to expand the power of a small group of people. They are essential for anyone who desires to control the lives of others. And in most circumstances, their work causes far more harm than good.

The death and destruction caused in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. – none of it was necessary to protect American civilians. It was necessary to advance political power.

Inhumane Choices

I do not think it’s coincidental that so many soldiers retire from the military with PTSD. I don’t think it’s inexplicable that the suicide rate of veterans is extraordinarily high. Those poor individuals have been used. They were tools – pawns manipulated for violence; convinced their jobs were important – no different than any other soldier on any side in virtually any other war.

Humans are not meant to kill each other, much less when commanded by others. The shock of war can paralyze men; the shame of war can kill them.

How must one feel after killing a man you’ve never met? You’ve been told he’s a target, and it’s your duty to put a bullet through his skull. But what about his family? Will you be responsible for a child’s fatherless upbringing, and a wife’s torment? Yes, if you squeeze the trigger.

And what if he’s innocent – what if your superiors made a mistake? What if – heaven forbid – he’s the one trying to defend his family, and you’re the foreign invader? Alas, it isn’t your duty to think about such things. You are to accomplish the mission and trust your leaders made the right evaluation.

Perhaps there’s an escape: he’s shooting at you. It’s kill or be killed, right? I’m sorry, but here’s the tragic truth:

You had another option. You put yourself into the battle. You decided to join; you obeyed the commands. You submitted to the hierarchy.

Make no mistake: you could be home, employed in a peaceful line of work. You could be sitting in chair, evaluating the merits of the mission for yourself.

But now, because of a series of choices – all of which you are responsible for – violence and death is the inevitable result. Persuasion and cooperation has been rejected in favor of physical violence, at the ultimate command of men you’ve never met.

And this is honorable? Of course it isn’t. The circumstance is awful, and I deeply pity any soul tormented by these ideas after-the-fact.

Exceptions to the Rule

I have painted a bleak picture of the soldier; are there exceptions? Certainly, and let me explain them.

First, and most obviously, we’ve established that what determines the respectability of a soldier is the cause for which he fights. Thus, if a war is inevitable – if you are a Pole waiting for the Nazis to invade – and you haven’t a peaceful way out, then it’s no longer a clear sign of weakness to join the military. Voluntarily “submitting” to the orders of a military commander – because you sincerely believe in the cause­ – is not dishonorable. Enforcing the plan of the military leader – because you and your families’ lives actually depend on it – is not a function of insecurity. It’s not for gaining the appearance of nobility, and it isn’t for the pension. And crucially:

It isn’t a blank check.

Every single action by a soldier must be analyzed and evaluated as sensible or just. Outsourcing your critical thinking is not justified simply because you support the cause. Say what you will about the justness of WWII, but imagine you are an Allied soldier and agree with your mission. If a commander orders you to kill an innocent, you mustn’t do it. You are equally liable as if it were in cold blood.

If the mission ever changes – if instead of defense, the Allied forces were bent on their own domination – you must quit. If, for example, the President tells you to drop two atomic bombs and incinerate a hundred thousand innocent civilians (even though there’s another option) you’re morally condemnable if you obey.

The only way to remain respectable is to always evaluate the big picture – good intentions are not sufficient. You must always have a concrete answer to the question, “What am I doing and why?” And if any action rubs against your conscious, or if any mission is corrupt, the soldier must refuse orders.

In other words, the honorable man always takes commands as suggestions. If he disagrees, he disobeys.
But from my experience, I’ve rarely encountered such an anti-authoritarian soldier.

So, there is an exception: the soldier fighting a defensive battle – no different than the father defending his home from invasion – might be respected. The naïve young man who believes the propaganda for a time – he too might be absolved of joining the military by awakening to the corruption and immorality within it. And, of course, by quitting immediately.

But since the vast majority of military battles are fought for political reasons – for conquest, economic plunder, or national glory – and since most soldiers are unwilling or uninterested in scrutinizing the justification for their mission, they do not meet the criteria for respectability. As upsetting as it sounds, most soldiers are how they’ve been used: as disposable pawns for ambitious men.

Full Coverage

We’ve established a few things: simply fighting for a country is not sufficient to be honorable. The same is true for having a dangerous job – we don’t see lumberjacks and fisherman as universally noble. The “our country is unique” argument also fails; every country states lofty principles.

The military is intrinsically hierarchical – obeying commands (from other men) is an essential part of the job. This attracts the wayward and weak, who seek an easy path towards respectability and a paycheck – or, even worse, the simple adrenaline rush of combat.

The military is also the ultimate enforcement of political power; without the threat of violent force, politicians are impotent. Militaries are inextricably linked with government and governance. If the government is unethical, so are the soldiers. Therefore, the question of honor, courage, and respectability is entirely dependent on the mission at hand and the demonstration of insubordination at the first sign of error.

In short, the honorable soldier is an exception to the rule in the 21th century. The desire for respect or security leads too many people to foolishly believe their countries’ military propaganda. While soldiers will certainly garner affection from fellow civilians, it’s ultimately because the general population, too, is tricked by the same government lies. Being used as a political tool – even if it’s popular – is not courageous.

I know these ideas will upset people – military families in particular. But too much death is caused by this particular organization to remain silent. I realize many young soldiers risk their lives on a daily basis and that they don’t intend to cause harm. But the stakes are too high. “They mean well” is not sufficient justification to overlook institutionalized, aggressive violence.

So, to anybody considering joining the military, please don’t. Do not get caught up in nationalist romance. If you have already joined, you are responsible to learn about your employer and your mission – if you haven’t yet discovered their corruptness and immorality, it’s because you aren’t looking hard enough.

And, if you start to doubt the judgement of your superiors, immediately stop obeying their commands. Even if you aren’t involved in active combat, don’t contribute your labor to an evil organization. Do the honorable thing: refuse orders and quit.


Read More

Is it Honorable to be in the Military?

Will China Clash With The U.S And Cause Economic Collapse?

Will China Clash With The U.S And Cause Economic Collapse?


In this video Luke Rudkowski breaks down the tense relationship the U.S has with the world’s 2nd largest economy in the world China. We go over the military geopolitical moves regarding the man made south asian Chinese military bases, the new Chinese backed Yuan that cannot be traded with the dollar and an economic forecast of both countries. We will keep you updated on the rising tensions between the two countries and to continue our work invest in us on so we can continue our independent and free operation.

Support WeAreChange by Subscribing to our channel HERE…

Visit our main site for more breaking news
SnapChat: LukeWeAreChange

Rep WeAreChange Merch Proudly:

OH YEAH since we are not corporate or government WHORES help us out

We take BITCOIN too

Half of Americans think the presidential election is ‘rigged’

Half of Americans think the presidential election is ‘rigged’



Chris Kahn

More than half of American voters believe that the system U.S. political parties use to pick their candidates for the White House is “rigged” and more than two-thirds want to see the process changed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The results echo complaints from Republican front-runner Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders that the system is stacked against them in favor of candidates with close ties to their parties – a critique that has triggered a nationwide debate over whether the process is fair.

The United States is one of just a handful of countries that gives regular voters any say in who should make it onto the presidential ballot. But the state-by-state system of primaries, caucuses and conventions is complex. The contests historically were always party events, and while the popular vote has grown in influence since the mid-20th century, the parties still have considerable sway.

One quirk of the U.S. system – and the area where the parties get to flex their muscle – is the use of delegates, party members who are assigned to support contenders at their respective conventions, usually based on voting results. The parties decide how delegates are awarded in each state, with the Republicans and Democrats having different rules.

The delegates’ personal opinions can come into play at the party conventions if the race is too close to call – an issue that has become a lightning rod in the current political season.

Another complication is that state governments have different rules about whether voters must be registered as party members to participate. In some states, parties further restrict delegate selection to small committees of party elites, as the Republican Party in Colorado did this year.



“I’d prefer to see a one-man-one-vote system,” said Royce Young, 76, a resident of Society Hill, South Carolina, who supports Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. “The process is so flawed.”

Trump has repeatedly railed against the rules, at times calling them undemocratic. After the Colorado Republican Party awarded all its delegates to Ted Cruz, for example, Trump lashed out in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, charging “the system is being rigged by party operatives with ‘double-agent’ delegates who reject the decision of voters.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has dismissed Trump’s complaints as “rhetoric” and said the rules would not be changed before the Republican convention in July.

Trump swept the five Northeastern nominating contests on Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The New York billionaire has 950 delegates to 560 for Cruz, a U.S. senator from Texas, and 153 for Kasich, the Ohio governor, according to the Associated Press. A total of 1,237 delegates are needed to secure the Republican nomination.

On the Democratic side, Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, has taken issue with the party’s use of superdelegates, the hundreds of elite party members who can support whomever they like at the convention and who this year overwhelmingly back front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Clinton has repeatedly emphasized that she is beating Sanders in both total votes cast and in pledged delegates, those who are bound by the voting results – rendering his complaints about superdelegates moot.

On Tuesday, the former secretary of state won Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and Connecticut, while Sanders won in Rhode Island. Clinton leads Sanders by 2,141 delegates to 1,321, according to the AP, with 2,383 needed to win the nomination.

Sanders has also criticized party bosses for not holding enough prime-time television debates and said before a string of primaries open only to registered Democrats this month that “independents have lost their right to vote,” referring to a voter block that has tended to favor him.

A Democratic National Committee official was not immediately available to comment.


Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said the U.S. presidential nominating system could probably be improved in a number of areas, but noted that the control wielded by party leadership usually became an issue only during tight races.

“The popular vote overwhelms the rules usually, but in these close elections, everyone pays attention to these arcane rules,” he said.

Some 51 percent of likely voters who responded to the April 21-26 online survey said they believed the primary system was “rigged” against some candidates. Some 71 percent of respondents said they would prefer to pick their party’s nominee with a direct vote, cutting out the use of delegates as intermediaries.

The results also showed 27 percent of likely voters did not understand how the primary process works and 44 percent did not understand why delegates were involved in the first place. The responses were about the same for Republicans and Democrats.

Overall, nearly half said they would also prefer a single primary day in which all states held their nominating contests together – as opposed to the current system of spreading them out for months.

The poll included 1,582 Americans and had a credibility interval of 2.9 percentage points.

Read More!poll/TM903Y16_2/type/smallest/dates/20160327-20160428/collapsed/true/spotlight/1

NSA is so overwhelmed with data, it’s no longer effective, says whistleblower

NSA is so overwhelmed with data, it’s no longer effective, says whistleblower




by Zack Whittaker

NEW YORK — A former National Security Agency official turned whistleblower has spent almost a decade and a half in civilian life. And he says he’s still “pissed” by what he’s seen leak in the past two years.

In a lunch meeting hosted by Contrast Security founder Jeff Williams on Wednesday, William Binney, a former NSA official who spent more than three decades at the agency, said the US government’s mass surveillance programs have become so engorged with data that they are no longer effective, losing vital intelligence in the fray.

As the Snowden leaks began, there was “fear and panic” in Congress

Just a few minutes after the first NSA leak was published, the phones of US lawmakers began to buzz, hours before most of America would find out over their morning coffee.


Binney said that an analyst today can run one simple query across the NSA’s various databases, only to become immediately overloaded with information. With about four billion people — around two-thirds of the world’s population — under the NSA and partner agencies’ watchful eyes, according to his estimates, there is too much data being collected.

“That’s why they couldn’t stop the Boston bombing, or the Paris shootings, because the data was all there,” said Binney. Because the agency isn’t carefully and methodically setting its tools up for smart data collection, that leaves analysts to search for a needle in a haystack.

“The data was all there… the NSA is great at going back over it forensically for years to see what they were doing before that,” he said. “But that doesn’t stop it.”

Binney called this a “bulk data failure” — in that the NSA programs, leaked by Edward Snowden, are collecting too much for the agency to process. He said the problem runs deeper across law enforcement and other federal agencies, like the FBI, the CIA, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which all have access to NSA intelligence.

Binney left the NSA a month after the September 11 attacks in New York City in 2001, days after controversial counter-terrorism legislation was enacted — the Patriot Act — in the wake of the attacks. Binney stands jaded by his experience leaving the shadowy eavesdropping agency, but impassioned for the job he once had. He left after a program he helped develop was scrapped three weeks prior to September 11, replaced by a system he said was more expensive and more intrusive. Snowden said he was inspired by Binney’s case, which in part inspired him to leak thousands of classified documents to journalists.
Since then, the NSA has ramped up its intelligence gathering mission to indiscriminately “collect it all.”

Binney said the NSA is today not as interested in phone records — such as who calls whom, when, and for how long. Although the Obama administration calls the program a “critical national security tool,” the agency is increasingly looking at the content of communications, as the Snowden disclosures have shown.



The former NSA official turned whistleblower said a greater threat exists to Americans’ privacy than the controversial Patriot Act.
Binney said he estimated that a “maximum” of 72 companies were participating in the bulk records collection program — including Verizon, but said it was a drop in the ocean. He also called PRISM, the clandestine surveillance program that grabs data from nine named Silicon Valley giants, including Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, just a “minor part” of the data collection process.

“The Upstream program is where the vast bulk of the information was being collected,” said Binney, talking about how the NSA tapped undersea fiber optic cables. With help from its British counterparts at GCHQ, the NSA is able to “buffer” more than 21 petabytes a day.

Binney said the “collect it all” mantra now may be the norm, but it’s expensive and ineffective.

“If you have to collect everything, there’s an ever increasing need for more and more budget,” he said. “That means you can build your empire.”

They say you never leave the intelligence community. Once you’re a spy, you’re always a spy — it’s a job for life, with few exceptions. One of those is blowing the whistle, which he did. Since then, he has spent his retirement lobbying for change and reform in industry and in Congress.

“They’re taking away half of the constitution in secret,” said Binney. “If they want to change the constitution, there’s a way to do that — and it’s in the constitution.”

An NSA spokesperson did not immediately comment.

Read More

Can Cell Phones Cause Cancer? The Answer is Yes

Can Cell Phones Cause Cancer? The Answer is Yes


While the possible connection between cellphones and cancer is still considered a controversial subject, years worth of studies on cell phones and cancer have shown that there is a definitive connection between the risks of cancer and the electromagnetic radiation that’s being emitted by many of the popular objects that we use today — laptops, cell phones, and smart meters just to name a few.

After evaluating several studies on the possibility of a connection between cellphones, glioma and a noncancerous brain tumor known as acoustic neuroma, members of the International Agency for Research on Cancer — part of the World Health Organizationagreed that there is evidence that cellphone radiation contributes to cancer cell growth.

Although separately funded studies have yielded conflicting results currently there is no denying that exposure to Electro-magnetic frequencies does contribute to cancerous cell growth.

A short list of less severe side effects of EMF exposure includes: neurological impairment, ear pain and hearing problems, breathing dysfunctions, chest pains and heart ailments, burning skin, sleep disturbances, headaches, depression, vision troubles, blood pressure changes, sterility, autism, and other neuro-degenerative diseases.

In this video Dr. Devra Davis, author of “Disconnect–The Truth About Cellphone Radiation,” and hundreds of other publications, explains how the biological impact of a cell phone is not related to it’s power, as many assume, but rather to the erratic nature of its high frequency radio signal, and its ability to disrupt the body’s natural resonance and interfere with DNA’s ability to repair. This, according to Dr. Mercola of, is the most plausible theory for understanding the wide array of health impacts that have been discovered — including cancer.

Children and Teens are the most at risk

Children and teens are at greatest risk—both for parotid gland tumors and brain tumors. Because of their thinner skull bones which allow for greater penetration of cell phone radiation. The radiation can enter all the way into their mid-brain, where tumors are more deadly. In addition, children’s cells reproduce more quickly, so they’re more susceptible to aggressive cell growth. Children today also face a lifetime of exposure. According to Professor Lennart Hardell of Sweden, “those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have statistically 4 to 5 times more brain cancer then adults

Pregnant women should also avoid cell phones as much as possible. In 2008, researchers analyzed data from nearly 13,000 children and found that exposure to cell phones while in the womb was linked to behavioral difficulties. Using handsets just two or three times a day during pregnancy was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions, and relationships by the time they reached school age—and the risk became even greater if the children also used the phones themselves before the age of seven.

Overall, the study revealed that mothers who used mobile phones were 54 percent more likely to have children with behavioral problems.


Telecom Industry Seeks to Discredit Findings and Silence Scientists

Much like the Tobacco, pharmaceutical, and GMO industries before them, the telecommunication corporations seek to discredit any data connecting their product and its byproduct to the statistical rise in specific cancers, like parotid gland tumors which has seen a four fold incress over the last 30 years. (Your parotid gland is a type of salivary gland, located closest to your cheek—the same area where most people typically hold their cell phones.) University researchers in Israel found a 400% increase in number of parotid gland cancers from 1970 to 2006, while rates of other salivary gland cancers remained stable.

In 1993, the cell phone industry was pressured by Congress into investing $28 million dollars to study cell phone safety. The cause of this sudden concern was massive publicity about a lawsuit filed by Florida businessman David Reynard against cell phone manufacturer NEC. Mr. Reynard’s wife, Susan, died of a brain tumor, and he blamed the frequent use of her cellphone for her death. Reynard revealed the suit to the public on the Larry King Live show, complete with dramatic x-rays showing the tumor close to where Susan held her cell phone to her head for hours each day. The next day, telecommunications stocks took a big hit on Wall Street and the media went into instant spin control. The industry trade association at the time, (TIA), went into crisis mode, claiming thousands of studies proved cell phones were safe and what Reynard and his attorney said was not verifiable. The TIA reassured the public that the government had approved cell phones, so that meant they were safe. The media demanded to see those studies, but, according to Dr. George Carlo, PhD, an epidemiologist and medical scientist who headed the first industry-backed studies into the dangers of cell phone use from 1993 to 1999 —

“Industry-funded studies in many cases now produce industry-desired outcomes. By tampering with the integrity of scientists, scientific systems and public information steps over the lines of propriety that are appropriate for protecting business interests—especially when the casualty of the interference is public health and safety.”

Scientists Continue Speaking Out Against Cell Phone Radiation 

Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, the principal investigator of a 2008 study, testified before the U.S. Senate that cell phones were identified as a contributor to salivary gland tumors.  Dr. Martin Blank, one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of electromagnetic fields in the U.S., gave a speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, titled “The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.”  In it, he explained why your DNA, with its ‘coil of coils’ structure, is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds. Calling sustained exposure to EMF’s “an issue of great concern.

Olle Johansson associate professor at the Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, in Stockholm, Sweden, is a leading authority in the field of EMF radiation and health effects.

At the Open Mind Conference in 2014, Olle spoke in detail about how electromagnetic fields and signals are producing negative health effects, his lecture goes deep into the scientific research results regarding the health effects of electromagnetic fields and the urgent need for independent research projects which according to Mr. Johansson need to be initiated to ensure our public health.  [Watch the full video of Olle Johansson “Health effects of electromagnetic fields” here]

On May 31, 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a report admitting cell phones might indeed cause cancer, classifying radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as “carcinogenic to humans” placing them into the same category as lead, engine exhaust, and chloroform.

So what can we do about it ? 

If you’re concerned about the possible link between cellphones and cancer, consider limiting your use of cellphones or use a speaker or hands-free device that places the cellphone antenna, which is typically in the cellphone itself, away from your head and face. Use a Land Line at home and at work. In all ways try to Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices, Avoid Carrying Your Phone on Your Body, never assume one cell phone is safer than another, use protective cases and mats if you are carrying a smart phone tablet or when placing a laptop on your legs, use safer technology like headsets and ear buds,  and remember to respect others opinions and be courteous to others who are more sensitive to the effects of electromagnetic radiation.

WeAreChange has found many products being sold that claim to help block EMF radiation, such as orgone. We will continue to look into possible solutions, and we will always listen to evidence provided by you, the reader.


Thank you for Visiting 

wrc linkcell-phone-cancer




Enroll Today to learn how to be an Independent Journalist

Change Media University 

HELP Send Luke To Germany 


OPERATION INVESTIGATE BILDERBERG -2016- is currently looking for Sponsors to Help Support the Effort to get @Luke Rudkowski  out to Germany to cover Bilderberg 2016

Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news


Don’t forget to visit

to get you hands on the latest WRC Gear !

California City Votes In Favor Of Converting Former Prison Into Marijuana Oil Factory

California City Votes In Favor Of Converting Former Prison Into Marijuana Oil Factory



By Duke London

An abandoned correctional facility in the city of Coalinga, CA is on the verge of undergoing quite the role reversal. The City Council voted 4-1 in favor of leasing the vacant Claremont Custody Center to a privately held company, who would subsequently transform the prison into a large-scale commercial manufacturing plant for marijuana extraction. Coalinga held a public workshop Wednesday evening to vote on the Claremont re-purposing as well as two other related issues. They again voted 4-1, this time in favor of introducing a ballot measure to citizens regarding the opening of medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, and on the third and final issue, voted unanimously to tax these businesses in the event they do become legal.

The move could potentially be a financial windfall for the city as they’d theoretically be collecting revenue on the property as well as a tax on the product. David McPherson of HdL, a company that provides financial advice and auditing services to over 160 California cities, counts Coalinga as a client and attended the workshop to discuss how similar ventures affected the balance sheets of other cities. A pioneer in the field, McPherson was the first city administrator in the country to regulate and tax the sale of medical marijuana when he implemented the system in Oakland. On Wednesday night, he offered solutions to maximize the possible revenue for Coalinga, including taxing cultivation operations, like the proposed plan at Claremont, by square footage and dispensaries by their gross income.

Councilman Ron Lander, the only member to oppose the Claremont deal, pressed McPherson for financial details in regards to other cities’ adoption of these types of practices. While McPherson was reluctant to provide concrete numbers, he hinted at the potential cash cow this could represent for Coalinga based on the results in Adelanto, CA.

“I read in the Orange County Register that they (Adelanto) currently have six cultivations moving forward,” Lander stated. “Twenty-six,” McPherson quickly corrected, as he and HdL also represent Adelanto. “I’ve heard the revenue would be more than their general fund,” Councilman Nathan Vosburg said. “That’s about right,” McPherson said, which resulted in an audible gasp from citizens and the Council alike.

For reference, Adelanto’s most recent available budget data shows their general fund stands at roughly $10.6 million, whereas Coalinga’s 2015-16 budget shows gross revenue of $7.1 million.

McPherson also touched on the hot-button issue of cash, a necessary evil in the industry with federally insured banks usually shying away from marijuana-related companies regardless of the business’ legal standing locally. “This is the question I’ve been asked about most in the last six years,” McPherson admitted. “Cash is a problem – I’ve known that ever since a cultivator gave me a million dollars in a backpack once.”

Ocean Grown Extracts, the company attempting to lease the prison, had their President Casey Dalton-Schutt in attendance to placate any fear about her business being a shady operation. “We won’t be showing up with backpacks full of cash,” she joked. “We write checks.” She attempted to lift some of the stigma attached to grow operations by assuring attendees that Ocean Grown’s process is meticulous, tracking each and every last seed by bar code from the beginning of the plant’s life until the final product is delivered to its destination.

Dalton-Schutt explained that while there is some inherent risk of police interference, she sees it as highly unlikely to affect the Claremont site. She reassured the Council by stating Ocean Grown would assume full liability for any raids, meaning the City of Coalinga wouldn’t be on the hook financially for any losses or damages. As far as Ocean Grown’s reasoning for wanting to take over a former prison, it has a lot to do with security and location, location, location. Besides being located smack dab in the middle of San Francisco and Los Angeles, the former Claremont Custody Center has the protective features a large scale operation like Ocean Grown’s would covet. While things like security checkpoints, razor wire barriers, and heightened surveillance are great for keeping people in a facility like this, they’re also quite effective at keeping unwanted guests out. This kind of security is highly coveted by cultivators and dispensaries alike due to a high risk of robberies and raids among marijuana businesses. If Coalinga and Ocean Grown can reach a lease agreement, Dalton-Schutt said they could be up and running in as little as nine months.

This workshop was actually the second attempt the City had made in its efforts to bring in medical marijuana revenue. Back in January City Council voted, unanimously no less, to legalize cultivation, the opening of dispensaries, and even deliveries. Shortly thereafter, public backlash from citizens and City officials alike caused the Council to take a step back and reassess the situation. Wednesday’s workshop was designed to revisit the debate while providing an informative environment for Coalinga residents to learn and raise any concerns.

Read more

The Biggest Chemical Attack On American Citizens By Their Own Government

The Biggest Chemical Attack On American Citizens By Their Own Government


In this video Luke Rudkowski covers a very personal and private story of the largest chemical attack on the american people that will also affect him. Over a half a million will be affected by this in the near future, while hundreds have already died and thousands are still suffering as we speak. There has been no accountability for this chemical attack just a massive cover up and censorship of this story, share this video with your friends and family so the truth can finally come out. If you believe in us go to and invest in us so we can continue our operation and be totally free and independent news source for you.


Support WeAreChange by Subscribing to our channel HERE…

Visit our main site for more breaking news
SnapChat: LukeWeAreChange

Rep WeAreChange Merch Proudly:

OH YEAH since we are not corporate or government WHORES help us out

We take BITCOIN too

Obama Announces Flint Visit, Michael Moore Responds Promising Riots

Obama Announces Flint Visit, Michael Moore Responds Promising Riots


In what some — including filmmaker, activist and Flint resident Michael Moore — are calling too little, too late, President Barack Obama is finally planning a visit to Flint, Michigan, next week.

The White House announced the President’s trip plans on Wednesday, explaining that he is finally going to visit after receiving a letter from an 8-year-old girl who wrote to him about the water crisis.

The letter from the concerned child read as follows:

“Mr. President,

Hello my name is Mari Copeny and I’m 8 years old, I live in Flint, Michigan and I’m more commonly known around town as “Little Miss Flint”. I am one of the children that is effected by this water, and I’ve been doing my best to march in protest and to speak out for all the kids that live here in Flint. This Thursday I will be riding a bus to Washington, D.C. to watch the congressional hearings of our Governor Rick Snyder. I know this is probably an odd request but I would love for a chance to meet you or your wife. My mom said chances are you will be too busy with more important things, but there is a lot of people coming on these buses and even just a meeting from you or your wife would really lift people’s spirits. Thank you for all that do for our country. I look forward to being able to come to Washington and to be able to see Gov. Snyder in person and to be able to be in the city where you live.

Thank You

Mari Copeny”

In President Obama’s response to Copeny, he wrote:

“You’re right that Presidents are often busy, but the truth is, in America, there is no more important title than citizen. And I am so proud of you for using your voice to speak out on behalf of the children of Flint.”

In the White House statement, they explained that the President will meet with residents and give a briefing regarding what the federal government plans to do about the crisis.

“The President will travel to Flint, Michigan where he will hear first-hand from Flint residents like Mari about the public health crisis, receive an in-person briefing on the federal efforts in place to help respond to the needs of the people of Flint, and speak directly with members of the Flint community,” the White House said in a statement.

Activist, filmmaker, and Flint resident Michael Moore was not impressed by the announcement, however, and wrote a lengthy, and angry, response blasting the President. He asserted that “every child here now has some form of permanent brain damage. There is NOTHING you can do to reverse that for them. There is no cure,” before demanding that the city does not need any more visits from politicians.

“We don’t need any more visits from politicians, even one as beloved as you. We don’t need any more promises of testing. We don’t need any more token digging up of pipes made rancid by the Flint River water that flowed through them (of the 75,000 pipes that need replacing, a total of 39 – 39!! – have been dug up and removed since you met with the mayor in the White House back in January). Meanwhile the poisoning continues on daily basis, even with the Lake Huron water that has been restored because it’s flowing through lead-damaged pipes with a new chemical that now burns people’s skin,” Moore wrote in a lengthy open letter to the President that he posted on Facebook.

Moore then promised that riots will surely begin soon.

“So unless you’re bringing the U.S. Army with you to save 100,000 of your fellow Americans, and unless you’re going to arrest the governor of Michigan who has now killed more Americans than ISIS, you might as well stay home. The riots here, I’m certain, will begin sometime soon. That’s what you or I would do if someone was poisoning OUR kids and the government refused to stop it, right?” Moore asked.

So far, three officials have been charged with misdemeanors and felonies for their involvement in the water crisis which poisoned the city. Calls for Governor Rick Snyder to be removed from office and arrested have so far gone ignored.

The contamination of Flint’s water began in April 2014, when the city stopped receiving its supply from Detroit, and began using water taken directly from the Flint River — a source known to have a high corrosive salt content. Corrosive salts in the water damaged the pipes, which contain lead, causing that harmful material to be released into the water.

In October, the state changed the city’s drinking water source back from the polluted Flint River to the Detroit water system, but many have expressed outrage that residents were not warned, and that it took so long to change back.

For a period of at least six months, the EPA and Michigan officials were aware of the poisoning of the water, but did not publicize their concerns or make an effort to correct the problem.

Protester Pepper Sprays 11-Year old and Eight-Year-Old Female Trump Supporters

Protester Pepper Sprays 11-Year old and Eight-Year-Old Female Trump Supporters


Apolitical, Bernie supporter, or Trump supporter, anyone with common sense should see that pepper spraying children is wrong and not justified by hating a political candidate.

This is about personal responsibility — people have been justifying the violence of the protestors against Trump, and that justification is insane.

From the New York Post –

ANAHEIM, Calif. — Supporters and opponents of Donald Trump clashed outside City Hall, and five people, including two little girls, were pepper-sprayed by a demonstrator during the heated confrontation, police said.No serious injuries and no arrests were reported in Tuesday’s clash as about 50 people confronted each other in the Orange County community.Backers waving US flags and pro-Trump signs were met by opponents and a shouting match began before a city council meeting where an anti-Trump resolution had been proposed. The council eventually chose to take no action on the measure.At one point, an opponent unleashed a hand-held pepper-spray device on the pro-Trump crowd.Five people, including two girls ages 8 and 11, were exposed to the eye-stinging spray, police Sgt. Daron Wyatt said. Three were treated at the scene by paramedics.The man fled, but police were looking for him, Wyatt said.

protesting asleep

How A Criminal Will Become President In 2016

How A Criminal Will Become President In 2016


In this video Luke Rudkowski gives you an update on Hillary Clinton and her scandals. We go over the illicit illegal activity that is being censored on social media and combated by a professional troll army hired by a Clinton PAC to shill for her. Support our organization and check out our which helps us continue our work for you.

These are America’s Allies — Saudi Arabia Airs Video Teaching Husbands “How to Beat Your Wife”……

Crooked Hillary Clinton needs to be in the imgur title as well……………….….

Support WeAreChange by Subscribing to our channel HERE…

Visit our main site for more breaking news
SnapChat: LukeWeAreChange

Rep WeAreChange Merch Proudly:

OH YEAH since we are not corporate or government WHORES help us out

We take BITCOIN too

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.