http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45538.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45538.htm

Here comes One World Government according to plan: All make like world leaders and “Bow to the King”

Coming your way from the UN: Obama, King of the World

“I”, “I”,”I”, “Me”, “Me, “Me””, “Me” Barack Hussein Obama is coming to the United Nations on Tuesday to brag to citizens of the world how they now belong to the globalists and their One World Government utopia.

“In one of his last major appearances on the world stage, President Barack Obama will try to define how his leadership has made the planet safer and more prosperous when he gives his farewell speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday.” (AP, Sept. 17, 2016)

The last farewell of the most destructive to the West U.S. president ever elected will be made at the annual gathering of world leaders.  You know, the same world leaders who gave the sovereignty of their nations away to the UN and EU, the world’s largest two bureaucracies; the same ones holding their populations hostage by overwhelming them with hundreds of thousands of “migrants”  from countries who loathe the West and want its downfall.

Barry Soetoro posing as Barack Obama won’t be wearing the conquering hero’s laurel wreath, but it will be there all the same. 

The ‘world leaders’ will give their conquering hero standing ovations, but their populations, who had no say in becoming the inhabitants of One World Government will hope and pray for a miracle to stop it from happening.

Obama long ago claimed global leadership in his now 8-year-long bid to change the world into a borderless, Islamic terrorist-challenged place.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the ex British Prime Minister David Cameron et al were only his minions in turning the Free World upside down.

The AP, meanwhile should be nominated for a Noble Prize for comedy in their description of Obama’s “Farewell” speech:

“Obama’s challenge at the annual gathering of world leaders is to cast the past eight years as ones of overall progress, without glossing over the profound problems that have eluded his diplomacy. His successes in galvanizing action on climate change and encouraging democratic changes in Cuba and Myanmar are tempered by crises across the Middle East and North Korea’s nuclear threat, which has only strengthened.”

..without glossing over the profound problems that have eluded his diplomacy”?

What kind of diplomacy came with his punishing ‘Fundamental Transformation of America?

What kind of diplomacy came to the thousands of coal miners and fishermen he drove out of work this past week?

Obama’s arrogant U.N. ambassador, Samantha Power does a better job than the AP in explaining what Obama is really up to:

“Obama’s U.N. ambassador, Samantha Power, said that when Obama came into office in early 2009, the U.S. was isolated. She said Obama had told fellow leaders he planned a “new era of engagement” that recognized countries must address common threats together.

“I think it’s hard to overstate the transformative effect that this approach has had,” Power said.”

In fact, America wasn’t isolated when Obama was parachuted into power in 2009.  Obama, in fact, isolated the U.S. in an 8-year long world tour, spelling out America’s imagined faults, a never-ending tour that was paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

“After raising money for Democrats on Sunday in New York, Obama planned to open his week of diplomacy by meeting with Iraq’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, on Monday. Obama is counting on the Baghdad government to bridge sectarian divides and help fight the Islamic State group.” (AP)

Continued below...

---

---

The latter mission starts with Obama defiantly refusing to call ISIS what it is, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

“On Tuesday, Obama will deliver his U.N. address, attend a lunch with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, meet with CEOs and host a summit on refugees. The U.S. has urged other nations to take in more migrants and help address the unprecedented refugee crisis stemming from Syria’s civil war.” (AP)

If “other nations refuse to take in more migrants and help address the unprecedented refugee crisis stemming from Syria’s civil war,” obedient Obama minions like Merkel, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and others will dump them on refusing nations—by the hundreds of thousands—anyway.

“Obama is scheduled to meet on Tuesday with President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria, an African country struggling with a homegrown threat from the IS-linked extremist group Boko Haram. On Wednesday, Obama will participate in a U.S.-Africa forum and meet with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos before returning to Washington.” (AP)

The only failed deterrent on record for dealing with “the IS-linked Boko Haram” from the Obama administration was the absurd 2014 Tweet #Bringbackourgirls” from Mrs. Barack Obama.

Make no mistake about it, Tuesday’s farewell address is not one of Obama’s “last major appearances on the world stage”.

Marxism’s musical chairs are already in place.  Should Hillary Clinton be elected as global elitists plan,  Obama will get his third term through her, running the presidency from Washington, while replacing Tuesday’s laurel wreath for the crown that makes him the undisputed ‘King of the World” at UN New York headquarters.

Here comes One World Government according to plan: All make like world leaders and “Bow to the King”.

From around the web

Hillary Freezes Again!… Has Another Mid-Sentence Blackout on Stage

Tesla To Supply California With Enough Batteries To Power 2,500 Homes

Russia’s Latest Army Attack Vehicle Leaves US Army Speechless

VIDEO: Upon LEAVING EARLY, Hillary Buckles, Faints, Loses Shoe at 9...

Ford Rebuts Donald Trump’s Claim It Will Fire Workers

Study: Rotting trees caused mysterious holes in huge dunes

Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives | Click to view 5 Comments

Copyright © Canada Free Press

RSS Feed for Judi McLeod

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

Older articles by

Literally something as simple as applying pressure can be seriously effective in reducing toothache pain, but don’t apply it directly to the tooth. Instead, try applying pressure to certain parts of your hand. It might sound like mumbo jumbo, but it’s a tested method that involves pressing the soft spot of your hand where the back of the thumb meets the back of the index finger using your opposite thumb.

When you apply pressure to this point of the hand, your body releases endorphins which are hormones that make you feel good. This can work for many different kinds of pain as well, not just toothache.

2. Fill in the cracks

This one only works if you have cracked a tooth and you’re waiting to go to the dentist to have it repaired. Basically, 

Conquistador Trump

In accepting the invitation of President Enrique Pena Nieto to fly to Mexico City, the Donald was taking a major risk.

Yet it was a bold and decisive move, and it paid off in what was the best day of Donald Trump’s campaign.

Standing beside Nieto, graciously complimenting him and speaking warmly of Mexico and its people, Trump looked like a president. And the Mexican president treated him like one, even as Trump restated the basic elements of his immigration policy, including the border wall.

The gnashing of teeth up at The New York Times testifies to Trump’s triumph:

“Mr. Trump has spent his entire campaign painting Mexico as a nation of rapists, drug smugglers, and trade hustlers. … But instead of chastising Mr. Trump, Mr. Pena Nieto treated him like a visiting head of state … with side-by-side lecterns and words of deferential mush.”

As I wrote in August, Trump “must convince the nation … he is an acceptable, indeed, a preferable alternative” to Hillary Clinton, whom the nation does not want.

In Mexico City, Trump did that. He reassured voters who are leaning toward him that he can be president. As for those who are apprehensive about his temperament, they saw reassurance.

For validation, one need not rely on supporters of Trump. Even Mexicans who loathe Trump are conceding his diplomatic coup.

“Trump achieved his purpose,” said journalism professor Carlos Bravo Regidor. “He looked serene, firm, presidential.” Our “humiliation is now complete,” tweeted an anchorman at Televisa.

President Nieto’s invitation to Trump “was the biggest stupidity in the history of the Mexican presidency,” said academic Jesus Silva-Herzog.

Not since Gen. Winfield Scott arrived for a visit in 1847 have Mexican elites been this upset with an American.

Jorge Ramos of Univision almost required sedation.

When Trump got back to the States, he affirmed that Mexico will be paying for the wall, even if “they don’t know it yet.”

Indeed, back on American soil, in Phoenix, the Donald doubled down. Deportations will accelerate when he takes office, beginning with felons. Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants will face U.S. sanctions. There will be no amnesty, no legalization, no path to citizenship for those who have broken into our country. All laws will be enforced.

Trump’s stance in Mexico City and Phoenix reveals that there is no turning back. The die is cast. He is betting the election on his belief that the American people prefer his stands to Clinton’s call for amnesty.

A core principle enunciated by Trump in Phoenix appears to be a guiding light behind his immigration policy.

“Anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much time Washington. … There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people. … Nothing even comes a close second.”

The “well-being of the American people” may be the yardstick by which U.S. policies will be measured in a Trump presidency. This is also applicable to Trump’s stand on trade and foreign policy.

Do NAFTA, the WTO, MFN for China, the South Korea deal and TPP advance the “well-being of the American people”? Or do they serve more the interests of foreign regimes and corporate elites?

Some $12 trillion in trade deficits since George H. W. Bush gives you the answer.

Which of the military interventions and foreign wars from Serbia to Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Yemen to Syria served the “well-being of the American people”?

Are the American people well served by commitments in perpetuity to 60- and 65-year-old treaties to wage war on Russia and China on behalf of scores of nations across Eurasia, most of which have been free riders on U.S. defense for decades?

Trump’s “core issue” might be called (SET ITAL) Americanism. (END ITAL)

Whatever the outcome of this election, these concerns are not going away. For they have arisen out of a deeply dissatisfied and angry electorate that is alienated from the elites both parties.

Indeed, alienation explains the endurance of Trump, despite his recent difficulties. Americans want change, and he alone offers it.

In the last two weeks, Trump has seen a slow rise in the polls, matched by a perceptible decline in support for Clinton. The latest Rasmussen poll now has Trump at 40, with Clinton slipping to 39.

This race is now Trump’s to win or lose. For he alone brings a fresh perspective to policies that have stood stagnant under both parties.

And Hillary Clinton? Whatever her attributes, she is uncharismatic, unexciting, greedy, wonkish, scripted and devious, an individual you can neither fully believe nor fully trust.

Which is why the country seems to be looking, again, to Trump, to show them that they will not be making a big mistake if they elect him.

If Donald Trump can continue to show America what he did in Mexico City, that he can be presidential, he may just become president.



By Patrick J. Buchanan

The US: A Dead Nation Walking

The US: A Dead Nation Walking

Here is an informative article by Dmitry Orlov:http://www.cluborlov.com  

I use the writings of Orlov and The Saker as checks on my own conclusions.

In his article Orlov concludes that the United States is a dead nation, still walking, but no longer a uni-power. I agree with Orlov that US weapon systems are more focused on profits than on effectiveness and that Russia has superior weapons and a superior cause based on protection rather than dominance. However, in his assessment of the possibility of nuclear war, I think that Orlov under-appreciates the commitment of Washington’s Neoconservatives to US world hegemony and the recklessness of the Neoconservatives and Hillary Clinton. Washington is incensed that Russia (and China) dare to stand up to Washington, and this anger crowds out judgment.

Orlov, also, I think, under-estimates the weakness in the Russian government provided by the “Atlanticist Integrationists.” These are members of the Russian elite who believe that Russia’s future depends on being integrated with the West. To achieve this integration, they are willing to sacrifice some undetermined amount of Russian sovereignty.

It is my conclusion that Washington is aware of the constraint that the desire for Western acceptance puts on the Russian government and that this is why Washington, in a direct thrust at Russia, was comfortable orchestrating the coup that overthrew the elected Ukrainian government. I believe that this constraint also explains the mistakes the Russian government made by refusing the requests of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics to be reincorporated as parts of Russia, where the territories formerly resided, and by the premature withdrawal from Syria that allowed Washington to resupply the jihadists and to insert US forces into the conflict, thus complicating the situation for Russia and Syria.

Orlov sees Russian advantage in the ongoing conflict between Kiev and the breakaway republics as the conflict could be leading to the collapse of the US puppet government in Kiev. However, the disadvantage is that the ongoing conflict is blamed on Russia and feeds Western anti-Russian propaganda. It also makes Russia look weak and unsure of itself as if the Western criticism of Russia’s reincorporation of Crimea has struck home and Russia is afraid to repeat it by accepting the pleas of the break-away republics.

Moreover, if the Russian government had accepted the requests of Donetsk and Luhansk to return to Russia from which they were artificailly separated, not only would the conflict have been ended, but also the Ukrainian people would have realized the disaster caused by Washington’s coup against their government, and Europe would have realized from decisive Russian action that it was not in Europe’s interest to provoke Russia in behalf of Washington. The correct Russian response was prevented by the Atlanticist Integrationist desire to appease Washington.

In contrast to Orlov, The Saker underestimates Russian military strength, but he does understand the constraints placed on Russian decisiveness by the Atlanticist Integrationists, who seem to count in their ranks the economic establishment including the central bank and perhaps the prime minister himself. Putin does not seem to be overly concerned with what appears to me to be a fifth column of Washington’s agents as Putin himself has placed heavy bets on achieving accommodation with the West. However, Putin has cracked down on the US-financed NGOs that have tried to destabilize Russia.

Western reporting and think tank and university reports on Russia are propaganda and are useless to understanding the situation. For example, in the current issue of The National Interest Thomas Graham, who had the Russian desk on the National Security Council during the George W. Bush regime, attributes the “destabilization of eastern Ukraine” to “Russia’s annexation of Crimea.” He avoids mentioning the US-orchestrated overthrow of an elected Ukrainian government and that Crimea voted overwhelmingly (97 percent) to rejoin Russia when faced with the Russophobic government Washington established in Kiev.http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-sources-russian-conduct-17462

According to Graham, the foul deed of Russia’s acceptance of a democratic outcome upset all of Washington’s very friendly, supportive, and hopeful attitudes toward Russia. With all of Washington’s “assumptions that had guided America’s Russia policy” irreversibly dashed, it is no longer possible to maintain that Russia “is a suitable partner for addressing global issues.” Graham goes on to define Russia as a problem because Russia favors a multi-polar world to a uni-polar world run by Washington.

It is possible to read Graham’s repeat of the propaganda line as Graham genuflecting before the Neoconservatives before going on quietly in a low-key manner to attack their hegemonic attitude toward Russia. In his concluding paragraph Graham says that Washington must find a new approach to Russia, an approach of balance and limits that rejects “resort to force, which would be devastating given the destructive power of modern weaponry.”

All in all, it is an artful argument that begins by blaming Russia’s response to Washington’s provocations for a dangerous situation and concludes with the argument that Washington must adjust to Russia’s defense of her own national interests.

It is reassuring to see some realism creeping back into Washington attitudes toward Russia. However, realism is still a minority view, and it is highly unlikely that it would be the view of a Hillary regime.

In my opinion, the chance of nuclear war from Neoconservative intention, miscalculation or false launch warning remains high. The provocations of US/NATO military forces and missile bases on Russia’s borders are reckless as they build tensions between nuclear powers. It is in times of tension that false warnings are believed and miscalculations occur. In the interest of life on earth, Washington should be de-escalating tensions with Russia, not building them. So far there is no sign that the Neoconservatives are willing to give up their hegemonic agenda for the sake of life on earth.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The Gov’t Death Penalty Is No Deterrent

The Gov’t Death Penalty Is No Deterrent

An armed people is, says Jack Perry.

After my article on the government execution of Mary Surratt, I have been reflecting on the entire concept of execution by the State, Up front, I haven’t got any answers. All I’ve come up with are more questions. But I think we are at a point in time where we need to start asking these questions. We need to start asking where the State has now gone with the entire concept of execution.

Let’s talk about another government execution: The execution of Japanese military leader Hideki Tojo, convicted of war crimes. Now, when American military police were battering down his door to arrest him, Tojo attempted suicide. And he would have died had American doctors not worked hard to save his life, which they did. And for what? So the U.S. military could hang him not much later than after his recovery. I ask you, does this make sense? I understand that if a death row inmate attempts suicide a scant couple days before his execution, they will save his life and just postpone the execution until he recovers. To me, it would appear that the State would feel cheated if it wasn’t them who got to flip the switch on the condemned. That is, if the condemned takes his or her own life, the State now feels it got short-changed because they didn’t get the rush of killing that person. And demonstrating that the State has ultimate power over life and death and when those things take place.

We were told in the 1970s that we needed to bring back the death penalty to restore order to our streets. Crime was off the charts and the death penalty had been abolished in most states and not used in others where it was not abolished. However, a funny thing happened on the way to the execution chamber. The reinstatement of the death penalty coincided with the re-legalizing concealed carry of handguns in several states. Did we confuse the ability of self-defense to deter crime with the State killing the people that already committed the crimes and had already been caught? I think the best method to avoid having murderers in jail is having people able to defend themselves on-the-spot. Not the State taking revenge after you’re already dead and buried.

However, the State told us that the death penalty was a deterrent. In actuality, the true deterrent is criminals literally playing Russian roulette in committing crimes against an armed public. Because they don’t know who is carrying a gun and who isn’t. I think that we cannot confuse the two. The death penalty isn’t self-defense. It’s a punishment, yes, but does it work? I don’t know. I can’t answer that question. But what concerns me is the slippery slope we’re on now having given the State this power.

The State has now told us they can use a quasi-military and judicial hybrid death penalty to “protect” us from murders that MIGHT happen. This is the entire concept behind the use of drones to kill accused terrorists. I say “accused” because the State is carrying out an execution without a trial having convicted that person. And had that person even been brought to trial, the death penalty might not have been a legal punishment that could be applied to the case. So where has the State gone with the death penalty now? Are we to think now that these drone executions serve as a “deterrent”?

What I see is that the State, having been given popular support to the death penalty some decades back, now can apply this punishment across a very broad spectrum of crimes both real and alleged. The State will not tell us who is on this secret “death row”, how they got there, what the evidence against them is, or how many of them are American citizens whom the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect against summary execution. Make no mistake, it is illegal whether they are American or not. But we were told back in the 1970s and 1980s that the death penalty being brought back would be done differently this time. They’d make darn sure the people were 100% guilty before sentencing them to death. If that is the case, why can we not see the evidence against the people on “Drone Death Row”?

It’s a common human reaction to want to see harsh punishment against someone whose murders are horrific in nature. But has the State used this emotion against us? Because we want these murderers punished, have we then fallen through The Looking Glass into a realm where the State now decides who MIGHT commit a crime worthy of death and then beat them to the punch, so to speak? The problem with that is anyone can be accused of anything and cannot defend himself against those accusations in a court of law before his life is taken away from him by the State. This is dangerous territory and we are well into it now. In our quest to be “safe”, have we not inadvertently fallen into one of the most dangerous places one can be? That is, into a place where the State decides who lives and who dies based on secret evidence and allegations no one is allowed to see.

What if, in the future, the State decides everyone better sign a loyalty oath or be considered a threat? What if the State decides to carry out a drone attack on U.S. soil and, oops, hits the wrong house? They’ve done that already overseas and killed innocent people. They’ve barged into the wrong house during police raids here already and killed innocent people. How far are we away from that being done with drones? Are we then willing to submit to this so we can feel “safe”? Now that we’ve had two ISIS shooting attacks within the United States, can drone attacks within the United States be far behind? And, as we know, there will be secret evidence against whoever is executed by them.

Have we given the State the power that the Founding Fathers would be horrified to learn we have given it? Yes, we want criminals punished. But what has the State done with this? Can a truly corrupt State do else but subvert the law to its own ends? The reality is, when people are given the ability to defend themselves, soaring crime rates will drop. But then where does that leave the State? And since the War on Terror will never end, there is no end to the ability of the State to begin drone executions anywhere it pleases and without any messy courts of law that might say the State is wrong about the accused.

I am not arguing about the morality of taking a life in self-defense. But there is a definite difference between self-defense and revenge. The State argues that drone attacks are self-defense. But what would a court of law say about this scenario: Bob has a neighbor named Yousef. Bob is suspicious of Yousef and, late one night, sees Yousef loading a large bag into his garage. He sees Yousef has a rifle. Bob sneaks over and sees blood on the driveway from where the bag dragged from the car. Bob then decides Yousef might pose a threat and cannot wait for police to investigate. What if that bag is a weapon of mass destruction? Lives are at stake! Bob bursts into Yousef’s house and shoots him dead.

In a court of law, Bob will be charged with murder. See, in a court of law, it will be revealed that Yousef had gone hunting and what was in the bag was a deer. That’s where the blood came from and that’s also why Yousef had a rifle. But had this been the United States government, none of this would ever come out because the evidence would remain secret and unexamined. It would be as follows: “Yousef had a suspicious package. Possible NBC weapon. Evidence of crime on scene. Suspect is armed, considered dangerous. Therefore, subject is to be terminated.” End of story. No trial where the evidence is examined to reveal Yousef has done nothing wrong.

I don’t have any answers. I only have more questions. But we are not allowed to ask questions of the State as to this drone execution program. The State refuses to answer such questions. And when someone loses a son or daughter, it will be too late. People overseas already are losing their children. And do we think there won’t be consequences for that? The State has basically said that revenge and summary executions of “anyone will do” is acceptable. Do we think the State is innocent? Is the State making enemies for us that will plague us for decades to come?

I think we better go sit by the grave of Mary Surratt and ask ourselves these questions.

Best Practices for Dealing with Wounds in a Survival Situation

Best Practices for Dealing with Wounds in a Survival Situation

Depending upon who you talk to, a severe wound or lasceration should always be sutured close.  Or should it?

When faced with an austere survival situation, the decision you make to close an open wound could spell the difference between proper healing and an infected mess.  Personally, I vote for proper healing but getting to the correct decision when under pressure may not be easy.

Help is on the way.

Dealing with Wounds in a Survival Situation | Backdoor Survival

Dr. Joe Alton, known to those of us in the survival community as Dr. Bones, is launching the first of a series of exclusive articles for Backdoor Survival readers in this article, “To Close or Not to Close”.  This article began life as a question from a reader, making it particularly relevant.

To Close or Not to Close (A Wound)

By Joe Alton, MD

When a laceration occurs, our body’s natural armor is breached and bacteria, even species that are normal inhabitants of our skin, get a free ticket into the rest of our body. Microbes that are harmless outside the body could be life-threatening inside the body.

It only makes common sense that we want to close a cut (also known as a “laceration”) to speed healing and lock out infection. There is controversy, however, as to whether or not a wound should be closed. When and why would you choose to close a wound, and what method should you use?

A laceration may be closed either by sutures, tapes, staples or medical “superglues” such as Derma-Bond or even industrial “Super-Glue”. After rendering first aid, which includes controlling the bleeding, removing any debris, irrigation the wound, and applying antiseptic, you will have to make a decision.

What are you trying to accomplish by closing a wound? Your goals are simple. You close wounds to repair the defect in your body’s armor, to eliminate “dead space”, and to promote healing. A well-approximated wound also has less scarring.

It sounds as if all wounds should be closed. Unfortunately, closing a wound that should be left open can do a lot more harm than good, and could possibly put your patient’s life at risk. Take the case of a young woman injured some years ago in a “zip line” accident: She was taken to the local emergency room, where 22 staples were needed to close a large laceration. Unfortunately, the wound had dangerous bacteria in it, causing a serious infection which spread throughout her body. She eventually required multiple amputations.

We learn from this an important lesson: Namely, that the decision to close a wound is not automatic but involves several considerations. The most important consideration is whether you are dealing with a clean or a dirty wound.

Most wounds you will encounter in an off-grid setting will be dirty. If you try to close a dirty wound, such as a gunshot, you have sequestered bacteria, bits of clothing, and dirt into your body. Within a short period of time, the wound will become infected. An infected wound appears red, swollen, and hot. In extreme cases, an abscess may form, and pus will accumulate inside. The infection may spread to the bloodstream, a condition known as “septicemia”, and become life-threatening.

It may be difficult to fight the urge to close a wound. Leaving the wound open, however, will allow you to clean the inside frequently and directly observe the healing process. It also allows inflammatory fluid to drain out of the body. The scar isn’t as pretty, but it’s the safest option in most cases. In addition, if you’re truly in a long-term survival scenario, the suture material or staples you have aren’t going to be replaced. It’s important to know when closure is absolutely necessary and when it’s not.

Other considerations when deciding whether or not to close a wound are whether it is a simple laceration (straight thin cut on the skin) or whether it is an avulsion (areas of skin torn out or hanging flaps). If the edges of the skin are so far apart that they cannot be stitched together without undue pressure, the wound should be left open.

Another reason the wound should be left open if it has been open for more than 8 hours. Why? Even the air has bacteria, and there’s a good chance that they have already colonized the injury by that time.

Let’s say that you’re certain the wound is clean. It’s less than 8 hours old. Here are some other factors that would suggest that closure is appropriate:

• The laceration is long or deep. The exception would be a puncture wound from an animal bite. These bites are loaded with bacteria and should be kept open in austere settings.

• The wound is located over a joint. A moving part, such as the knee, will constantly stress a wound and prevent it from closing in by itself.

• The wound gapes open loosely, suggesting that it can be closed without undue pressure on the skin.

t’s important to realize that you will only have a limited supply of staples and sutures. Feel free to mix different closure methods like alternating sutures and steri-strips, or even adding duct tape when you’ve run out of medical supplies. You’d be surprised what qualifies as medical supplies when the chips are down.

If you are unsure, you can choose to wait 48 to 72 hours before closing a wound to make sure that no signs of infection develop. This is referred to as “delayed closure”. Some wounds can be partially closed, allowing a small open space to avoid the accumulation of inflammatory fluid.

Drains, consisting of thin lengths of latex, nitrile, or even gauze, might be placed into the wound for this purpose. “Penrose” drains are a version of these that are still used in some operating rooms. Drains have a tendency to leak, so place a dressing over the exposed area

Many injuries that require closure (and some that don’t) also should be treated with antibiotics in oral or topical form to decrease the chance of infection. Natural substances with antibiotic properties, such as garlic or raw, unprocessed honey, may be useful in survival scenarios.

More on antibiotic use in future articles.

Read  more from Joe and Amy Alton at their website at www.doomandbloom.net or in their book, The Survival Medicine Handbook.

The Final Word

I am over the moon thrilled that Joe has agreed to bring exclusive new content to Backdoor Survival readers.  You will begin to see his articles monthly, as I carry out my initiative to present survival and prepping information from some of the best and the most experienced minds available.

Last month I sent Joe and his wife, Nurse Amy, a long list of survival medicine related questions you have been asking.  As with his upcoming article on antibiotic use, you can bet that we will be getting to your requests a bit at a time.

Stay tuned, and, as always, keep your questions coming.

Enjoy your next adventure through common sense and thoughtful preparation!
Gaye

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to email updates.  When you do, you will receive a free, downloadable copy of my e-Book, The Emergency Food Buyer’s Guide.

You can also vote for Backdoor Survival daily at Top Prepper Websites!

Related Articles:

How to Control Lice in a Survival Situation
How to Disinfect and Sterilize Medical Instruments in a Survival Situation
How to Prep for Feminine Hygiene Needs
How to Create an Emergency Ammo Can First Aid Kit
Bargain Bin: Survival is all about learning to fend for yourself. Here are some of the emergency medical reference books and supplies that belong in every household first aid kit.

Stretch Bandage Wrap, 1” 30 rolls: I first learned about self-adhesive bandages when my dog came home from the vet such a bandage wrapped around his leg.  A light went off telling me I needed to add some to my first-aid kit.  And so I did.  This is a fantastic price and rivals the price at the farm supply.  I rarely use old-fashioned band aids any more.  You are going to love this stuff.

Quikclot Sport Brand Advanced Clotting Sponge: A must for any first aid or emergency kit, Quikclot Sport stops moderate to severe bleeding until further medical help is available.

CELOX First Aid Temporary Traumatic Wound Treatment, 10-Pack: These small packets of granules will stop bleeding within 30 seconds. To use, pour directly on a wound and apply pressure; it won’t sting or burn. Also safe for pets.  I like that the small packets are portable.

ProAdvantage Sterile Butterfly Closure Bandages:  I checked my first aid kit and only had a few of these.  This box of 100 is about $6.

Tincture of Benzoin: This is another one of those items I had never heard of.  Its purpose is to hold a bandage or dressing in place.

Betadine Antiseptic or Dynarex Povidone Iodine Prep Solution: Either can be used diluted as a disinfecting solution for wounds.  Also good for day to day cuts and scrapes.

Israeli Battle Dressing, 6-inch Compression Bandage: This is another inexpensive, yet critical item. Combat medics, trauma doctors, and emergency responders all recommend this Israeli Battle Dressing (IBD) for the treatment of gunshot wounds, puncture wounds, deep cuts, and other traumatic hemorrhagic injuries.

New-Skin Liquid Bandage, First Aid Liquid Antiseptic:  I have been using New Skin for years.  It is an antiseptic, invisible, flexible, and waterproof.  It works.

Super Glue  – The Original: This is the original Super Glue brand.  This works a lot like the liquid bandage above in that you apply it to the wound and when it’s dry, it will hold the cut together. Also check out Krazy Glue or Gorilla Brand Super Glue.

Clinton Plan to Destroy Russia

Clinton Plan to Destroy Russia

Leaked emails are filling in the picture of a Bill-and-Hillary-Clinton plan to destroy Russia — a plan which had originated with U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, and which has been followed through both by his son George W. Bush, and by both of the Clintons, but which has only recently started to become documented by leaked publications of personal communications amongst the key operatives who were the insiders running this operation behind the scenes, and who include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Victoria Nuland, Jeffrey Feltman, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman al-Saud, and the Emir of Qatar.

This operation came out into public view only briefly when the news site Zero Hedge headlined on 6 October 2015 “Saudi Clerics Call For Jihad Against Russia, Iran” and linked to a number of sources, including to a Wall Street Journal report the day before, which simply ignored the Saudi involvement and headlined “U.S. Sees Russian Drive Against CIA-Backed Rebels in Syria”, as if this matter were merely a U.S.-v.-Russia issue, not an issue involving the Saud family at all. By contrast, the zerohedge article closed with “‘This is a real war on Sunnis, their countries and their identities,’ said the statement [by the International Union of Muslim Scholars, which is based in Qatar, whose ruling family, the Thanis, work closely with the Saud family]. It urged the rebels to join a ‘jihad against the enemy of God and your enemy, and Muslims will back you every way they can.’” As a British news-site for jihadists put the matter, “According to experts, by issuing this statement they seek to encourage Saudi, Gulf, and Muslim youths to fight against Russian forces, similar to the recruitment of young fighters during the Afghan-Soviet war.” (That joint U.S.-Saudi operation, which was assisted by the Pakistani military and by Pakistan’s heavily-Saudi-influenced Islamic clergy, was the brainchild of Saudi Prince Bandar and of the born Polish aristocrat Zbigniew Brzezinski, and its success at breaking up the Soviet Union is an enduring topic of pride for today’s jihadists.)

On 5 October 2015, the British mainstream ‘news’ site Reuters had called these “Saudi opposition clerics”, and alleged that they “are not affiliated with the government,” but Reuters’s statement (especially that these were “Saudi opposition clerics”) was simply false, and even ridiculously false, likely an outright lie, because Saudi laws don’t allow any “opposition clerics,” especially not Islamic ones, since those would be executed for publicly questioning the legitimacy of the country’s rule by the royal Saud family, which is what an “opposition cleric” in Saudi Arabia would, by definition, be doing, if any of them existed there and hadn’t been executed yet.

The pretense, by Reuters, that Saudi Arabia is a religious-freedom country, is an insult to their readership, but this falsehood helps to keep their readership thinking that somehow the West can be allied with the Sauds and yet still call itself ‘democratic’ and allied only with ‘democratic’ governments, not with some of the world’s worst tyrannies. Realism in foreign affairs (such as to acknowledge that some of the world’s worst regimes are our government’s allies) is fine, but it can’t include lying to one’s own public, because that necessarily entails misinforming the voters on the basis of which any actual democracy receives its very legitimacy as being a democracy, which seems less and less what countries such as the U.S. and UK are, at least after 9/11. A “democracy” and a “deceived public” cannot coexist in the same country — and, at least in the United States, a deceived public is what predominantly exists (as a consequence of the many deceiving ‘news’ media).

The Saud family are always among the top ten foreign buyers of American weapons. On 26 May 2015, David Sirota and Andrew Perez headlined in International Business Times, “Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department”, and reported that “In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.” Then, Secretary of State Clinton approved a $29 billion sale of U.S. weapons tothe Saud family, which enables the Sauds to mass-murder Shiites in neighboring Yemen, and (via the Sauds’ surrogate jihadists) in Syria. Moreover, “The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.” Other than to fundamentalist-Sunni Saudi Arabia, this burgeoning of military exports included weapons to the Sauds’ fellow-fundamentalist-Sunni royal friends who own and run Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar, all of whom had donated to the Clinton Foundation and likewise gained Clinton’s clearance to buy America’s weapons, even as the State Department verbally condemned their countries for corruption, tyranny, and funding jihadists around the world. These fundamentalist-Sunni monarchies compete against both Russia and Iran in international oil and gas markets, and appreciate a U.S. government that slaps economic sanctions against, and that militarily threatens, their main economic competitors: both Russia and Iran. During Hillary’s time at State, military sales to the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia doubled, to the royals who own Qatar increased 14-fold, to the royals who own UAE increased ten-fold, and to the royals who own Bahrain increased nearly three-fold. Other top donors to the Clinton Foundation included the top U.S. military suppliers: Boeing, GE, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies. This is a charitable operation — but certainly not to Russia, nor to the operation’s other victims. 

At http://www.whois.com/whois/clintonemail.com, one learns that “Creation Date: 2009-01-13T05:00:00Z”, meaning Hillary Clinton had set up her privatized State Department email operation on January 13th of 2009, six days prior to becoming the U.S. Secretary of State.

Here is the operation that has been led by the Bush-Clinton-Obama-Saud-Thani alliance:

The first two exhibits are:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28723

SAUD

From: Jeffrey Feltman To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2011-02-20 08:36 Subject: SAUD

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05778064 Date: 09/30/2015  RELEASE IN PART B1,B5,1.4(D)  From: Feltman, Jeffrey D Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 3:36 PM H; Sullivan, JacobJ; HumaAbedin To: Subject: RE:Saud Yes, I agree — Bill should call. That’s a good idea. He can brief on your call with Saud. ■  B5  Original Message From: H [mailto:HDR22@clintonemail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 3:34 PM To: Feltman, Jeffrey 0; Sullivan, Jacob J; Huma Abedin Subject: Saud  1.4(D) B1 Also, Bill knows the CP [Crown Prince, now Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud] very well and wants to call and offer support. Is that ok?  Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 09/30/2015 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 02/19/2036

—

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28733

SAUD

From: Jeffrey Feltman To: Jake Sullivan Date: 2011-02-20 08:38 Subject: SAUD

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05778115 Date: 09/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B1,B5,1.4(D) From: Feltman, Jeffrey D Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 3:38 PM To: H; Sullivan, Jacob J; Huma Abedin Subject: RE: Saud I apologize for the last note clearly the Secretary meant President Clinton! When I hear “Bill” in a State Department e-mail, I think P. not a President! B5 Original Message From: H [mailto:HDR22@clintonemail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 3:34 PM To: Feltman, Jeffrey D; Sullivan, Jacob 1; Huma Abedin Subject: Saud 1.4(D) B1 Also, Bill knows the CP [Crown Prince] very well and wants to call and offer support. Is that ok? Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 09/30/2015 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 02/19/2036

These were two of the emails that the State Department marked “Confidential” after Hillary’s blatantly illegal (but not even investigated by the FBI) privatized State Department email operation became public, and both emails were then rated by the State Department as being appropriate to declassify only on 19 February 2036. Both of them demonstrate that while Hillary was Secretary of State, her husband, “Bill,” was very actively assisting her “diplomacy.” Both notes are from Jeffrey Feltman, who subsequently became prominently mentioned by the U.S. State Department’s Victoria Nuland when Nuland told the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev, on 4 February 2014, just 18 days prior to her coup that overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine, and 22 days prior to installation of the Russia-hating Arseniy Yatsenyuk to lead the U.S. interim dictatorship there, the following:

Exhibit #3:

Victoria Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the — What he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in, he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.

Geoffrey Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?

Victoria Nuland: My understanding from that call — but you tell me — was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?

Pyatt: No. I think — I mean that’s what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that’s been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he’s going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they’ve got and he’s probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn’t like it.

Nuland: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.

Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.

Nuland: OK, one more wrinkle for you Geoff. I can’t remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [who had, in 2011, been in Hillary’s State Department, but was now the U.N.’s Under Secretary-General — immediately under Ban ki-Moon — for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the U.N. guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning? …

In other words: Feltman, who had been central in the operation to overthrow one leader who was friendly toward Russia, Assad (to replace him there by jihadists); was now prominently involved also in the operation to overthrow another leader friendly toward Russia, Yanukovych (to replace him there by nazis) (and Russia, of course, cannot tolerate either jihadists or nazis, so it tries to eliminate both). (And, on 21 November 2014, the U.S. was one of only 3 countries at the U.N. voting against a resolution to condemn resurgent nazism and holocaust-denial. The new, nazi, Americanized, Ukraine, was another of the three internationally pro-nazi regimes.)

In exhibits 1&2, Feltman’s counsel has been sought by Hillary regarding whether she should receive Bill’s assistance in setting up a discussion with “Saud,” who might have been King Saud, or else it was his #2, the Crown Prince, whom Bill personally knew.

It’s important to note that Exhibits 1&2 are from 20 February 2011, which was right before the demonstrations started against the Syrian secular regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Wikipedia’s article “Syrian Civil War” says “The protests began on 15 March 2011,” and so those two exhibits, both dated 20 February 2011, predated the “protests” in Syria by exactly 23 days.

Exhibit #4:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/21376

QATAR

From: Jeffrey Feltman To: Jake Sullivan Date: 2010-09-08 13:06 Subject: QATAR 

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05772230 Date: 11/30/2015  RELEASE IN PART B5  From: Feltman, Jeffrey D Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2010 8:06 PM To: Sullivan, Jacob J; H  Subject: Re: Qatar   Topics covered:  Jeffrey Feltman  Original Message  From: Sullivan, Jacob I To: ‘H’ ; Feltman, Jeffrey D Sent: Thu Sep 09 19:19:41 2010  Subject: RE: Qatar  Scheduled it and made it. I’ll give you the readout in the morning.  Original Message From: H Emailto:HDR22@clintonemail.com]  Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 7:19 PM To: Feltman, Jeffrey D Cc: Sullivan, JacobJ  Subject: Qatar

The leaders of Qatar are its owners, the Thani royal family, who are the main funders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and who have long wanted to overthrow the secular Assad and to replace him with a fundamentalist Sunni leader like themselves. Feltman here, on 9 September 2010, was informing Hillary (and her chief counselor, Jake Sullivan), that a meeting had been set up, concerning Qatar, which is a key funder of the tens of thousands of jihadists who have since entered Syria to overthrow and replace Assad. On 3 September 2010, Hillary had sent an email to Jake Sullivan, whose subject-line was “Emir of Qatar” (Qatar’s king) and it said only “Let’s discuss when I get in.” Then, on 14 September 2010, Hillary received an email whose subject line was “SHEIKHA MOSA OF QATAR” (that’s the Emir’s wife) and it was a note from Cheri Blair (Tony Blair’s wife, a friend of both Hillary and her) saying, “She is available to see you on 24 September either morning or afternoon? Alternatively 28thor 29thSeptember Does that work for you?” The main subject of the conversation was to be the drought in the Arabic countries. That drought was especially intense in Syria.

The background behind those public demonstrations against the Assad regime is important. As Gristreported, regarding the record drought in Syria, on 16 January 2010:

Prices are soaring and supplies are becoming scarce – not merely because of international demand, but because of drought and agricultural water scarcity triggered by global climate change. The same climate-driven pressures are affecting the survival of the Halaby pepper and its traditional farmers near Aleppo, Syria. In the past three years, 160 Syrian farming villages have been abandoned near Aleppo as crop failures have forced over 200,000 rural Syrians to leave for the cities. This news is distressing enough, but when put into a long-term perspective, its implications are staggering: many of these villages have been continuously farmed for 8000 years. As one expert puts it, this may be the worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilizations began in the Fertile Crescent many millennia ago.

A wikileaked U.S. State Department cable, which was dated “11/25/2018” but without the typo was actually originated on 25 November 2008 (near the end of the G.W. Bush Presidency), had been sent from the U.S. Embassy in Syria, to the U.S. Secretary of State and to several U.S. Embassies, and it conveyed the Syrian government’s urgent appeal for drought-assistance:

Exhibit #5:

Representative Abdullah Bin Yehia is seeking USG commitment to the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2008 Drought Appeal. Yehia proposes to use money from the appeal to provide seed and technical assistance to 15,000 small-holding farmers in northeast Syria in an effort to preserve the social and economic fabric of this rural, agricultural community.

The U.S. did not respond. This appeal fell to U.S. Secretary of State Clinton to respond to, and she (and her Department) ignored it. They knew that Syria was in perhaps the most likely condition ever, to undergo massive civilian protests, even if the rest of the Arabic lands were not quite so much. What, then, was, to the Syrian government, a global appeal for help, was, to the U.S. government, an opportunity to topple and replace, with imported U.S. and Saudi and Thani backed jihadists, the existing, non-sectarian, ideologically secular, Syrian government, to replace it with jihadists who would be grateful to the Sauds and Thanis and the U.S. aristocrats, for installing them into power there. Then, the U.S. and its fundamentalist-Sunni royal allies, could fulfill on their goal, ever since 1949, to replace Syria’s secular government with a sectarian, specifically fundamentalist-Sunni, one, which would allow the U.S. and its oil companies to pipeline Saudi oil and Thani gas into the world’s largest energy-market, Europe, displacing Europe’s current biggest supplier, Russia.

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton has, on at least two different occasions, lied and said that the initial insertion of jihadists into Afghanistan started after the Soviets had “invaded Afghanistan” — something that actually happened on 24 December 1979, after the U.S.-Saudi-Pakistani operation had already been officially authorized by U.S. President Jimmy Carter on 3 July 1979, following the advice of Brzezinski, who won out over the advice of Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. Here’s Brzezinski speaking about that, in 1998 (long before both of Hillary’s televised lies to the contrary about this, while she was the U.S. Secretary of State):

Exhibit #6:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

And here is Brzezinski himself, in Pakistan, in 1979, recruiting jihadists to start the modern jihadist wave— the wave he’s proud of, notwithstanding the 1993 jihadist bombing of the World Trade Center, which had already resulted from it. (Then, on 11 September 2001, the Saud family’s “9/11” operation, with assistance from George W. Bush and his close aides, was carried out.)

Of course, Brzezinski and President Carter in 1979, were fighting to end the Soviet Union; that’s very different than what has happened at the top level of the U.S. government after the USSR ended in 1991, because all since 1991 is psychopathic aggression against Russia, and has no ideological justification whatsoever. Brzezinski is still part of that operation, but only as a cheerleader for it. The Bushes, Clintons, and Obama, are the operative culprits in this psychopathic aggression, first to surround Russian with hostile forces, and then to strangle Russia’s economy, and then to blame Russia for ‘aggression’ when it takes essential defensive action against the West’s aggression — such as NATO’s expansion right up to Russia’s very borders.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse