Looks like despite his denials to the contrary, it looks like the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, is the “Baby Daddy,” to a former D.C. area stripper.

The judge in the paternity case brought against the younger Biden by the ex–stripper, 29-year-old, Lunden Alexis Roberts, ruled that Hunter is the “biological and legal father” of a child he fathered with Roberts.

In an order establishing paternity, Independence County, Ark., Circuit Judge Holly Meyer noted that the results of DNA tests indicated Biden was the father “with near scientific certainty,” and instructed the Arkansas Department of Health to issue a birth certificate listing Biden as the father of Roberts’ child.

Roberts, who The New York Post reported was a stripper at a Washington, D.C., club that Biden patronized, received “primary physical and legal custody” of the child. In previous filings, Roberts told the court that Hunter Biden “had no involvement in the child’s life since the child’s birth, never interacted with the child, never parented the child,” and “could not identify the child out of a photo lineup.”

Biden “shall have visitation with the child as agreed between the parties,” Judge Meyer ruled.

The next hearing in the case is now set for Jan. 29 at 9:30 a.m. ET, to address “temporary child support for the minor child and other matters,” the judge wrote, adding that the parties have until Jan. 16 to comply with all “pending discovery” which is currently “past due.”

Another hearing is set for the morning of March 13 to handle any remaining discovery issues, with a final hearing on May 13 to set “permanent child support for the minor child.”

In a separate order, Meyer also dismissed attempts by a private investigation firm — D&A Investigations — to join the case, saying the company’s pleadings were frivolous and that future attempts might incur a contempt citation.

Hunter Biden’s personal indiscretions, including his past drug use, have taken center stage in recent months. Republicans have argued the younger Biden was a drug-addicted, irresponsible playboy, and that he secured his lucrative overseas business roles not because of his own competence, but because he could sell access to his father.

Hunter Biden reportedly is expecting a child with his wife, Melissa Cohen Biden, whom he married this past May.

Only days after President Trump speaking to American troops said he was honored to be a part of it, and that it was one of his “favorite” Christmas movies, a Canadian broadcaster has cut his cameo when it recently aired “Home Alone 2.”

Don Jr. sounded off at the action in a tweet, calling it “pathetic.”

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation argued the ten second scene was removed to make room for commercials. Chuck Thompson, the CBC’s head of public affairs, said in a statement the edits “were done in 2014 when we first acquired the film and before Mr. Trump was elected president.”

But Don Jr. said “it’s all part of the mainstream media’s leftist bias.” He said, “Their bias is so flagrant, they don’t even try to hide it anymore.”

Earlier this week, when delivering a Holiday address via satellite to US troops serving overseas, President Trump told service members he was honored to be in the movie and called it his favorite holiday film.

“It’s a good movie,” he said. “It turned out to be a big Christmas hit, one of the biggest, so it was an honor to be involved in something like that.”

Don Jr. went on to say this is just the beginning of what can be expected in the 2020 election by the mainstream media’s left-leaning bias. He added that the president will win despite the unfair fight.

This time of year is usually full of cheer, especially if one’s economics are right.   If someone is suffering economically or having serious issues with their family, then this time of year can be a trying time.  Most people buy and spend over-extending their credit and putting themselves in debt.  But, people usually are in good spirits.  Right now, the holiday season is in full swing.  I think it’s about time people got the skinny on one of the most popular holidays, Christmas.

Let’s get right into it, shall we?  December 25th is not the birthdate of Jesus.  Jesus being born on December 25th is not backed up by the scriptures at all.  In fact, it is the noted birthdate of a great number of those that would be considered sun gods or pagan deities.  One has to go back about 4,000 years to a place called Shinar.  Shinar was located in Babylonian which is now modern-day Iraq.  Nimrod was the ruler of Babel, which was later known as Babylon.  He was well-loved by the people.  He was known to the ancient Egyptians as Osiris.  Nimrod’s date of birth was December 25th.  Nimrod’s symbol was the evergreen tree which represented everlasting or renewed and regenerated life through Tammuz.  Nimrod’s wife was named Semiramis.  She was also known as Isis.  As the story goes, Semiramis was also the mother of Nimrod.  Nimrod was the first being on earth to be deified.  During his deification, he was then named Bael the Sun God.  At his death he he was said to be eternal and ruled the universe as the Sun God.

Semiramis was said to be impregnated with the seed of Nimrod by the rays of the sun god Nimrod or Bael.  She gave birth to their son Tammuz who was said to be Nimrod’s resurrection through birth.  This is where the Biblical story of the immaculate conception comes from.  Semiramis and Tammuz were married.  This was an incestual relationship.  Nothing holy about that.  But it turns out that Tammuz is also Cupid.  Tammuz was a great hunter which is why there is a constellation of Osiris The Great Hunter.  After forty years Tammuz was killed by a wild boar.

December 25th represents the return of the rising sun during the winter equinox or the sun’s (son’s) resurrection.  According to the Book of Genesis, Nimrod was the great-grandson of Noah.  As a side note, I have to mention that originally there were only ten months to the standard calendar.  The prefix dec represents ten.  Our number system is a base-ten system.  This where the term decimal comes into play.  Also, decade represents a ten-year span.    December used to be the tenth month until Julius Ceasar added July and Augustus Ceasar added August.  These two additional months were smuggled in during the great Roman era.  So now we have twelve months that represent our modern-day Gregorian calendar.  So, even if Jesus’ birthday was on December 25th, we would overshoot it by two months each year.

Like the story of Osiris, Nimrod was murdered by a relative.  Semiramis claimed that a full-grown evergreen tree emerged from a dead stump overnight which symbolized the re-erected phallus of Nimrod as well as a new life.  The old stump symbolizes the dead Nimrod and the evergreen symbolizes the birth of son Tammuz.  Nimrod (Tammuz) would place gifts on the tree every December 25th.  This is where the yule log comes into play where the log represents dead Nimrod and is placed into a fire.  The next day the log would be a full tree with a snake coiling throughout the branches.  The serpent or snake represents resurrection.  This is symbolic in the sense that snakes shed their skin which represents resurrection.

In Egyptian mythology, Tammuz is known as Horace who was the son of Osiris and also his resurrection.  The ornaments placed on the trees in Babylon were balls dipped in gold or testicles of a sacrificed animal.  Now Santa Claus was actually called Nimrod (Molech, Odin).  Every December 25th, public child mass sacrifices were held.  So, if one placed the “n” in Santa at the end of the word, we would have the word Satan.  Satan’s Claws (Claus).  Get the picture?  The chimney that Santa was said to come down in the story of Santa Claus represents the alter that the children were sacrificed to.  The parents would ask the alter for what they wanted before they would drop their newborn child in the fiery alter.

Another couple of names for Christmas is Natalis Invicti and Mithra. On December 17-21, the people would celebrate Saturnalia.  During this time the people would get drunk and have wild and violent sex orgies.  On the 22nd of December, they would participate in Sigillaria, the second feast or the feast of the dolls.

All of the information stated above is where the so-called holy day of Christmas was extrapolated. With that said, I hope you had a Merry Christmas!

On Friday, Dec. 27, former Vice President Joe Biden said that he would not comply with a subpoena to testify in President Trump’s upcoming Senate impeachment trial.

In an interview with the editorial board of the De Moines Register in Iowa, Biden claimed that if he were issued a subpoena to appear before the Senate, any testimony he would give would only draw attention away from Trump’s alleged wrongdoing and would effectively let the president off the hook.

“What are you going to cover?” Biden said to Register Executive Editor Carol Hunter in response to a question about the possibility of his participation in the trial. “You guys are going to cover for three weeks anything that I said. And (Trump’s) going to get away.”

“You guys buy into it all the time. Not a joke …” he added. “Think what it’s about. It’s all about what he does all the time, his entire career. Take the focus off. This guy violated the Constitution. He said it in the driveway of the White House. He acknowledged he asked for help.”

The Democrat-controlled House impeached Trump earlier this month for “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” related to his dealings with Ukraine. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Biden Forced to Clarify His Statement on Subpoena

However, soon after the former VP made those statements, he was forced to clarify his position – which as stated – meant he would be breaking the law.

By Saturday, Biden was singing a different tune.

“I want to clarify something I said yesterday. In my 40 years in public life, I have always complied with a lawful order and in my eight years as VP, my office — unlike Donald Trump and Mike Pence — cooperated with legitimate congressional oversight requests,” he tweeted.

“But I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis for Republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial. That is the point I was making yesterday and I reiterate: this impeachment is about Trump’s conduct, not mine,” he said.

Later on Saturday, during a town hall in Iowa, Biden said he “would obey any subpoena sent to me.”

“The question is, did Trump do his job,” he added.

The sanctuary county of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is currently on course to let 1,000 criminal illegal immigrants into the interior of the U.S. after its officials ended cooperation with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

Figures from the federal government have revealed that each year until Fiscal Year of 2019, Mecklenburg County would hand over to ICE between 1,000 to 1,300 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions or pending charges against them.

Last December, however, Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden put an end to all of that, tearing up the county’s agreement with ICE, making the county into a sanctuary jurisdiction that actively prevents criminal illegal immigrants from being repatriated back to their homelands.

Unfortunately, the county’s new policy means that roughly 1,000 criminal illegal immigrants are expected be released sometime this year. 300 illegal immigrants who would have be removed from the country by ICE will more than likely stay in the country instead.

“Sanctuary cities and counties around the country are acting as illegal incubators for criminal alien activity, harboring dangerous offenders and often releasing them back to the streets,” one federal official told journalists from Breitbart News.

“The egregious practice of local police ignoring our laws and obstructing the federal law enforcement mission of safety and security should have no place in North Carolina or anywhere else,” the official added.

Among those recently released from the county’s custody are illegal immigrants who’ve been charged with raping children and heroin trafficking, federal immigrations have revealed. Other convictions of illegal immigrants who’ve been released into the country’s interior include drunk driving, assault, possession of drugs, and larceny.

California Sen. Kamala Harris has announced that she is withdrawing from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Harris has had to call it quits after failing to capitalize on early enthusiasm for her campaign and watching her poll numbers collapse.

“In good faith, I can’t tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don’t believe I do,” Harris wrote in an email to supporters. “So, to you my supporters, it is with deep regret — but also with deep gratitude — that I am suspending my campaign today.”

An aide said Harris informed staff Tuesday she is ending her White House bid.

Harris entered the race in January as a top contender and had a breakout moment in the first debate thanks to a memorable clash with then-frontrunner Joe Biden over his record on desegregation busing.

But she’s struggled to break out in subsequent debates and has seen her poll numbers plunge in recent months. In November, Harris dramatically cut her staff in New Hampshire, the state that holds the first primary in the race for the White House, to focus on Iowa.

The Harris campaign was also hemorrhaging money, spending more than what was coming in, amid tough media coverage about the campaign’s struggles.

She is the first “big name” candidates to drop out of the crowded 2020 primary field, two months before the lead-off Iowa caucuses. Her exit follows the withdrawal of former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, another Democrat who entered the race to great fanfare, but later struggled.

Campaigning in Iowa on Tuesday, Former VP Joe Biden said of Harris, “I have mixed emotions about it because she is really a solid, solid person. And loaded with talent.”

Many believe that Harris’ decision was made not only because she was no longer a viable candidate for POTUS, but any future political career for her would be in jeopardy, if she remained in the race, and lost big – which seemed likely — in the California primary, her home state.

Governments are always doing something in the dark shadows far away from discerning and prying eyes.  Sometimes it is necessary and for the bigger cause.  The government is supposed to be in place to serve the people.  Often times secrets are necessary to keep one’s hand unexposed.  This too, however, can get out of hand.

The CIA and the military started a covert program used to assassinate VC sympathizers during the time of the Vietnam war called The Phoenix Project.  This counter-insurgency doctrine has been put into full play by CIA and US Military Intelligence after the negative public reaction American citizens vehemently expressed against the US involvement in the Vietnam war. They looked at the public reaction to the war as an open betrayal and wanted it not to happen again.

Under this new program called the Phoenix Project, a new form of weapon was being developed called microwave weapons.  These weapons were being developed as a new form of crowd control but far more effective and nefarious than the typical tear gas.  These state of the art neutralizing microwave weapons kill slowly and silently and also can be used to cause emotional changes and emotional distress to a large group of people or can be directed at one individual.  These microwaves are transmitted over low-frequency signals and can be done sight unseen.  The terms slow kill, silent kill, and soft kill were used to identify microwave frequency attacks on groups or individuals.

The Phoenix Program is similar to the CIA’s MK Ultra program which is a secret crash program used to control the human mind. The MK in MK Ultra is the abbreviation for the german words for mind control.  The techniques used in this program came from direct knowledge of how POWs were treated during capture and also from first-hand knowledge of events that took place in Nazi concentration camps.  By the end of the Korean War, 70% of the POWs signed confessions, 15% cooperated fully, and 5% refused to do either.  One can only assume what happened to the remaining 10%.

Brainwashing and propaganda were chief tools used to condition the minds of prisoners.  These techniques were used to cause emotional exhaustion.  The captives were made to feel isolated and alone in order to be broken.  The Joint Chief of Staff ordered and speared headed the operation to bring 34 Nazi scientists that were utilized in such brainwashing experiments in Germany.  These scientists were brought into the country under the top-secret program called Project Paperclip.  Nine-thousand Nazi scientist evaded prosecution in Germany for their committed atrocities and was smuggled into the US to help defeat the USSR or Soviet Russian.  These men were skilled in the art of breaking the human mind.

Joseph Mengele was a chief Nazi scientist who did experiments on adults and children in Germany.  Some of his favorite devices used in his testing was a drug called mescaline, electroshock therapy, starvation, rape, hypnosis, torcher, sensory deprivation, and trauma bonding.

In 1973, General Michael Aquino became the executive officer for the 306th Psychological Operations Battalion.  He wrote about how enemy populations can be subdued with the use of low-frequency psychological weapons.  The new low-frequency weapons can be used to evoke emotions of fear or to slowly cook someone at the molecular level.  These weapons can be used to control a crowd without a shot being fired.  The microwaves can be transmitted over radio, television, and communications frequencies (like a cell phone, ipad or any smart device).

In the 1980’s, Michael Aquino was accused to be part of a satanic military child molestation ring.  He had close ties with Antoine LaVey who was the head of the Church of Satan.  Michael was himself the founder of the Church of Set.  This too was a satanic church in itself.  The military and government choose to infiltrate such closed groups like the Mormons and The Church of Satan because since they are not open to the public the people are more easily indoctrinated.  They then use these groups to push forward an agenda.

We all want freedom.  But who defines what real freedom is and to what extent should governments go to maintain sovereignty and independence. But, at what cost?

The sins of the father.  How far is too far?  Do the ends justify the means.

In my many decades of advising political candidates – and other public figures – how to manage their public images, I have always placed some importance on “looks.”  How you message and what you believe are very important, the appearance of a candidate can either reinforce or distract from a good public image.

Senator John McCain did himself no good by campaigning in tan pants and polo shirts.  He looked more like an Arizona retiree than the senior senator from that state.  On the other hand, President Obama, with his dark suits and sincere ties looked more like a President than McCain.  That was quite an accomplishment since every previous President was an old white guy –like McCain.  He just did not look presidential.

While I like Congressman Jim Jordan’s politics, I wish he would buy a suit – and wear it.  Yes, there are times that shedding the jacket can connect with voters – that is when it is an exception, like passing out cupcakes in a food line or flipping those pork chops at the Iowa State Fair.  But not all the time.  Not press conferences.  Not at hearings.

I am sure it is not accident with Jordan.  He thinks he is relating to the common man.  To me, he looks like a pocket-protector wearing manager of a used car dealership.  And even the average car salesman would have enough sense to put on a suit to appear on the hallowed floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Those with longer memories may recall how President Jimmy Carter would carry his suit bag as he disembarked from Air Force One.  There was even a joke going around that someone made Carter strain by actually putting clothes in the bag.

So, what about our current presidential candidates – starting out with our current President?

President Trump wears presidential clothes – and he looks good in them considering that he is a big fellow.  But of course, the most obvious attention-grabber is the hair.  It has detracted from his presidential persona.  Over the years, it has toned down a bit.  As President, Trump does not need an odd hair do to attract attention.

Of course, Trump cannot give it up now because it has been part of his signature look for sooooo long—and if he did, Congressman Adam Schiff would see it as an impeachable offense.

There are several candidates who are well suited for the Presidency – and I only mean that in the fashionista sense.  Certainly, Joe Biden.  He has carried that look for a lifetime.  His only appearance problem is his age – and fixing that would require a few more hair transplants and some television makeup.

Newbie candidate Michael Bloomberg is a clone of Biden fashion wise.  It is hard to imagine that he would ever take off his suitcoat in public – even to flip chops in Iowa.  Maybe that is why he is not going there.  He is about as old as Biden and shows it.

Millionaire Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is also an old man, but he is going for a much different look than Biden or Bloomberg.  He dresses down and makes sure his hair is properly messed.  Most times he looks like he had the window open as he was driving down the highway.  Rather than a President of the United States, Sanders comes off looking more like a poli-sci professor at New York University.  There are times, however, his hair appears more coiffed — combed forward in little flat curls along the edge that make him look more like a senator in ancient Rome.

There is another guy who wants to portray an image apart from what he is.  Billionaire Tom Steyer is mostly seen in jeans and plaid shirts in folksy commercials – kind of a western rancher type.  He ends all his banal attacks on Trump with a self-satisfied smug smile – a lot like that kid in school who always had the teacher-pleasing answer.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg has the problem that he looks even younger than he is.  We still associate experience and wisdom with age – up to a point, of course.  Buttigieg looks like he should be running for College homecoming king.  (don’t go there.)  While he does go coatless a bit too often, there is not much he could wear that would make him look older.  He might have overcome the problem if he had become prematurely grey.

I know there are more male candidates, but they are so far down the polling list that it really does not matter what they wear.  No one is noticing.

So, what about the women?

With one exception, I give them all a perfect grade in the school of political fashion.  While their politics are liberal, the attire of Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard is presidential conservative.  While Harris and Klobuchar are matronly stylish – and I mean that as a compliment – Gabbard’s get-ups are a tad sexier.  She wears it well.

Now I know that will be viewed as a sexist comment by the political correctness crowd, but I do not find anything sexy about the men’s choice in attire.  Maybe some yoga pants would do the trick. (God, I hope I can get that image out of my mind.)

While these women switch from dresses, business suits and pants suit, they avoid the image-killing pants suits worn by former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.  But then, the former First Lady was never a clothes horse.

Of course, the exception in the current field of lady candidates is Elizabeth Warren.  Though she is among the multi-millionaire candidates, it is obvious she selects attire to project her “I’m just a humble schoolteacher from Oklahoma” image.  It is a wonder where she has found so many of those long frumpy sweaters.  Even Goodwill could not meet Warren’s demand.  Every time I see Warren, I cannot help but think of the bag lady character played by comedian Ruth Buzzi.

I did not forget Marianne Williamson, the love candidate,  it is just that she is so forgettable.  Whatever she wears, she looks like one of those women peddling aromas on the shopping channels.  Maybe she does.

I did not look at these styles as a fashion expert — obviously.  I cannot tell an Armani suit from an Army flak jacket.  I just look at the candidates in terms of the public image they project – or try to project – with a bit of humor that is so lacking in our current political discourse.  And you can bet that there will be folks out there who will not appreciate the humor.  You can identify them because they are wearing t-shirts emblazoned with political obscenities.

So, there ‘tis.

During his presidential campaign – and ever since his inauguration – President Trump has constantly called on the other members of NATO to increase their financial contribution.  At the time Trump took office, only three of the 29 NATO nations were meeting their agreed-to funding of two percent of Gross Domestic Product.  As with the UN, the United States was the only nation carrying a disproportionate percentage of the alliance budget.

In typical fashion, Trump was pretty rough on our NATO allies.  He treated them like the deadbeats they were.

That got our pin-stripped pants folks in the international relations community all a twitter – so to speak.  They accused Trump of violating diplomatic norms – bullying our friends.  They accused Trump of trying to destroy NATO as a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The complainers broke down into two camps – those who simply hate Trump and those know-it-alls in the diplomatic community who had been calling on the other members of NATO to increase their contribution – but did nothing about it.  Consequently, it never happened.  Doing nothing, after all, is the diplomatic norm in their world.

So, what is the situation today?

Weeeeell, the number of nations meeting their commitment has increased from three to eight – and most of the other nations have increased their contributions.  In a recent press conference, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reported an increase in NATO income of $130 billion since 2016 (the year Trump became President) – and said that there still needs to be more improvement in member nations meeting their quotas.

Stoltenberg said that increases in member contributions were necessary because of more dangerous international conditions, terrorism, and new military technologies.  But … he said that such increases should NOT be because Trump called for them.  They had nothing to do with the guy who had been bullying and threatening them, according to the Secretary General.

Now let’s get this picture straight.  For decades, the American diplomatic establishment has been trying to get our NATO allies in meeting their financial obligations without any success – even as international conditions became more dangerous, terrorism resulted in a Caliphate off the shore of Europe and military technologies improved immensely.  NATO could keep pace with those past events thanks to the misguided generosity of one nation – America.

Democrats and their media allies have been quick to take up the narrative set forth by Stoltenberg.  If you start with the argument that nothing Trump does will have good results, it is easy to assume his pressures on NATO had nothing to do with the improvements in funding.  But that is preposterous.

In an odd analysis, former General Mark Hertling – a consistent Trump critic – derisively said that the NATO leaders only playing up to Trump so that he would not grouse so much about the funding shortfalls – another example of who Trump Derangement Syndrome addles the left-wing brain.  Of course, there were placating Trump.  That is called a victory – something Hertling should understand.

The only thing that changed in terms of NATO funding between now and then has been the election of Trump and the public shaming (bullying, if you prefer) he bestowed on our allies.  And as far as that nonsense about helping Putin, Trump actually strengthened NATO, added to the membership rolls and sent military aide to Ukraine – a nation eager to join NATO and avoid being Putin’s next conquest.

Though lost in the fog of impeachment – intentionally, to be sure – the increased funding of NATO is a “yuge” victory for Trump, the United States, and the free world.  Mark up one more for The Lipper.

So, there ‘tis.

Being the greatest military power in the world is what apparently most world powers strive to be.  This is especially true when considering the United States of America.  I guess the motto is win or go home.  This country has been doing quite a bit of winning.  Most of these wins go unnoticed by the general public.  This is because a lot of victories are won covertly.  Of course, transparency is not exactly what I would expect from a government.  A team can’t let an opposing team get a hold of its playbook.  Some of the decisions made by government and military officials are above the pay grade of the average individual.  The government can’t expose all.  Take it from an Army veteran.  But, to what extent should a nation go to be and remain at the top of the pile?

Our government and military have come under fire for its involvement with Nazi war criminals.  These men were recruited by the United States under the top-secret program called Operation Paperclip.  There were a total of 1600 scientists and engineers that were covertly brought over to the United States via Operation Paperclip to help the U.S. win the arms race.  These Nazi scientists were responsible for and carried out some of the most horrific and heinous war crimes in history.  Eugenics was one of the tools used to get rid of unwanted groups of people.  Most people feel that eugenics started in Germany.  This is not true.  Eugenics actually started in America and was spearheaded by Margaret Sanger.  She was also the progenitor of Planned Parenthood.

Granted, the U.S. was desperately working on keeping a few steps ahead of the now-debunked Soviet Union.  Anything to stay ahead of a rival nuclear power.  But, at what cost?  Instead of the U.S. making sure that these Nazi war criminals were prosecuted for their atrocious and inhumane attack on humanity, they were suited to be recruited.  That’s right.  The very same scientist that worked to exterminate an entire ethnic group (Jews) were given asylum in the United States of America.

In the spring of 1945, the U.S. Navy “received in custody” the inventor of the Hs 293 missile.  His name was Herbert A. Wagner.  Wagner was an Austrian that worked in the field of aerodynamics.  The Hs 293 missile is also known as the Henschel Hs 293 glide bomb.  Werner Von Braun created the United States V2 Rocket.  Werner was the leading aerospace engineer in Nazi Germany.

Dr. Walter Schreiber was a well-known epidemiologist and biology professor in Germany at the time of WWII.  He rose to the rank of major general in the

Wehrmacht Medical Service.  Also, as a member of the Reich Research Council, he conducted severable inhumane and sadistic experiments on Jewish prisoners and slaves in Auschwitz.

After WWII, Schreiber testified in the Nuremberg Trials against Herman Goering.  He also worked for the CIA and therefore shielded from being prosecuted for is medical atrocities that he himself committed.  Is this how justice works?  It didn’t work for John Gotti but it did work for Sammy “The Bull” Gravano.  During the reign of the Nazi’s, he introduced lethal phenol injections to effectively exterminate so-called trouble makers.  Schreiber conducted savage experiments.  One such experiment included cutting open the legs of women imprisoned at Ravensbrueck and purposely infecting them with gangrene.  Afterwhich, they were given bone transplants.  This would usually end in a slow and agonizing death.  Walter later reemigrated to Argentina.

Our government and military have been dealing in black ops or clandestine operations all across the world.  These programs go on without the knowledge outside of the knowledge of the general public.  Was the fear of the Bear so extreme that the U.S. is justified in its acts?  Are there no holds barred when protecting a nation’s sovereignty?  These are definitely some points that we may need to evaluate further when thinking of the future of America.