This lack of clarity about biological identity is a product of two things: relentless media propaganda and chemical poisoning with gender-bending chemicals found in plastics, herbicides and pesticides sprayed on our food, and environmental pollution. Chemicals like bisphenol-A (BPA), glyphosate, soy and other hormone-disruptors are altering human genes and producing next-generation "robot" humans with no gender, and thus no identity.

It's sad, really, because it could have been prevented through reforms that protect the people rather than the chemical and drug industries that produce these toxins. Food, water, air: It's all tainted with endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that, more often than not, mimic the effects of estrogen, meaning they deplete testosterone and create hormone imbalances that not only confuse children, but also affect their growth and development.

Young girls are becoming more "masculine," while young boys are becoming more "feminine" – an alchemy of the two sexes both physically and mentally that's changing the landscape of culture and civilization.

In a reactionary response to several shootings of officers, President Obama now plans to review — and potentially repeal — the May 2015 ban on police obtaining military surplus equipment like riot gear, explosives, armored vehicles, grenade launchers, bayonets, and more.

In an exclusive interview, Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, and Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, told Reuters changes to the ban on the transference of military equipment to law enforcement agencies nationwide will be reviewed by Obama in the wake of those attacks.

While violence from either side of the Thin Blue Line should be neither tolerated nor condoned, the militarization of police forces — in both equipment and training — has inarguably fueled the epidemic of police brutality that spawned these retaliatory attacks. A repeal of even part of this ban, particularly as now-nervous officers increasingly view the public with suspicions any encounter could escalate without warning, will inevitably fan the flames on this nation’s powder keg.

Meanwhile, no move toward the reform of training that teaches police to view the public with heightened suspicion, if not as the outright enemy, remains a pipe dream of those calling for an end to State violence. In reviewing the ban — and to understand the outrage over the epidemic of police brutality — it would be wise for politicians, the public, and the administration to consider this simple cycle: unaddressed problems can only be compounded by reinforcing the source of the original problem.

Too bad the simplicity will be lost to the purely propagandized ‘war on cops’ narrative, anxious police, and a public eager to validate police force. Clearly, the escalation of this cycle won’t be halted anytime soon.

All the others were upstanding conservatives, men like Franz von Papen, the aristocratic former chancellor and leader of the Catholic Center Party, and the career bureaucrat Constantin von Neurath, who was named to head up the foreign ministry. These were experienced men, reasonable men. They would contain Hitler’s excesses. After four years of economic depression and political paralysis, 14 years since the humiliation of the Versailles Peace Treaty, decades of an overweening Jewish presence in German public life, it was time for a new beginning. It was time to make Germany great again.

In the end, a small clique of businessmen, estate owners, bankers, high-ranking civil servants, and army officers prevailed upon the president, Paul von Hindenburg, to name Hitler chancellor of Germany. For these traditional conservatives, the Nazis were uncouth, low class, and undisciplined. Yet these same conservatives made a political bargain with the Nazi party. Developed over the 14 years of the Weimar Republic, the bargain was created and then sealed through a common political language of utter disdain for the Republic, contempt for Jews, opposition to the Versailles Treaty, and hostility to democracy and socialism.

Historical analogies are always fraught. No serious political movement today in the West is anything like the Nazi party. But the process by which traditional and radical conservatives came together through a common language carries numerous warning signals as we experience the surge of right-wing populism from Poland across the continent, on to the United Kingdom, and across the ocean to the United States.

Mr Amato told a conference in Rome, he had inserted the get-out clause specifically to prevent the British from complaining that there was no clear cut, official way for them to bail out of the Union. He said: “I wrote Article 50, so I know it well. My intention was that it should be a classic safety valve that was there, but never used. It is like having a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened. When it comes to the economy they have to lose.”

The Italian believes if it is hard for the British to trade away from the arrangement set by the bloc, they may consider abandoning the world’s biggest trading zone. Britain voted in a referendum on June 23 to leave the EU. To do so, London will have to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which starts a two-year countdown to a formal exit from the 28-nation bloc.

Keeping soldiers in their barracks has been a central tenet of postwar German domestic policy following the demise of Nazism. Now the Bavarian interior minister Joachim Herrmann says that following the shopping mall slaughter - and the train attack earlier in the week in which a refugee attacked passengers on a commuter train with an axe and a knife - soldiers must join in the anti-terror fight in the same way as they do in France. "We are facing extreme situations," said Herrmann.

"We do not live in the time of the Weimar Republic now," he said - a reference to Germany's post-WW1 experiment with democracy which failed spectacularly and led directly to the rise of the Nazis. He said once historically justified reservations about armed soldiers on the streets were no longer applicable, adding: "We are an absolutely stable democracy."

Here Trump has stumbled on the dirty little secret of the post-World War II security architecture so beloved by our elites: for the privilege of paying for their defense, and in effect militarily occupying our allies-cum-satellites, we allow them to flood our markets with tariff-free goods, while they wall off their markets with trade barriers and subsidies. As the Old Right economist and prophet of empire Garet Garrett put it at the dawn of the cold war, it’s a peculiar sort of empire in which “everything goes out and nothing comes in.”

Trump lets it rip with a reiteration of his essential point: “I’m only saying this. We’re spending money, and if you’re talking about trade, we’re losing a tremendous amount of money, according to many stats, $800 billion a year on trade. So we are spending a fortune on military in order to lose $800 billion. That doesn’t sound like it’s smart to me. Just so you understand though, totally on the record, this is not 40 years ago. We are not the same country and the world is not the same world.

Our country owes right now $19 trillion, going to $21 trillion very quickly because of the omnibus budget that was passed, which is incredible. We don’t have the luxury of doing what we used to do; we don’t have the luxury, and it is a luxury. We need other people to reimburse us much more substantially than they are giving right now because [they] are only paying for a fraction of the cost.”

Trump has turned the tables on the War Party: it is they who are being put on the defensive by his relentless assault, and his willingness to say what most normal people are thinking. His disregard for the pieties of the Beltway, his contempt for the self-proclaimed “experts,” and his ability to mobilize the American people behind a foreign policy that puts them first, is the best thing that has happened to this country in the modern era.

"Emmott and Siebold describe NATO as a ‘Western defense alliance.’ Since the Clinton regime NATO has been an alliance for waging offensive war, a war crime under the Nuremberg rules established by the United States. Under the NATO banner a number of countries have been bombed, invaded, and had their governments overthrown by Washington acting under the cover of NATO.

These destroyed countries posed no threat whatsoever to the countries of the NATO alliance and undertook no aggressive actions against NATO members. How is it possible that Reuters’ reporters and editors are not aware of this? Why do they call an instrument of Washington’s aggression a ‘defense alliance’?

Emmott and Siebold report that ‘Russian aggression’ is the reason NATO is deploying 3,000 to 4,000 troops in the Baltic states and Poland. In other words, something that does not exist – Russian aggression toward the Baltics and Poland – is assumed to be a fact that must be countered with military deployments.

The reporters do not question whether this insignificant number of NATO troops constitutes a defense or a provocation. The number of troops would have to be 100 times greater before the force even begins to approach a defensive force. What then is the purpose of the 3,000 or 4,000 NATO troops? Every informed person knows that there is no need of a defense force against Russia in the Baltics and Poland. Aside from this fact, only an absolute idiot could think that three or four thousand troops constitutes a defense against the Russian Army.

Whatever the evil men and women in Washington who are gambling with the life of the planet think, Russia is not going to accept these missiles. Where does world leadership reside? In Washington, the war criminal capital of the world that is driving the world to nuclear war, or in Russia whose leadership accepts countless affronts and provocations in an effort to avoid war?"