In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Nearly half of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Adults see the government today as a threat to rights. Thirty-seven percent (37%) hold the opposite view. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.
Most Republicans (74%) and unaffiliateds (51%) consider the government to be a threat to individual rights. Most Democrats (64%) regard the government as a protector of rights.
Additionally, most Americans (52%) say it is more important for the government to protect individual rights than to promote economic growth. Just 31% say promoting economic growth is more important. But again a sizable number (17%) of Adults aren't sure which is more important.
This nationwide survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on June 18-19, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Men strongly believe it is more important for the government to protect individual rights, while women are almost evenly divided on the question.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of whites feel the emphasis should be on protecting individual rights. African-Americans are closely divided over which is more important.
There is little partisan disagreement when it comes to individual rights versus economic growth.
Data released earlier this week shows that 62% believe politicians want the government to have more power and money. At the same time, 58% think most voters want less power and money for the government.
This gap helps explain why just 21% believe that government today has the consent of the governed.
The Declaration of Independence asserts that governments are instituted among men to protect certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
just a short poll that caught my interest and to let you guys know I'm still around. Its been a busy summer so far.
forgot the link- http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=9345
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
While I'm in the mood, here is a short list of people or companies that can take the hard good bye.
Goldman Sachs
Hillary Clinton
The last 3 guys from the federal reserve commission. Including Giethner.
Time is short and I'm at work, Please feel free to add. Please
Happy July Fourth Everyone.
pelosi
geithner
bush w.
reid
anyone associated with the "daily show"
Ron Paul Slams Federal Interference In Oil Spill Relief Efforts
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Ron Paul Slams Federal Interference In Oil Spill Relief Efforts 060710top
As tar balls from the BP oil spill wash into Galveston, Texas, Congressman Ron Paul has slammed federal interference in the relief effort that is hampering local attempts to mitigate the consequences of the disaster, mimicking how the feds deliberately botched the response to hurricane Katrina and made the crisis worse.
"They have done a lot to interfere," Paul told National Political Correspondent Jessica Yellin on CNN's "John King USA."
"A lot of local officials, property owners and state officials have wanted to do more over in Louisiana and Mississippi and the federal government, the fish and wildlife people, the EPA and others, they come in and they prohibit them from doing it," said Paul.
The Congressman also added that if large numbers of National Guard troops were not deployed oversees fighting endless wars, there might be more manpower to call upon in aiding relief efforts.
"If all our states had their Guard units back here maybe they would have the manpower to do more to help clean up the beaches and prevent the oil from coming in, but, no, our Guard units are all over the world fighting wars we don't need," said Paul.
In hindsight, it's becoming clear that the government has deliberately botched the response and prevented local authorities from doing their jobs, just as FEMA deliberately sabotaged the state response to Hurricane Katrina in order to make the crisis worse and create the pretext for a police state response, gun confiscation and ultimately more federal power.
Numerous reports have surfaced of locals and state authorities being prevented by BP contractors and the U.S. Coast Guard from helping to address the devastation the spill has created in the region.
One example of undue federal interference occurred last month when Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal ordered the state's fleet of sixteen vacuum barges to clean up oil in the Louisiana marshes. The U.S. Coast Guard intercepted the barges for the purposes of an "inspection," but then promptly failed to conduct any inspection and merely ordered them to turn around and head back to the dock.
While stifling the efforts of local authorities to adequately battle the consequences of the spill, the federal government also refused help from foreign governments who had immediately offered sophisticated technology that could have already fixed the problem.
Obama initially blocked international help, citing the Jones Act, which forbids foreign ships from operating between U.S. ports, and thereby preventing the use of sophisticated technology which foreign firms insist could have sealed the leak.
The Jones Act can be waived in in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest. Belgian company DEME contends that it has the specialist vessels to fix the oil leak within two to four months, technology the U.S. does not have. By taking bids on a contract to fix the oil leak from international companies, Obama could have the problem solved within a matter of weeks, but he immediately refused the help of "thirteen entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion."
Obama's two month delay in refusing international help ensured that the window of opportunity was missed to fix the leak before the start of the hurricane season, which will make the crisis immeasurably worse.
The arrival on July 1st of a Taiwanese "super-skimmer" which can collect 500,000 barrels per day of contaminated water was nearly 10 weeks overdue, and inclement weather has now delayed the device from even being tested in the Gulf. Had Obama immediately accepted international support, the majority of the oil could have been cleaned up before the hurricane season began, avoiding the threat that large amounts of oil will be dumped onshore, which if it occurs could mandate massive evacuations of the affected areas.
As we have highlighted, the longer the crisis drags on and the worse it gets, the more political capital Obama accrues in pursuit of his nightmare "green economy" carbon tax agenda. Viewed from this perspective, the federal government has no motivation whatsoever to cap the oil leak or clean up the spill.
The October Surprise Is Coming American Thinker
By Pamela Geller
The October Surprise. We all know it's coming. In what shape, idea, form -- who's to say? Evil always surprises. Its goals are constant, the ultimate objective never changes, but inevitably it manifests itself as the savior of the day, the savior of man. The 2008 Democrat October Surprise that ushered in the first hardcore radical post-American president in American history was the "economic collapse." Oh yes, that was a beaut.
The time before that, the moochers and the looters tried to fake Bush documents -- except that the conservative blogosphere caught them red-handed, so they missed their mark.
But the party of haters, infiltrators, anti-capitalists, the party that is anti-freedom and anti-individual rights, is going to have to pull off something really catastrophic to stay in power this November. And they will, because it is abundantly clear now that they despise the premise of America and they mean to replace it with statism, the source of untold, incomprehensible human misery for centuries.
Ayn Rand wrote of statism that
a statist system -- whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or 'welfare' type -- is based on the ... government's unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. ... Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.
With chilling prescience, Rand said, "The basic principle and the ultimate results of all statist doctrines are the same: dictatorship and destruction. The rest is only a matter of time."
Only a matter of time.
We have a long and terrible fight in front of us. The fight is as big as the idea, the foundation, the being of this great nation, the fight for America. Yes, it's as big as all that, and the enemy is ruthless, unscrupulous, and evil -- and willing to do whatever it takes to assume absolute control. They build nothing, produce nothing, create nothing, invent nothing. They steal. They demand. They demoralize. They are destroyers.
What will October's Surprise be? Political analyst Jack Wheeler has an idea. "A Second Great Depression," he says, "is the Democrat Party's path to power":
Our country is faced with an impending economic catastrophe, a Second Great Depression. It is being brought about on purpose by a political party that cares only for keeping and expanding its power, and looks upon prosperity as a threat to that power.
You think the Democrats aren't really that bad? Think again. Wheeler points out that they're "now being threatened with being thrown out of power." And what did they do when faced with a loss of power the last time? "If that party is evil enough and fascist enough to cause an economic catastrophe," Wheeler says, "it is certainly evil and fascist enough to cause a physical catastrophe, an Ultimate October Surprise, that will frighten and enrage voters enough to preserve its power in November."
Wheeler speculates that this could take the form of "another 9/11, a massively horrific terrorist attack, perhaps even nuclear." Or it could involve Obama's obvious and gross mishandling of the Gulf oil crisis, the full extent of which is (of course) being covered up in the lapdog media. And whom would the Democrats blame for whatever crisis they trump up? Whom else? The attack will be used, Wheeler suggests, "to raise suspicion about the dangerous Tea Party people and anyone who is 'anti-government,' enough for people to rally around their Zero-led government in fear and confusion." And it will ultimately provide "further rationales for emergency government powers."
Could this really happen? Well, we know there have been October Surprises in the past, and each election ups the ante. We have to make sure this doesn't happen. We are Americans. We are free people. We must resist. As one reader of my website, AtlasShrugs.com, wrote to me, "the political tools of truth, exposure, ridicule, disparagement, impeachment, criminal prosecution, and politically-incorrect anger must be added to our arsenal of peaceful weapons against tyranny. ... We must make history by living our freedom, or surely we will die."
And we have seen the Democratic Party decimate our health care system, banking industry, and automobile sector, and introduce sharia (Islamic) finance into the public sector. They are capable of anything.
Yes. And there is some comfort to be found in the fact that decent, rational men, statesmen, exist and speak the truth. They represent our last hope, a vestige of reason and sanity in this era of the modern barbarian. These are the men who need to take the reins of their respective nations. Bolton 2012: The stakes couldn't be higher.
As Alex has warned for years, the military have been training with police to perform gun confiscations in US neighborhoods. Fox 23 News in Albany, New York is reporting on a program taking place between the National Guard and local police.
As we have reported, Operation Vigilant Guard trains foreign troops to confiscate American's guns. After hurricane Katrina, guns were confiscated from citizens during door-to-door checks by military.
Short, but check the link for other links and a video. Have a good weekend yall.
Being I will be participating in Vigilant Guard in October your post caught my eye. No where does our OPORD refer to seizing weapons. So I followed your link to see if maybe there was some sinister plot I was unaware of. The link you provided did have a video from FOX23 in Albany. They did talk about the National Guard. There was no mention of seizing weapons or being trained to do so.
Myself and pretty much everyone I work with are Oathkeepers. Do some research before slandering us.[:(!]
"Treason in New York, National Guard Confiscating Guns from Citizens" How misleading is this title?
Matt Ryan and Alex Jones
Infowars
July 7, 2010
As Alex has warned for years, the military have been training with police to perform gun confiscations in US neighborhoods. Flat out lie Fox 23 News in Albany, New York is reporting on a program taking place between the National Guard and local police.
As we have reported, Operation Vigilant Guard trains foreign troops to confiscate American's guns. Flat out lie #2 After hurricane Katrina, guns were confiscated from citizens during door-to-door checks by military.
Short, but check the link for other links and a video. Have a good weekend yall.
I highlighted the false statements in red to help you out. Where in the linked news video are any of these items mentioned? The story is PROPAGANDA. Just because it's from your side doesn't make it any more intellectually honest than the crapola the left puts out.[xx(]
Change has arrived. But it is not the sort of change imagined by the fawning mobs of 2008 at Obama's campaign rallies. Obama and Congress have pulled a three-card Monte on the American people. It's called "financial regulatory reform" and it hands unprecedented power over to the Federal Reserve.
"This historic reform creates the strongest protections for consumers in history and the toughest financial regulations since the Great Depression," declares a triumphant White House.
Ron Paul's call for putting the bankster Fed under a microscope has evaporated. "Just a few months ago, amid populist anger at the Fed for failing to prevent the financial crisis of 2008 and bailing out Wall Street, Congress was talking of stripping the central bank of its supervisory oversight of banks or forcing it to submit to congressional audit of its interest-rate decisions," the Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday. "Instead, the new law gives the Fed more power and a better tool box to help prevent financial crises."
The Fed, of course, does not prevent financial crisis. It perpetuates financial crisis at the behest of a cabal of international bankers - the Rothschild's of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Israel Moses Seaf of Italy, Kuhn, Loeb & Co. of Germany and New York, Warburg & Company of Hamburg, Germany, Lehman Brothers of New York, Goldman, Sachs of New York, and the Rockefeller Brothers of New York.
The so-called financial regulatory bill headed to Obama's desk for signature "is not about cracking down on big banks as some claim. Rather, this is about not wasting a crisis. This is about using a traumatic event to increase government power and control over the economy," Ron Paul wrote earlier this month. This "traumatic event" was engineered by the banksters and the Federal Reserve.
Current Globalist Financial Crisis is a Financial False Flag operation," writes Alfred Lambremont Webre. "It is a controlled collapse of the globalist economic system, engineered by an international war crimes racketeering organization.. The Financial False Flag [is] designed to accelerate the deterioration of First World economies, democracies, and prosperity, in aid of a larger program of global depopulation. The same powers who control the Federal Reserve Bank are intent on depopulating between 1/3 and 2/3 of the current human population, in service to a grotesque covert elite plan."
If you want to know what the elite have in mind for the serfs, read Paul Joseph Watson's Rockefeller Study Envisages Future Dictatorship Controlled By Elite. The elite are planning pandemics, warfare, chaos and crises, according to a Rockefeller study produced in association with the Global Business Network.
Providing the Federal Reserve with more authoritarian power under the flimsy guise of going after Wall Street and the greedy investment bankers is only the latest phase of the bankster game plan to impoverish humanity and eventually cull the herd.
Obama the skilled teleprompter reader will now sell the Bankster Consolidation Bill to a generally hoodwinked and ignorant public. "Thursday afternoon, fresh from an economic speech in Michigan, Obama touted financial reform from the south driveway of the White House - beginning with what the reform means for average Americans," reports the Christian Science Monitor.
It's a three-card Monte scam, a confidence game, a sleight of hand. Like the famous card game, the mark is steered away from the queen. The Federal Reserve will now lead us down the primrose path to destruction - pandemics, warfare, chaos and crises - and most of us will be none the wiser.
Sounds like rich kids getting out of a DWI to me. Goldman Sachs has bought their way out of trouble to the tune of 550 billion.
Jev. This type of training has been going on for some time. It is not a lie. If you will take time to review previous articles posted I think you can find what you need. If not please feel free to e-mail me and I can provide you with video links. Please keep in mind these are not my words, I simply cut and paste them in here.
If you C&P it you are furthering a lie. You posted it here so you own it, here. I cannot speak of what's going on in other parts of the country but here in NY we are NOT "training to confiscate guns in American neighborhoods" as your "News" article states.
This BS is designed to enrage people that are not from this area. People that have no way of knowing any different. Whoever wrote it heard that the NY National Guard was going to be participating in an exercise then concocted this garbage to sound legitimate.
There are enough real assaults on our rights that can be discussed. We don't need to be chasing phantoms. Whoever wrote this story has another agenda.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Phantoms? It happened in Bouemont TX. Blackhawks on soveriegn soil. I asked you to e-mail me if you wanted more info.
The news article you C&P'd does not mention Bouemont TX. If something happened down there then highlight instead of distracting people with with crap that DIDN'T happen.
The United States is under attack by narco terrorists invading from the failed state of Mexico and Obama and the federal government are doing nothing about it.
Los Zetas crossed the border near Laredo, Texas, and reportedly seized two ranches in the area indicated by the orange square above.
In June, the Mexican drug mafia forced the closure of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona. Authorities in Arizona admit that criminals now control a drug and human smuggling corridor that stretches from the border into metro Phoenix. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu explained in June that the Mexican Mafia controls three counties in his state.
Now drug smugglers are repeating the pattern in Texas.
On Saturday, the Cypress Times, an online newspaper in Cypress, Texas, reported that the murderous Los Zetas has crossed into the United States and taken over at least two ranches in the Laredo, Texas area. The owners of the farms have evacuated and were not harmed.
"I can personally vouch that this info came in late last night from a reliable police source inside the Laredo PD," Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, told the online newspaper. "There is currently a standoff between the unknown size Zeta forces and U.S. Border Patrol and local law enforcement on two ranches on our side of the Rio Grande."
Kimberly Dvorak, writing for the Albuquerque Examiner, reports that two sources inside the Laredo Police Department have confirmed the incident. "We consider this an act of war," said one police officer on the ground near the scene. There is a news blackout of this incident at this time and the sources inside Laredo PD spoke on the condition of anonymity, writes Dvorak.
The DBKP blog contacted the the Laredo Police Department on Saturday. "We have been advised to say nothing. The Webb County Sheriff is taking the lead on this and they're advising that they can't confirm anything either," a spokesperson told the blog.
On March 30, 2008, the Dallas Morning News reported Mexican drug cartels operated military-style training camps in at least six such locations in northern Tamaulipas and Nuevo Le?n states, some within a few miles of the Texas border, according to U.S. and Mexican authorities and the printed testimony of five protected witnesses who were trained in the camps.
"Traffickers go to great lengths to prepare themselves for battle," a senior U.S. anti-narcotics official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the newspaper. "Part of that preparation is live firing ranges and combat training courses.. And that's not something that we have seen before." In the state of Tamaulipas, Los Zetas train with other mercenaries, including the Kaibiles from Guatemala, the officials said.
The Justice Department warned local police in Arizona and California about Los Zetas violence along the border. "The violence will spill over the Mexican border into the United States and law enforcement agencies in Texas, Arizona and Southern California can expect to encounter Los Zetas in the coming months," warned an intelligence bulletin issued by the feds. The Justice Department and Homeland Security consider the Mexican drug cartels as the greatest organized crime threat to the United States.
Los Zetas was founded by an elite force of assassins from Mexican Army deserters and is now integrated by corrupt ex-federal, state, and local police officers. Los Zetas was first hired as a private mercenary army for Mexico's Gulf Cartel, but since February of this year have gone independent and are now enemies of its former partner.
In the first eleven months of 2008, Los Zetas killers were directly responsible for the deaths of 5,300 people, including soldiers, their own operatives, civilians, journalists, and rival drug traffickers.
In 2006, Mexican president Felipe Calderon supposedly declared war on the drug cartels. Since Calderon's declaration, more than 25,000 people have been killed in Mexico due to drug violence. In June of this year alone hundreds of people in Mexico died from drug-related violence.
Last week CBS News said Mexico's drug Mafia had adopted "al-Qaeda tactics" after a car bomb exploded across the border from El Paso, Texas, in Ciudad Ju?rez, killing two federal officers and a musician and injuring 11 people, including several bystanders. In late June, the El Paso City Hall was struck by gunfire from a deadly narco terrorist attack across the border in Ju?rez.
In May, Obama announced that 1,200 troops would be sent to the border to crack down on smuggling and drug cartel violence. Critics have called it political posturing in the run-up to November congressional elections and a response to Arizona's recently passed immigration law.
Republicans in Texas consider the deployment of 250 troops in their state an insult. "The National Guard troops are not an adequate or long-term solution - they're only a Band-Aid," a spokeswoman for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White told the Star-Telegram. "Maybe Texas should sue the federal government for not doing its job," added U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville.
Senator Kyl of Arizona said in June that Obama is refusing to secure the border until Congress passes so-called immigration reform. "The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform," Kyl said at a town hall organized by a local Arizona Tea Party.
In June, the banksters admitted they fund the Mexican drug Mafia. Wachovia and Bank of America have moved money for Mexican drug smugglers.
"The admission came in an agreement that Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia struck with federal prosecutors in March, and it sheds light on the largely undocumented role of U.S. banks in contributing to the violent drug trade that has convulsed Mexico for the past four years," Bloomberg reported. "Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations," Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case, told Bloomberg.
Bankster participation has also financed the Mexican Mafia's expansion into Texas and Arizona.
Multiple links and video in original article.
LAREDO - Local law enforcement was bombarded with calls from across the country Saturday asking about a report that the Zetas had taken over two ranches off Mines Road.
But officials with the Laredo Police Department, Webb County Sheriff's Department and Border Patrol said they knew nothing about such an incident, while Erik Vasys, an FBI spokesman in San Antonio, said the agency does not comment on rumors.
"The public would be the first to know if anything was going on," said Webb County Sheriff Martin Cuellar on Sunday afternoon. "Our deputies went out there and talked to ranch owners in the area and found nothing."
The report that the Zetas, the Gulf Cartel's former enforcers, had taken over two Laredo ranches appeared to have initially surfaced around 10 a.m. Saturday on the blog Diggers Realm.
The report then spread like wildfire among blogs and social networking sites throughout the day. A Webb County Sheriff's official said the department was even having difficulty functioning because of the volume of calls they were receiving because of the report.
The Diggers Realm blogger stated that he received a tip from a San Diego Minuteman named Jeff Schwilk, who said the Zetas had crossed into the United States and taken over two ranches off Mines Road, about 10 miles northwest of Interstate 35.
Quoting Schwilk, the blogger wrote of a standoff between "the unknown size Zeta forces and the U.S. Border Patrol and local law enforcement on two ranches."
The blogger wrote that the story was confirmed by anonymous Laredo Police Department sources.
Late Saturday, no law enforcement activity was visible along Mines Road from I-35 to Las Penitas subdivision.
Laredo Morning Times Staff Writer Denise Blaz contributed to this report.
From pollution to politics, the era of deception and duplicity has reached new heights and hijacked almost every form of media in the world. In the last frontiers for truth such as the internet, disinformation operations are in full swing to discredit and destroy any semblance of authentic and factual information available to the public.
How many more lies will people around the world accept as truth? Some say a global awakening is taking place, but at what cost? Will it take the destruction of most of the earth and its resources before people are enlightened?
The escalating media and political reports are so far fetched, cunning, and so beyond reality, it's as if each is trying to top the other with one sinister plot after the next. To demonstrate the outright lies by national governments and the media, let's take three examples from the last year alone, including the H1N1 scandal, airport body scanners and the BP oil disaster.
The H1N1 Scandal
Last year, the H1N1 scandal reached its pinnacle in the fall of 2009 when the world united on the internet with a consensus and practical understanding of the World Health Organization's orchestratration to deceive the masses. From radio, internet, television, newspapers, magazines, outdoor posters, signage and promotions, you could not escape the flu hype campaigns so diligently pursued by all the malicious agendas at play who only wanted one thing - to promote a dangerous H1N1 vaccine. After hundreds of reports exposed the criminal activity by all levels of government, we left the same people in power to do it all over again.
According to preliminary reports, another round of pandemic vaccine campaigns are scheduled for the 2010/2011 season and they're already underway. However, there appears to be a recombination that has changed the H1N1 lab created virus into a more lethal form and it is not a hoax, but it may be yet another CDC lab experiment.
The CDC has recently issued a Health Advisory in connection with two summer outbreaks of H3N2 in Iowa. Other reports from Russia and India indicate that a real epidemic may be upon us if the virus steadily recombines and acquires new genetics. Even though a new strain may have accidentally evolved in eggs, reassortment of H1N1-H5N1 has been a legitimate concern for years. The WHO first suggested the reassortment of H1N1-H5N1 in 2004.
If this is really the case, how will the public react after all the lies from health agencies who have sworn to protect us? Will they hype another vaccine and if so, will the public even respond?
Body Scanners
They've been approved all over the world and marketed as the next greatest airport scanning technology. The U.S., U.K., Russia, Australia, Europe and Canada have all installed airport body scanners which have potentially devastating health effects.
Many of these scanners are reportedly using terahertz (THz) waves, the radiation that fills the slot in the electromagnetic spectrum between microwaves and infrared. Evidence suggests that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication.
As the path toward rolling out wider use of whole-body scanners in U.S. airports ran through the White House, Obama expedited their deployment because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) didn't need legislation from Congress to start using the devices at any of the 560 U.S. airports.
The White House ignored all the scientific evidence presented which suggested negative health effects. Politicians and regulatory agencies then covered up the bad publicity on naked body scanners and focused on the presumed benefits under the guise of public safety.
Privacy commisioners and airport authorities have also insisted that there were no risks of images being stored or personal details being revealed to security screeners. Now there's new evidence to show that the scanners can do just that.
According to a CNET report, another federal agency, the U.S. Marshall's service, admitted that it had actually stored over 30,000 images recorded by a full-body scanner used at a Florida courthouse.
A watchdog group called the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained over 100 of the images and states on its web site that, "The images, which are routinely captured by the federal agency, prove that body scanning devices store and record images of individuals stripped naked." The group has filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of body scanners at airports.
EPIC also discovered that the TSA actually specified to manufacturers that the machines have the ability to send and store images. The TSA says that these functions are only for testing and training and insists on its web site that the airport body scanners are delivered to airports with storage and recording functions disabled.
Again, the upper levels of the echelon are caught lying and deceiving, yet they are still left to their own devices to further manipulate and continue misrepresenting facts to the gullible public.
BP Oil Disaster
When news unfolded about the April 20, 2010 BP oil disaster, it went from bad to worse. Instead of immediately mobilizing for action in the face of a massive public health threat, the response was to cover-up, deny and respond with ignorance. After all the public will always believe them, or so they thought.
The Obama administration, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, U.S. Coast Guard commandant admiral Thad Allen, energy and climate-change policy adviser Carol Browner, BP and all their contituents conspired to deliberately mislead the public from the inception of the disaster to present day. What's worse is they all agreed to further disseminate toxins in the Gulf by spraying 1.8 to 2 million gallons of the neurotoxin Corexit which was exposed by over a hundred scientists, toxicologists and other experts who have unequivocally classified the irresponsible aerial spraying of the chemical dispersant as a large-scale, uncontrolled non-consensual human and environmental experiment is being conducted in the Gulf region.
The media was grossly censoring the extent of the devastation in the Gulf. The poisons-oil and corexit are destined to spread globally, but honest reporting was and still is restricted, and many independent investigators have been arrested. Read 30 Facts Evidencing that The Gulf Oil Crisis Was Planned.
On June 12, 2010, The Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (ISAC) released "Risk of Global Climate Change By BP Oil Spill", a document detailing how the BP spill may cause irreparable damage to the Gulf Stream global climate thermoregulation activity. Read Gulf Loop Current Destroyed: May Lead To Shut Down of Atlantic Thermoregulation, Rapid Cooling.
According to Dr. Gianluigi Zangari, an Italian theoretical physicist, and major complex and chaotic systems analyst at the Frascati National Laboratories in Italy, the Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico has stalled as a consequence of the BP oil spill disaster. Zagari notes that the effects of this stall have also begun to spread to the Gulf Stream. This is because the Loop Current is a crucial element of the Gulf Stream itself and why it is commonly referred to as the "main engine" of the Stream.
The concern now, is whether or not natural processes can re-establish the stalled Loop Current. If not, we could begin to see global crop failures as early as 2011.
Zangari's assessment is based on daily monitoring of real-time data oceanographic satellite public data feeds called "Real-Time Mesoscale Altimetry" from the Jason, Topex/Poseidon, Geosat, Follow-On, ERS-2 and Envisat satellites.
These satellite feeds are captured and made publicly available by NASA, NOAA and by the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research (CCAR) at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The CCAR is now being accused of scientific fraud and tampering of data directly associated with the events surrounding the Loop Current phenomenon and its current anomalies. Various reporters have spear-headed the charge including radio personality Dr. Bill Deagle who has featured Dr. Zangari on his radio show The Nutrimedical Report where he detailed the events leading up to the destruction of the Loop Current in the Gulf.
Dr. Zangari has stated that he will no longer use CCAR data due to its unreliability.
Organized and Professional Disformation Operations
Well-funded and highly-organized disinformation operations are in full-swing throughout the internet. From forums to comment boards and even professional websites that have only one purpose: Defame, distract, and destroy the truth.
However organized, the tactics are very predictable in a world filled with lies and half-truths. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation.
Disinformation campaigns are launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. The H1N1 scandal was a prime example of how hundreds of operations can be launched to sway opinions on the facts. For every fact-based article on the realities of the H1N1 vaccine, there were both very primitive and sophisticated counters on message boards, comment forums and hundreds of alternative and mainstream websites.
Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch.com and supporters such as skeptic.org.uk and skepticblog.com are examples of websites who promote both synthetic and organic disinformation on almost any topic that does not concur with mainstream thought.
There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as H. Michael Sweeney has brilliantly detailed. Also included with this material are eight common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.
A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation. to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not. or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.
It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found. but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it - especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the `How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers.
Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such `arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a `wild rumor' from a `bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary `attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as `kooks', `right-wing', `liberal', `left-wing', `terrorists', `conspiracy buffs', `radicals', `militia', `racists', `religious fanatics', `sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run.
In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning - simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives.
Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority.
Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough `jargon' and `minutia' to illustrate you are `one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb.
No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
A derivative of the straw man - usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues - so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.
Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the `high road' and `confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made - but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, `just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly `call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already `done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for `coming clean' and `owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution.
Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions.
Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.
If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject.
Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can `argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how `sensitive they are to criticism.'
This is perhaps a variant of the `play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence.
Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations - as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body.
Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth.
Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions.
If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics.
If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish.
If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) Avoidance
They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity
They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental
They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork
They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial
They almost always have disdain for `conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions
An odd kind of `artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin - an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal.
But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the `image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to `act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation.
You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later - an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game - where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent
There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat `freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
Time Constant
There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to `get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.
mulitple links to info on original link
TV IS A PSYCHO-SOCIAL WEAPON oneworldscam
Ken Doyle
I think most right thinking people are agreed that physical effects aside, the content of the majority of TV programming today (I emphasise the word programming, a process that involves a passive receptor of information) is designed to instil a social worldview and value system that is self-centric and is in fact the opposite of what a healthy and enduring society requires. Individualism at any cost rules the day and it is more and more evident that empathy for one?_s fellow citizen and a sense of personal responsibility are rapidly vanishing along with the morality that all healthy civilisations have known to be necessary for survival. Only recently a car I was travelling in was bumped from behind by a driver who was, I would guess, in his mid to late thirties, looked quite respectable and drove a new and expensive car. Rather than stop and offer his details for the damage done he feigned an apology and when our vehicle pulled off to park safely he took his opportunity to flee the scene, no doubt congratulating himself on avoiding a messy process involving insurance agencies etc. People today are only made to feel guilt when caught and exposed for their crimes. They have no higher authority to fear and the current direction of societal attitudes puts paid to that particular view often espoused that it is possible to remain moral and upstanding without religion or a guiding moral principal if you prefer. The crime figures, road rage and general attitude of fellow citizens would tend to indicate otherwise. I believe TV has much blame to shoulder for this.
People spend a lot of their spare time in front of the television. I don?_t think it?_s an exaggeration to state that TV is a major source of many people?_s opinions and views on pretty much everything. Given the amount of time people spend watching television it makes perfect sense that if you want to shape public opinion the TV is the medium par excellence by which to disseminate your information. It stands to reason then that if you agree that a movement exists, and I think a lot of people of do, whose aim is to re-make the world in man?_s image, albeit a skewed and perverse one, then it makes sense for such an organisation to consolidate control of the TV airwaves and turn it into a propaganda video-drome. Some might say that the proof is in the pudding, that TV is so biased toward the crude, libertine, amoral lifestyle and that the portrayal of the Christian religion, the very force that created our society, is so negative, misinformed and hostile that surely such a conspiracy exists. Now to extrapolate this thought is an article unto itself but the facts are there and the conspiracy is out in the open. To give just two examples, we have the admission by the
BBC following a leaking of an internal memo wherein it was admitted that they are anti-Christ in their outlook. After complaints that BBC programming repeatedly errs on the side of sensitivity to Islam & other minorities (religious or otherwise) & bias against Christianity (especially Roman Catholicism), the British Broadcasting Corporation has admitted its guilt. A summit meeting of BBC officials culminated in admissions that ??the BBC is not impartial or neutral,?? as BBC political editor Andew Marr put it. The closed-door summit?_s conclusions were leaked to the British newspaper The Mail on Sunday.
Evidence also exists that governments control news output and content. On January 14,1983 President Reagan of the USA signed into effect directive 77 which gave the CIA and government full power to determine and control the content of news that the American public receives, news which can now be uploaded and or modified in minutes with modern technology. Goebbels would be proud. Think about it. It only takes a decision made by one chief editor to determine the news received by millions and in the US it is said that upwards of 90% of all media formats including newspapers and magazines are controlled by 3 or 4 corporations, a number which is going down as more and more news agencies are bought up and amalgamated. All an agency has do to make sure the news delivered suits a particular agenda is to put a very small number of people into the right positions.
Alex Jones, a rising star in the American ??Truth Movement?? is an independent syndicated radio talk-show host and investigative journalist from Austin, Texas. He has had personal contact with people from many of the US?_s major news agencies like FOX and CNN and he says that many people employed with these companies don?_t agree with the style and content of news produced and in fact know and believe much of it to be contrived, mis-represented or simply incorrect.
The physical way in which TV affects the brain makes it a perfect vehicle for propaganda. It?_s important to note that your eyes grow directly, stem-like, from the brain. They really are the window to the soul and the perfect conduit to access the brain?_s inner sanctums.
The human brain works at 4 basic frequencies. These are Beta, Alpha, Theta and Delta.
Beta waves are produced when one is thinking and using one?_s higher faculties and Delta is associated with sleep and/or deep trance like states. The radiant light and flicker rates of TV cause the brain to drop down to a level of activity somewhere between Alpha and Theta "C essentially a sleepy dreamlike state of mind where the higher critical functions are turned off. Even if you?_re reading text on a television screen the brain registers low levels of Alpha wave activity. Theta brainwaves engage inner and intuitive subconscious. You will find theta in places where you hold memories, sensations and emotions Any information therefore imbibed from the TV by-passes our logical, critically thinking sieve and goes straight into those sub areas of the mind associated with more emotive response. TV then appeals more to the emotions than the mind and of course how many of us engage in lively informed debate anymore? Very few. The more common reaction to big questions is usually an emotive response followed by a quick change in subject. TV viewing is a somatic experience which means it is ??of the body, not of the mind??. I?_m reminded of Huxley?_s book, ??Brave New World?? where the drug of choice was called soma and enabled people to escape un-palatable intellectual life problems.
Psychologist Thomas Mulholland found that after just 30 seconds of watching television the brain begins to produce alpha waves, which indicates torpid (almost comatose) rates of activity. Alpha brain waves are associated with unfocused, overly receptive states of consciousness. A high occurrence of alpha wave activity does not occur normally when the eyes are open. In fact, Mulholland?_s research implies that watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank wall. It?_s worth noting that the goal of hypnotists is to induce slow brain wave states. Alpha waves are present during the ?rlight hypnotic?_ state used by hypnotherapists for suggestion therapy.
The critical side of your brain is the left. As you read this you are making judgements, passing opinions and coming to conclusions which take the form of beta brain wave activity. These are the waves activated when you begin to use that left hand side, the centre of logical human communication and analysis.
Researchers have found that once the television set is switched on, that left hand side and all it?_s faculties tends to switch off. Instead the image from television go straight to the right brain. The switch from beta to alpha waves shows this. Alpha brain waves are the ones we associate with meditation and sleep. By no means does this mean that we are not taking the information in "C we are taking it all in, we are just not able to critically evaluate it as we would with information coming from other sources.
Video Games have been shown to lower brain activity to below that of the Delta frequency!
The TV screen flicker rate alone is known to induce mesmerized states in people. This flicker rate is the rate at which the screen image is updated, generally about 50 or 60 times a second. DARPA is a US military funded research programme. One of their endeavours concerned developing TV flicker rates that could be played whenever a mesmerized state was required in a given section of the population.
Endorphins are released by overexposure to light. The radiant light from televisions causes a release of endorphins. Researcher Herbert Krugman showed that while viewers are watching television, the right hemisphere is twice as active as the left, a neurological anomaly. The crossover from left to right releases a surge of the body?_s natural opiates: endorphins, which include beta-endorphins and enkephalins. Endorphins are structurally identical to opium and its derivatives (morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.). Activities that release endorphins (also called opioid peptides) are usually habit-forming (we rarely call them addictive). These include cracking knuckles and strenuous exercise. External opiates act on the same receptor sites (opioid receptors) as endorphins, so there is little difference between the two.
Even casual television viewers experience such opiate-withdrawal symptoms if they stop watching TV for a prolonged period of time. An article from South Africa?_s Eastern Province Herald (October 1975) described two experiments in which people from various socio-economic milieus were asked to stop watching television. In one experiment, several families volunteered to turn off their TV?_s for just one month. The poorest family gave in after one week, and the others suffered from depression, saying they felt as though they had ??lost a friend.?? In the other experiment, 182 West Germans agreed to kick their television viewing habit for a year, with the added bonus of payment. None could resist the urge longer than six months, and over time all of the participants showed the symptoms of opiate-withdrawal: increased anxiety, frustration, and depression.
Herbert Krugman?_s research proved that watching television numbs the left brain and leaves the right brain to perform all cognitive duties. This has some harrowing implications for the effects of television on brain development and health. For one, the left hemisphere is the critical region for organizing, analyzing, and judging incoming data. The right brain treats incoming data uncritically, and it does not decode or divide information into its component parts.
Researches into the effects of TV have warned that children under two years of age shouldn?_t watch any at all due to the negative impact on various areas of a child?_s development which include skills of observation, speech, hearing, depth perception, reading ability, inducing attention deficit type behaviour, a lack of motor skills due to immobile viewing habits and so on. TV is a wholly inappropriate and ineffectual teaching tool. It?_s pointless having debates lamenting the demise of intellectual ability and endeavour when intellects have never even had a chance to naturally and properly grow due to the numbing effects of television on children particularly.
Conversely its worth noting that radio has the opposite effect and actually develops a higher rate of concentration, the audio forcing people to be stimulated to visualise what they hear. Reading of course further extends the ability to concentrate and critically examine information over longer periods.
Even the style of TV production these days is geared toward an amphetamine-like addiction people have with regard to information reception. The cadence of scene changes, that is the rate and beat at which images are changing on the screen is very fast and further inclines the mind under development to be unable to concentrate for long periods on long pieces of textual information. Average rates of attention span are down from a few decades ago to mere minutes where once it was more than one hour for deep critical thinking.
Studies have linked quality of life to high vocabulary rates which heavy TV consumption impacts negatively. If you have good communication skills you are better able to express the world you live in and how you define it and if this is a yardstick to judge by then for many of our countries?_ young folk the world must be very banal indeed. A poor vocabulary means you have a myopic existence, you have a tunnel-like perception of this great planet and your quality of life is adversely effected. Just listening to pop stars in particular, the idols of the young, can make one cringe with embarrassment at the vacuous and inarticulate clap-trap they come out with.
We live in a world today were people?_s personalities are formed by unreal things: TV, the music industry, video games, movies, the effects of drugs (be that of the recreational or psychotropic variety). Virtual reality dominates the interests of a lot of people out there, even young adults and people of my own age group in their 30??s. All conversation is about this or that TV show, the latest new video game on the latest new console or who?_s top of the Premiership. It?_s a sad state of affairs.
All these negative effects on society are known, they are in fact engineered and planned for. A New World Order is coming into view. Not so long ago in India, the then British Chancellor Gordon Brown, , in a speech mentioned this ??New Global Order?? that is being brought into existence. This New Order will be the stuff of nightmare as envisaged by Orwell. In fact I don?_t think even Orwell had the vision to picture the dystopian technocratic dictatorship in store for humanity. Huxley was somewhat closer to the mark in his novel, ??Brave New World ??.
The TV is our soma, it keeps us mesmerized and dulled while our freedoms are revoked and laws introduced to make criminals of us all so the New World Order can get on with the business of creating a prison planet with a prison based economic system, much like modern China.
Get rid of your TV?_s today. Exchange them for projection systems if you?_re not yet ready to give up the video drome. We need to reclaim our personalities from the agencies and organisations that use TV to claim our minds, create our consumerist loyalties and keep us from truth, reality and a full-spectrum human life. We need to reclaim for ourselves and instil in future generations a sense of wonder at the real world and its panoply of real life heroes and people genuinely worth admiring.
Pat Tillman's Father To Army Investigator: 'F--- You... And Yours' (EXCLUSIVE) HuffingtonPost
There always was a dark cinematic thread to the story of Pat Tillman: the football star imbued with post-9/11 patriotism who was killed in a friendly-fire incident in the Afghan mountains and the allegations of a massive bureaucratic cover-up involving the highest levels of the U.S. Army in the wake of the tragedy.
So it wasn't terribly shocking when word broke this past winter that "The Tillman Story," a documentary film, was being purchased by the powerhouse Weinstein Company. The story, even without a director applying his artistic license to the script, obviously had many elements of a political thriller.
As the release date approaches -- the film will premiere in Los Angeles and New York on August 20 -- those elements are becoming a bit clearer and more intriguing. The Weinstein Company sent the Huffington Post two previously unseen letters written by Tillman's father at the peak of frustration with the army's investigation into his son's death. The notes, penned to Brigadier General Gary M. Jones (the man spearheading the investigation) as well as the Senate Armed Services Committee (which oversaw Jones's work), paint a picture of a man increasingly convinced that a massive conspiracy was emerging around the death of his son.
"You are a General," Tillman's father writes Jones after being presented with a briefing book of his findings. "There is no way a man like you, with your intelligence, education, military, experience, responsibilities (primarily for difficult situations), and rank... believes the conclusions reached in the March 31, 2005 Briefing Book. But your signature is on it. I assume, therefore, that you are part of this shameless cow cookies. I embarrassed myself by treating you with respect [on] March 31, 2005. I thought your rank deserved it and anticipated something different from the new and improved investigation. I won't act so hypocritically if we meet again."
"In sum: F... you... and yours."
The two letters are worth a read, if only for the insight they provide into how haphazard and mismanaged (deliberately or not) the investigations were. Tillman's father comes off as emotional, for good reason. But the questions he raised -- while conspiratorial in tone -- offer compelling drama (both real life and for the upcoming movie). Take, for instance, the notion that the shooters of his son may have been blinded by the glare of the sunset.
"The shooters were always looking North or Northwest," Tillman's father writes. "Even in Afghanistan, the sun sets in the West - Southwest. How on God's green earth can you add in a "glare factor" looking away from the sun that has set? (P-16) Immediately after the sunset , facing the wrong direction (North vs. Southwest), the glare impaired their vision? Don't you need sun to have glare?"
By the spring of 2007, indeed, evidence emerged that some of Pat Tillman senior's larger fears were driven not by emotion-driven conspiracy theories but by legitimate holes in the Army's story.
Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food Infowars
August 13, 2010
Update:
Since the story first broke, a lot has happened. One reason for this could be that food is being poisoned. Collecting rainwater is now illegal in many states. Your intake is being controlled. For more information, visit the following articles as well:
Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water.
Why do people in America refuse to take active interest in their future?
S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US. It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.
"If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public's right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God." ~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower
It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.
Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto's Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create - without judicial review - if it passes. S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.
History
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton's HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization "WTO") meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband's firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.
S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.
1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.
2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into "the United States." Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, "entry of food into the US" covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and "entering into" it by virtue of being produced.
4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.
5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds - How to criminalize them, for more details.
6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.
7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production - put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.
8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.
9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed - the Five Pillars of Food Safety - are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.
10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review. It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the US.
According to The Korea Times, the Obama administration has blocked efforts by the South Korean government to sell over a hundred thousand surplus M1 Garand and Carbine rifles into the United States market. These self-loading were rifles introduced in 1926 and 1941.
As rifles, they are especially well-suited to community defense in an emergency, as in the cases of community defense following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Along with AR-15 type rifles, the M1 rifles are the quintessential firearms of responsible citizenship, precisely the type of firearms which civic responsibility organizations such as the Appleseed Project teach people how to use.
According to a South Korean official, "The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions."
Regarding the second objection, any firearm lawfully imported into the United States would eventually be sold by a Federal Firearm Licensee who, pursuant to the background check system imposed by Congress (and endorsed by the NRA) would have to contact federal or state law enforcement to verify that the gun buyer is not prohibited from possessing firearms.
Accordingly, the risk that the South Korean surplus guns might fall into the hands of gangsters or other bad people is exactly the same as with the sale of any other retail firearm in the United States. Notably, neither the M1 Garand nor the M1 carbine are concealable, and the M1 Garand is long, heavy, and bulky. Accordingly, the criminal utility of such guns is relatively low.
The second Obama administration objection is accidents. But in fact, increasing gun density in the United States has been associated with steeply declining rates of gun accidents. In 1948 there were .36 guns per person. (That is, about one gun for every three Americans.) By 2004, there was nearly one gun for every American. In 1948, there were 1.6 fatal gun accidents per 100,000 persons. By 2004, the rate had fallen by 86%, so that there were .22 fatal accidents per 100,000 persons. (For underlying data, see Appendix B of my amicus brief in Heller.)
Legally, it is indisputable that the guns are importable. Being over 50 years old, the rifles are automatically "Curios and Relics" according to federal law. 27 CFR section 478.11. Accordingly, they are by statutory definition importable. 18 USC section 925 (e)(1). Notwithstanding the law, the Obama administration has the ability to pressure the South Korean government to block the sale of the guns.
President Obama was elected on the promise that he supported individual Second Amendment rights. His administration's thwarting of the import of these American-made rifles is not consistent with that promise.
Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation's investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000 (see the Foundation's 2008 990 Form).
"The Foundation's direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels," said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. "First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests."
Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto's genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. "When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising," said Mayet. Monsanto's aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue-and bankrupt-farmers for "patent infringement."
News of the Foundation's recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, "We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA-the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto." Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, "The Foundation's ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa." In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation's grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)-considered by the Foundation to be its "African face"-work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program.
Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA's grantees in promoting the spread of industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, "AGRA is poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa."
A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes the report's warning that "continued reliance on simplistic technological fixes-including transgenic crops-will not reduce persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental problems and worsen social inequity." Furthermore, PANNA explains, "The Assessment's 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while protecting the planet."
The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation for investing in its own grantees and for its "holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices." The Times chastised the Foundation for what it called "blind-eye investing," with at least 41% of its assets invested in "companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially-concerned philosophy."
Although the Foundation announced it would reassess its practices, it decided to retain them. As reported by the L.A. Times, chief executive of the Foundation Patty Stonesifer defended their investments, stating, "It would be na?ve.to think that changing the foundation's investment policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of companies in which it invests billions of dollars." This decision is in direct contradiction to the Foundation's official "Investment Philosophy", which, according to its website, "defined areas in which the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is centrally tied to corporate activity that [Bill and Melinda] find egregious. This is why the endowment does not invest in tobacco stocks."
More recently, the Foundation has come under fire in its own hometown. This week, 250 Seattle residents sent postcards expressing their concern that the Foundation's approach to agricultural development, rather than reducing hunger as pledged, would instead "increase farmer debt, enrich agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta, degrade the environment, and dispossess small farmers." In addition to demanding that the Foundation instead fund "socially and ecologically appropriate practices determined locally by African farmers and scientists" and support African food sovereignty, they urged the Foundation to cut all ties to Monsanto and the biotechnology industry.
This is one company that needs to be ousted as very harmful and criminally neglegent to human life as well as animals. Not that I'm
the tree huggin type but Germany will not plant GMO corn because it kills honey bees.
In addition to the recent PrisonPlanet-exclusive Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For "Mass-Scale" Fertility Reduction - which outlines the Rockefeller Foundation's efforts in the 1960s funding research into so-called "anti-fertility vaccines"- another series of documents has surfaced, proving beyond any doubt that the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization picked up on it, further developing it under responsibility of a "Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation".
WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation have worked together on "anti-fertility" vaccine since the 1960s.
Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund. Its mission, according to one of its members, to support:
"basic and clinical research on the development of birth control vaccines directed against the gametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involved the use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridoma technology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluation of a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As a result of this international, collaborative effort, a prototype anti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raising the prospect that a totally new family planning method may be available before the end of the current decade."
In regards to the scope of the Task Force's jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development Monitor reported:
"The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine."
One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:
"The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the development of fertility regulating vaccines."
Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the implementation in developing countries. Griffin:
"If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning programmes."
Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over "currently available methods of fertility regulation" the Task Force states, is the following (179):
"low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health services."
Already in 1978, the WHO's Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation) underlined the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of "large scale synthesis and manufacture" of the vaccine:
"The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel; (b) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and (c) in the case of antigens of known chemical structure, there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost."
In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction published a report, stating:
"In 1972 the Organization (.) expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO's technical assistance programme to governments at the service level."
Although the term "Anti-Fertility Vaccine", coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding "Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously the same. Besides, The time line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By extensions, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header "Scientific Dictatorship". The relationshipbetween the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation is intense. In the 1986 bulletin of the World Health Organization, this relationship is being described in some detail. While researching the effectiveness of "gossypol" as an "antifertility agent", the bulletin states:
"The Rockefeller Foundation has supported limited clinical trials in China and smallscale clinical studies in Brazil and Austria. The dose administered in the current Chinese trial has been reduced from 20 mg to 10-15 mg/day during the loading phase in order to see if severe oligospermia rather than consistent azoospermia would be adequate for an acceptable, non-toxic and reversible effect. Meanwhile, both the WHO human reproduction programme and the Rockefeller Foundation are supporting animal studies to better define the mechanism of action of gossypol."
In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding "fertility regulating vaccines". According to the document Fertility Regulating Vaccines (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.
In 1986 Mr. Spieler declared:
"A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(.). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible."
"Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for human testing by the early 1990s", Spieler wrote.
In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must conquer "variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines".
"Research", he goes on to say,"is also needed in the field of "basic vaccinology", to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles and delivery systems."
In the 1992 document, the problem of "variations in individual responses" is also discussed:
"Because of the genetic diversity of human populations", states the document, "immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines."
The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has since the early 70s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded "anti-fertility vaccine". What also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It's a mass-scale anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world's population: a dream long cherished by the global elite.
There are several links to info in the original article.
In an unprecedented act of unconstitutional abridgment and over-reaching presidential power, Barack Obama is poised to call the United Nations Human Rights Council vultures down on the state of Arizona.
He is apparently not satisfied with his last 11th Amendment faux pas; the commanding of Attorney General Eric Holder to unconstitutionally sue Arizona for enacting a state law to correct federal inaction on Arizona's Constitutional request for assistance. Now, as if that wasn't enough 11th Amendment stumbling, he is bringing the UN into it.
In his report to the United Nations Human Rights Council on human rights in the US, aside from calling for U.N. involvement in Arizona, he leaps right into America bashing. He points out what he considers flaws in the U.S. Constitution, then toots his own horn as the president who promoted and passed universal health care legislation, and ended "torture" at Guantanamo. As if torture there was the American people's idea. Sounding more like a constitutional destroyer than a constitutional scholar, he points out what he calls our human rights inadequacies - discrimination and oppression of ethnic minorities, women, the handicapped and homosexuals. Making himself look like the American people's deliverer, our messiah - it reads like he's stumping for election, perhaps as Secretary General of the UN.
In this report the federal government will turn over to the UN, control of all action regarding Arizona border policy. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer demanded that it's new immigration law, SB-1070 be removed from the Human Rights report to the United Nations, which also contains the unconstitutional federal court challenge to the Arizona law, listing it as one of the federal methods used to protect human rights. Governor Brewer, in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the inclusion of the Arizona law as a human rights violation was not only wrong, but was "downright offensive." She continues, "The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to `review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional."
This unparalleled call for United Nations intervention to cover federal inaction on the border, and spin it as a civil-rights violation by Arizona, is incorrigible. Some would call it treasonous. Arizona has been fighting this illegal immigration problem now for over 30 years, while the federal government has been doing everything it can to avoid the problem. There are those who will say that the immigration situation is so vast that the only way the federal government can solve it, is by calling on the United Nations. This is poppycock, pure unadulterated internationalist tripe of the highest order. He's merely escalating the Bush open-door immigration policy Americans don't want, nor can we afford to have continue.
For the president to insinuate civil rights abuses as his reasons, is a slap in the face of the people of Arizona, and the United States. We have bent over backwards and been taxed to the hilt, to accommodate and pay for the 30 million from south of the border who have already entered the country illegally. The president's language suggests the beginnings of sanctions, that could escalate into actions similar to those on Iraq after the First Gulf War. Sanctions that took a first world nation back to Third World poverty in less than two decades. This President's actions betray his true loyalties, and begins the toppling of the first domino within the United States - Arizona. To quote Abraham Lincoln, "This nation can never be conquered from without. If it is ever to fall it will be from within."
Federal court: 4th Amendment standard does not always apply to mobile phone location data
By Stephen C. Webster rawstory
Tuesday, September 7th, 2010
Law enforcement can still be required to obtain a search warrant for access to citizens' mobile phone location data, but police need not uphold the traditional Fourth Amendment standard of "probable cause" in the process of such an investigation, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
While civil liberties groups which argued in favor of stronger privacy protections largely called the ruling favorable, it still leaves room for law enforcement to continue large-scale mobile spying operations.
A friend-of-the-court brief [PDF link] in this case was given to the Third Circuit Federal Appeals Court on behalf of The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT).
The brief argued mobile phone users should not be subjected to a greater likelihood of government surveillance just by owning the device. Police all over the country have increasingly relied upon largely carte blanche access to mobile phone tracking data via web-based backend systems provided by major cellular carriers and third parties.
"Innocent Americans should not be made to feel the government is following them wherever they go - including in their own home," ACLU attorney Catherine Crump said, in a media advisory. "While there's no question that law enforcement agents should have the tools they need to stop crimes, such tools must be used in a manner that upholds the Constitution and personal privacy."
As Newsweek reported in February:
"How many of the owners of the country's 277 million cell phones even know that companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint can track their devices in real time? Most 'don't have a clue,' says privacy advocate James X. Dempsey. The tracking is possible because either the phones have tiny GPS units inside or each phone call is routed through towers that can be used to pinpoint a phone's location to areas as small as a city block. This capability to trace ever more precise cell-phone locations has been spurred by a Federal Communications Commission rule designed to help police and other emergency officers during 911 calls. But the FBI and other law-enforcement outfits have been obtaining more and more records of cell-phone locations-without notifying the targets or getting judicial warrants establishing 'probable cause,' according to law-enforcement officials, court records, and telecommunication executives."
However, in its decision, the court made a special exception to the Fourth Amendment for mobile phone tracking, saying that requests for location records "does not require the traditional probable cause determination".
On page 25 of their decision [PDF link], the judges compare the case to United States v. Miller, where the Supreme Court decided that because banks were party to transactions, individual citizens' financial records were fair game for warrantless searches.
They held that, in the same logic behind the availability of bank records, because mobile subscribers have shared their personal information with a third party, i.e., the phone service provider, constitutional protections effectively do not apply.
The Government argues that no CSLI can implicate constitutional protections because the subscriber has shared its information with a third party, i.e., the communications provider. For support, the Government cites United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), in which the Supreme Court found that an
individual's bank records were not protected by the Constitution because "all of the records [which are required to be kept pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act,] pertain to transactions to which the bank was itself a party," id. at 441 (internal quotation and citation omitted), and "[a]ll of the documents obtained, including financial statements and deposit slips, contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business," id. at 442.
CNet added:
In this case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permissible because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers have said that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
Though the court largely agreed with the administration's argument, it also found that location data can be used by defendants to show they were in a private location that is protected by the Fourth Amendment.
The ruling effectively leaves it up to individual judges' discretion as to how mobile tracking data is used and accessed by law enforcement.
"Although the court did not definitively rule on the Fourth Amendment status of cell phone location information, it made clear that under some circumstances the privacy of such data could be constitutionally protected, and that judges have the discretion to require a warrant to avoid potentially unconstitutional seizures of location data," EFF attorney Kevin Bankston explained.
Former US Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) and Richard Gage, AIA, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Discuss Scientific Findings
National Press Club, Washington DC, 2:00 pm, Thursday, September 9, 2010
On Thursday September 9, 2010, Gravel and Gage will host a central press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, presenting hard evidence that all three WTC skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, in NYC were destroyed by explosive controlled demolition.
Senator Gravel notes, "Critically important evidence has come forward after the original government building reports were completed."
This press conference will be webcast at AE911Truth.org and hosted concurrently in cities throughout the world.* Following the conference, there will be a mock debate during which public statements made by government investigators and other defenders of the official account will be presented and responded to in multimedia format. "They refuse to debate us in person," says Gage, "so we will let their public statements represent them."
Gage will release a media-friendly summary of his organization's findings, which are based on forensic evidence as well as video and eyewitness testimony that were omitted from official reports. He will show evidence that the WTC Twin Towers were not destroyed by jet plane impacts or fires, but by pre-set explosives and incendiaries. The non-profit organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, will also call for a grand jury investigation of government report lead engineers Shyam Sunder and John Gross of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. "They were in a position to know the evidence we have been presenting," says Gage.
Also speaking will be Florida State Professor Lance deHaven-Smith, who coined the academic term State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD). Prof. deHaven-Smith has appeared on Good Morning America, the Today Show, NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, CBS Nightly News with Dan Rather, and other national TV/radio shows.
* For information on satellite press conferences in your area, contact CongressionalOutreachTeam [at] ae911truth.org
Sorry this one was 2 days late but the press conference is on youtube.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition at World Trade Center on 9/11
Senator Gravel notes, "Critically important evidence has come forward after the original government building reports were completed."
The 9-11 truth movement has been very seriously mislead by the "original government building reports".
What is proven here is that NIST was deceived by FEMA who described the Towers core to NIST as looking like this. Steel core columns.
There is no image from 9-11 showing that core.
NIST never mentions their use of building plans in the forensic analysis of collapse they volenteered to do. Their disclaimer is about as close as can be found to their identifying their sources.
This Ph.D in physics has found a theory that feasibly describes EXACTLY how a building of that size can be brought to the ground as we saw and heard.
Apparently the event only required massive secrecy during construction to prepare the buillding for demo years later.
Also, the site the Ph.D links to, details with substance, that a conspiracy exists to mislead and misinform the truth movement into asserting something that, using the misinformation, they can never explain. Instead they approach authority with nonsense like "nano thermite" which inures authority to any info whatsoever.
Your post shows a complete lack of understanding of the core objections to the official conspiracy theory. You offer double talk and groundless,unsubstantiated assertions as basis for your non-argument. You are not even up to speed with the official drivel so you feel compelled to script your own. What I want to know is what motivates you to work so hard to prevent an unbiased investigation. What so threatens you?
quote:Originally posted by jev1969
Those of us that actually know what it would take to bring down a skyscraper with explosives laugh at this BS.
Laugh all you want at the difficulty of bringing 3 buildings down with controlled demolition but know this, it is infinitely more difficult to accomplish knocking down 3 buildings with 2 planes.
You gotta admit that those buildings did look to be rigged with explosives, I know that it sounds off however we are not dealing with benevolent and stable people here. The individuals in our government backed by private and foreign bankers and other so called 'rich elites' of society, yes the ones that really control everything, would do anything and I mean anything to protect their money and their control and way of life and even this alleged conspiracy theory suddenly becomes very plausible in contrast.
Those events set in motion a monster that changed everything in this country and helped make possible some of the things that the gov-beast can do today, without it things may not have gone their way, but don't expect them to either admit knowing about it or having been involved however.
I have never seen any building collapse like that in my life let alone more than one and I have seen several disasters, crashes, explosions you name it and the only time and I mean the only time that I have ever seen ANY building do that was from a controlled demolition.
Why didn't those buildings slant one way or another, why didn't those buildings collapse out instead of straight down, okay lets say one, but ALL of them perfectly straight down and most people don't want to question that and we are told that we know nothing blah blah blah etc...come on.
Yeah you keep just believing that the gov-beast is your friend, what about the rail cars and the fema camps for example, what are those for...okay they don't exist either, why are so many military units including some that I have been in training for civil disturbances to such a degree that they are, don't you anti's find anything strange about that, what will it take to get you to believe...
No one that believes in this mess really wants it to be true you know, we would all much rather be concerned about what color to paint the house this summer or about that next family picnic together, or our kids graduation etc, but not this, isn't it strange that this isn't just isolated to just a handful of people...
Buildings collapsed down because that entire area is built over a major NYC subway transfer link. There is a cavernous junction of two major New York subway systems that junction under ground 0...
When it went down it keep going and going and cratered some other things including the foundations of building 7 with it.
Well I understand physics and the scientific properties associated with it; however like I said this catastrophe is just very strange and even suspicious in the way that this incident occurred as well as how it was handled.
This tragedy cannot simply be dismissed under any circumstances and there is of course alot more to this then they are letting on.
Comments
Yes a man is as good as his word. The breaking news however is more than words. We need actions.
Balanced Budgets.
Control of Borders.
Job Growth.
Real Peace Plans.
Clean up Wall Street.
Get Bankers in Line.
Once these real changes are made. This Nation will be on track to being what it once was...
http://alaskadispatch.com/dispatches/news/5091-gun-advocates-cameras-descend-on-uaa
Nearly half of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Adults see the government today as a threat to rights. Thirty-seven percent (37%) hold the opposite view. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.
Most Republicans (74%) and unaffiliateds (51%) consider the government to be a threat to individual rights. Most Democrats (64%) regard the government as a protector of rights.
Additionally, most Americans (52%) say it is more important for the government to protect individual rights than to promote economic growth. Just 31% say promoting economic growth is more important. But again a sizable number (17%) of Adults aren't sure which is more important.
This nationwide survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on June 18-19, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Men strongly believe it is more important for the government to protect individual rights, while women are almost evenly divided on the question.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of whites feel the emphasis should be on protecting individual rights. African-Americans are closely divided over which is more important.
There is little partisan disagreement when it comes to individual rights versus economic growth.
Data released earlier this week shows that 62% believe politicians want the government to have more power and money. At the same time, 58% think most voters want less power and money for the government.
This gap helps explain why just 21% believe that government today has the consent of the governed.
The Declaration of Independence asserts that governments are instituted among men to protect certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
just a short poll that caught my interest and to let you guys know I'm still around. Its been a busy summer so far.
forgot the link- http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=9345
Good to see you post.
Don
Brad Steele
While I'm in the mood, here is a short list of people or companies that can take the hard good bye.
Goldman Sachs
Hillary Clinton
The last 3 guys from the federal reserve commission. Including Giethner.
Time is short and I'm at work, Please feel free to add. Please
Happy July Fourth Everyone.
pelosi
geithner
bush w.
reid
anyone associated with the "daily show"
... the list is too long.
... list is too long
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Ron Paul Slams Federal Interference In Oil Spill Relief Efforts 060710top
As tar balls from the BP oil spill wash into Galveston, Texas, Congressman Ron Paul has slammed federal interference in the relief effort that is hampering local attempts to mitigate the consequences of the disaster, mimicking how the feds deliberately botched the response to hurricane Katrina and made the crisis worse.
"They have done a lot to interfere," Paul told National Political Correspondent Jessica Yellin on CNN's "John King USA."
"A lot of local officials, property owners and state officials have wanted to do more over in Louisiana and Mississippi and the federal government, the fish and wildlife people, the EPA and others, they come in and they prohibit them from doing it," said Paul.
The Congressman also added that if large numbers of National Guard troops were not deployed oversees fighting endless wars, there might be more manpower to call upon in aiding relief efforts.
"If all our states had their Guard units back here maybe they would have the manpower to do more to help clean up the beaches and prevent the oil from coming in, but, no, our Guard units are all over the world fighting wars we don't need," said Paul.
In hindsight, it's becoming clear that the government has deliberately botched the response and prevented local authorities from doing their jobs, just as FEMA deliberately sabotaged the state response to Hurricane Katrina in order to make the crisis worse and create the pretext for a police state response, gun confiscation and ultimately more federal power.
Numerous reports have surfaced of locals and state authorities being prevented by BP contractors and the U.S. Coast Guard from helping to address the devastation the spill has created in the region.
One example of undue federal interference occurred last month when Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal ordered the state's fleet of sixteen vacuum barges to clean up oil in the Louisiana marshes. The U.S. Coast Guard intercepted the barges for the purposes of an "inspection," but then promptly failed to conduct any inspection and merely ordered them to turn around and head back to the dock.
While stifling the efforts of local authorities to adequately battle the consequences of the spill, the federal government also refused help from foreign governments who had immediately offered sophisticated technology that could have already fixed the problem.
Obama initially blocked international help, citing the Jones Act, which forbids foreign ships from operating between U.S. ports, and thereby preventing the use of sophisticated technology which foreign firms insist could have sealed the leak.
The Jones Act can be waived in in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest. Belgian company DEME contends that it has the specialist vessels to fix the oil leak within two to four months, technology the U.S. does not have. By taking bids on a contract to fix the oil leak from international companies, Obama could have the problem solved within a matter of weeks, but he immediately refused the help of "thirteen entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion."
Obama's two month delay in refusing international help ensured that the window of opportunity was missed to fix the leak before the start of the hurricane season, which will make the crisis immeasurably worse.
The arrival on July 1st of a Taiwanese "super-skimmer" which can collect 500,000 barrels per day of contaminated water was nearly 10 weeks overdue, and inclement weather has now delayed the device from even being tested in the Gulf. Had Obama immediately accepted international support, the majority of the oil could have been cleaned up before the hurricane season began, avoiding the threat that large amounts of oil will be dumped onshore, which if it occurs could mandate massive evacuations of the affected areas.
As we have highlighted, the longer the crisis drags on and the worse it gets, the more political capital Obama accrues in pursuit of his nightmare "green economy" carbon tax agenda. Viewed from this perspective, the federal government has no motivation whatsoever to cap the oil leak or clean up the spill.
jmo, steve
American Thinker
By Pamela Geller
The October Surprise. We all know it's coming. In what shape, idea, form -- who's to say? Evil always surprises. Its goals are constant, the ultimate objective never changes, but inevitably it manifests itself as the savior of the day, the savior of man. The 2008 Democrat October Surprise that ushered in the first hardcore radical post-American president in American history was the "economic collapse." Oh yes, that was a beaut.
The time before that, the moochers and the looters tried to fake Bush documents -- except that the conservative blogosphere caught them red-handed, so they missed their mark.
But the party of haters, infiltrators, anti-capitalists, the party that is anti-freedom and anti-individual rights, is going to have to pull off something really catastrophic to stay in power this November. And they will, because it is abundantly clear now that they despise the premise of America and they mean to replace it with statism, the source of untold, incomprehensible human misery for centuries.
Ayn Rand wrote of statism that
a statist system -- whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or 'welfare' type -- is based on the ... government's unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. ... Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.
With chilling prescience, Rand said, "The basic principle and the ultimate results of all statist doctrines are the same: dictatorship and destruction. The rest is only a matter of time."
Only a matter of time.
We have a long and terrible fight in front of us. The fight is as big as the idea, the foundation, the being of this great nation, the fight for America. Yes, it's as big as all that, and the enemy is ruthless, unscrupulous, and evil -- and willing to do whatever it takes to assume absolute control. They build nothing, produce nothing, create nothing, invent nothing. They steal. They demand. They demoralize. They are destroyers.
What will October's Surprise be? Political analyst Jack Wheeler has an idea. "A Second Great Depression," he says, "is the Democrat Party's path to power":
Our country is faced with an impending economic catastrophe, a Second Great Depression. It is being brought about on purpose by a political party that cares only for keeping and expanding its power, and looks upon prosperity as a threat to that power.
You think the Democrats aren't really that bad? Think again. Wheeler points out that they're "now being threatened with being thrown out of power." And what did they do when faced with a loss of power the last time? "If that party is evil enough and fascist enough to cause an economic catastrophe," Wheeler says, "it is certainly evil and fascist enough to cause a physical catastrophe, an Ultimate October Surprise, that will frighten and enrage voters enough to preserve its power in November."
Wheeler speculates that this could take the form of "another 9/11, a massively horrific terrorist attack, perhaps even nuclear." Or it could involve Obama's obvious and gross mishandling of the Gulf oil crisis, the full extent of which is (of course) being covered up in the lapdog media. And whom would the Democrats blame for whatever crisis they trump up? Whom else? The attack will be used, Wheeler suggests, "to raise suspicion about the dangerous Tea Party people and anyone who is 'anti-government,' enough for people to rally around their Zero-led government in fear and confusion." And it will ultimately provide "further rationales for emergency government powers."
Could this really happen? Well, we know there have been October Surprises in the past, and each election ups the ante. We have to make sure this doesn't happen. We are Americans. We are free people. We must resist. As one reader of my website, AtlasShrugs.com, wrote to me, "the political tools of truth, exposure, ridicule, disparagement, impeachment, criminal prosecution, and politically-incorrect anger must be added to our arsenal of peaceful weapons against tyranny. ... We must make history by living our freedom, or surely we will die."
And we have seen the Democratic Party decimate our health care system, banking industry, and automobile sector, and introduce sharia (Islamic) finance into the public sector. They are capable of anything.
Yes. And there is some comfort to be found in the fact that decent, rational men, statesmen, exist and speak the truth. They represent our last hope, a vestige of reason and sanity in this era of the modern barbarian. These are the men who need to take the reins of their respective nations. Bolton 2012: The stakes couldn't be higher.
Treason in New York, National Guard Confiscating Guns from Citizens
Matt Ryan and Alex Jones
Infowars
July 7, 2010
As Alex has warned for years, the military have been training with police to perform gun confiscations in US neighborhoods. Fox 23 News in Albany, New York is reporting on a program taking place between the National Guard and local police.
As we have reported, Operation Vigilant Guard trains foreign troops to confiscate American's guns. After hurricane Katrina, guns were confiscated from citizens during door-to-door checks by military.
Short, but check the link for other links and a video. Have a good weekend yall.
Being I will be participating in Vigilant Guard in October your post caught my eye. No where does our OPORD refer to seizing weapons. So I followed your link to see if maybe there was some sinister plot I was unaware of. The link you provided did have a video from FOX23 in Albany. They did talk about the National Guard. There was no mention of seizing weapons or being trained to do so.
Myself and pretty much everyone I work with are Oathkeepers. Do some research before slandering us.[:(!]
"Treason in New York, National Guard Confiscating Guns from Citizens" How misleading is this title?
Matt Ryan and Alex Jones
Infowars
July 7, 2010
As Alex has warned for years, the military have been training with police to perform gun confiscations in US neighborhoods. Flat out lie Fox 23 News in Albany, New York is reporting on a program taking place between the National Guard and local police.
As we have reported, Operation Vigilant Guard trains foreign troops to confiscate American's guns. Flat out lie #2 After hurricane Katrina, guns were confiscated from citizens during door-to-door checks by military.
Short, but check the link for other links and a video. Have a good weekend yall.
I highlighted the false statements in red to help you out. Where in the linked news video are any of these items mentioned? The story is PROPAGANDA. Just because it's from your side doesn't make it any more intellectually honest than the crapola the left puts out.[xx(]
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
July 16, 2010
Change has arrived. But it is not the sort of change imagined by the fawning mobs of 2008 at Obama's campaign rallies. Obama and Congress have pulled a three-card Monte on the American people. It's called "financial regulatory reform" and it hands unprecedented power over to the Federal Reserve.
"This historic reform creates the strongest protections for consumers in history and the toughest financial regulations since the Great Depression," declares a triumphant White House.
Ron Paul's call for putting the bankster Fed under a microscope has evaporated. "Just a few months ago, amid populist anger at the Fed for failing to prevent the financial crisis of 2008 and bailing out Wall Street, Congress was talking of stripping the central bank of its supervisory oversight of banks or forcing it to submit to congressional audit of its interest-rate decisions," the Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday. "Instead, the new law gives the Fed more power and a better tool box to help prevent financial crises."
The Fed, of course, does not prevent financial crisis. It perpetuates financial crisis at the behest of a cabal of international bankers - the Rothschild's of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Israel Moses Seaf of Italy, Kuhn, Loeb & Co. of Germany and New York, Warburg & Company of Hamburg, Germany, Lehman Brothers of New York, Goldman, Sachs of New York, and the Rockefeller Brothers of New York.
The so-called financial regulatory bill headed to Obama's desk for signature "is not about cracking down on big banks as some claim. Rather, this is about not wasting a crisis. This is about using a traumatic event to increase government power and control over the economy," Ron Paul wrote earlier this month. This "traumatic event" was engineered by the banksters and the Federal Reserve.
Current Globalist Financial Crisis is a Financial False Flag operation," writes Alfred Lambremont Webre. "It is a controlled collapse of the globalist economic system, engineered by an international war crimes racketeering organization.. The Financial False Flag [is] designed to accelerate the deterioration of First World economies, democracies, and prosperity, in aid of a larger program of global depopulation. The same powers who control the Federal Reserve Bank are intent on depopulating between 1/3 and 2/3 of the current human population, in service to a grotesque covert elite plan."
If you want to know what the elite have in mind for the serfs, read Paul Joseph Watson's Rockefeller Study Envisages Future Dictatorship Controlled By Elite. The elite are planning pandemics, warfare, chaos and crises, according to a Rockefeller study produced in association with the Global Business Network.
Providing the Federal Reserve with more authoritarian power under the flimsy guise of going after Wall Street and the greedy investment bankers is only the latest phase of the bankster game plan to impoverish humanity and eventually cull the herd.
Obama the skilled teleprompter reader will now sell the Bankster Consolidation Bill to a generally hoodwinked and ignorant public. "Thursday afternoon, fresh from an economic speech in Michigan, Obama touted financial reform from the south driveway of the White House - beginning with what the reform means for average Americans," reports the Christian Science Monitor.
It's a three-card Monte scam, a confidence game, a sleight of hand. Like the famous card game, the mark is steered away from the queen. The Federal Reserve will now lead us down the primrose path to destruction - pandemics, warfare, chaos and crises - and most of us will be none the wiser.
Sounds like rich kids getting out of a DWI to me. Goldman Sachs has bought their way out of trouble to the tune of 550 billion.
Jev. This type of training has been going on for some time. It is not a lie. If you will take time to review previous articles posted I think you can find what you need. If not please feel free to e-mail me and I can provide you with video links. Please keep in mind these are not my words, I simply cut and paste them in here.
This BS is designed to enrage people that are not from this area. People that have no way of knowing any different. Whoever wrote it heard that the NY National Guard was going to be participating in an exercise then concocted this garbage to sound legitimate.
There are enough real assaults on our rights that can be discussed. We don't need to be chasing phantoms. Whoever wrote this story has another agenda.
Phantoms? It happened in Bouemont TX. Blackhawks on soveriegn soil. I asked you to e-mail me if you wanted more info.
The news article you C&P'd does not mention Bouemont TX. If something happened down there then highlight instead of distracting people with with crap that DIDN'T happen.
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
July 24, 2010
The United States is under attack by narco terrorists invading from the failed state of Mexico and Obama and the federal government are doing nothing about it.
Los Zetas crossed the border near Laredo, Texas, and reportedly seized two ranches in the area indicated by the orange square above.
In June, the Mexican drug mafia forced the closure of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona. Authorities in Arizona admit that criminals now control a drug and human smuggling corridor that stretches from the border into metro Phoenix. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu explained in June that the Mexican Mafia controls three counties in his state.
Now drug smugglers are repeating the pattern in Texas.
On Saturday, the Cypress Times, an online newspaper in Cypress, Texas, reported that the murderous Los Zetas has crossed into the United States and taken over at least two ranches in the Laredo, Texas area. The owners of the farms have evacuated and were not harmed.
"I can personally vouch that this info came in late last night from a reliable police source inside the Laredo PD," Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, told the online newspaper. "There is currently a standoff between the unknown size Zeta forces and U.S. Border Patrol and local law enforcement on two ranches on our side of the Rio Grande."
Kimberly Dvorak, writing for the Albuquerque Examiner, reports that two sources inside the Laredo Police Department have confirmed the incident. "We consider this an act of war," said one police officer on the ground near the scene. There is a news blackout of this incident at this time and the sources inside Laredo PD spoke on the condition of anonymity, writes Dvorak.
The DBKP blog contacted the the Laredo Police Department on Saturday. "We have been advised to say nothing. The Webb County Sheriff is taking the lead on this and they're advising that they can't confirm anything either," a spokesperson told the blog.
On March 30, 2008, the Dallas Morning News reported Mexican drug cartels operated military-style training camps in at least six such locations in northern Tamaulipas and Nuevo Le?n states, some within a few miles of the Texas border, according to U.S. and Mexican authorities and the printed testimony of five protected witnesses who were trained in the camps.
"Traffickers go to great lengths to prepare themselves for battle," a senior U.S. anti-narcotics official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the newspaper. "Part of that preparation is live firing ranges and combat training courses.. And that's not something that we have seen before." In the state of Tamaulipas, Los Zetas train with other mercenaries, including the Kaibiles from Guatemala, the officials said.
The Justice Department warned local police in Arizona and California about Los Zetas violence along the border. "The violence will spill over the Mexican border into the United States and law enforcement agencies in Texas, Arizona and Southern California can expect to encounter Los Zetas in the coming months," warned an intelligence bulletin issued by the feds. The Justice Department and Homeland Security consider the Mexican drug cartels as the greatest organized crime threat to the United States.
Los Zetas was founded by an elite force of assassins from Mexican Army deserters and is now integrated by corrupt ex-federal, state, and local police officers. Los Zetas was first hired as a private mercenary army for Mexico's Gulf Cartel, but since February of this year have gone independent and are now enemies of its former partner.
In the first eleven months of 2008, Los Zetas killers were directly responsible for the deaths of 5,300 people, including soldiers, their own operatives, civilians, journalists, and rival drug traffickers.
In 2006, Mexican president Felipe Calderon supposedly declared war on the drug cartels. Since Calderon's declaration, more than 25,000 people have been killed in Mexico due to drug violence. In June of this year alone hundreds of people in Mexico died from drug-related violence.
Last week CBS News said Mexico's drug Mafia had adopted "al-Qaeda tactics" after a car bomb exploded across the border from El Paso, Texas, in Ciudad Ju?rez, killing two federal officers and a musician and injuring 11 people, including several bystanders. In late June, the El Paso City Hall was struck by gunfire from a deadly narco terrorist attack across the border in Ju?rez.
In May, Obama announced that 1,200 troops would be sent to the border to crack down on smuggling and drug cartel violence. Critics have called it political posturing in the run-up to November congressional elections and a response to Arizona's recently passed immigration law.
Republicans in Texas consider the deployment of 250 troops in their state an insult. "The National Guard troops are not an adequate or long-term solution - they're only a Band-Aid," a spokeswoman for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White told the Star-Telegram. "Maybe Texas should sue the federal government for not doing its job," added U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville.
Senator Kyl of Arizona said in June that Obama is refusing to secure the border until Congress passes so-called immigration reform. "The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform," Kyl said at a town hall organized by a local Arizona Tea Party.
In June, the banksters admitted they fund the Mexican drug Mafia. Wachovia and Bank of America have moved money for Mexican drug smugglers.
"The admission came in an agreement that Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia struck with federal prosecutors in March, and it sheds light on the largely undocumented role of U.S. banks in contributing to the violent drug trade that has convulsed Mexico for the past four years," Bloomberg reported. "Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations," Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case, told Bloomberg.
Bankster participation has also financed the Mexican Mafia's expansion into Texas and Arizona.
Multiple links and video in original article.
LAREDO - Local law enforcement was bombarded with calls from across the country Saturday asking about a report that the Zetas had taken over two ranches off Mines Road.
But officials with the Laredo Police Department, Webb County Sheriff's Department and Border Patrol said they knew nothing about such an incident, while Erik Vasys, an FBI spokesman in San Antonio, said the agency does not comment on rumors.
"The public would be the first to know if anything was going on," said Webb County Sheriff Martin Cuellar on Sunday afternoon. "Our deputies went out there and talked to ranch owners in the area and found nothing."
The report that the Zetas, the Gulf Cartel's former enforcers, had taken over two Laredo ranches appeared to have initially surfaced around 10 a.m. Saturday on the blog Diggers Realm.
The report then spread like wildfire among blogs and social networking sites throughout the day. A Webb County Sheriff's official said the department was even having difficulty functioning because of the volume of calls they were receiving because of the report.
The Diggers Realm blogger stated that he received a tip from a San Diego Minuteman named Jeff Schwilk, who said the Zetas had crossed into the United States and taken over two ranches off Mines Road, about 10 miles northwest of Interstate 35.
Quoting Schwilk, the blogger wrote of a standoff between "the unknown size Zeta forces and the U.S. Border Patrol and local law enforcement on two ranches."
The blogger wrote that the story was confirmed by anonymous Laredo Police Department sources.
Late Saturday, no law enforcement activity was visible along Mines Road from I-35 to Las Penitas subdivision.
Laredo Morning Times Staff Writer Denise Blaz contributed to this report.
I am paticularly entertianed by this one..
Another good one.
Marco Torres
Prevent Disease
August 10, 2010
From pollution to politics, the era of deception and duplicity has reached new heights and hijacked almost every form of media in the world. In the last frontiers for truth such as the internet, disinformation operations are in full swing to discredit and destroy any semblance of authentic and factual information available to the public.
How many more lies will people around the world accept as truth? Some say a global awakening is taking place, but at what cost? Will it take the destruction of most of the earth and its resources before people are enlightened?
The escalating media and political reports are so far fetched, cunning, and so beyond reality, it's as if each is trying to top the other with one sinister plot after the next. To demonstrate the outright lies by national governments and the media, let's take three examples from the last year alone, including the H1N1 scandal, airport body scanners and the BP oil disaster.
The H1N1 Scandal
Last year, the H1N1 scandal reached its pinnacle in the fall of 2009 when the world united on the internet with a consensus and practical understanding of the World Health Organization's orchestratration to deceive the masses. From radio, internet, television, newspapers, magazines, outdoor posters, signage and promotions, you could not escape the flu hype campaigns so diligently pursued by all the malicious agendas at play who only wanted one thing - to promote a dangerous H1N1 vaccine. After hundreds of reports exposed the criminal activity by all levels of government, we left the same people in power to do it all over again.
According to preliminary reports, another round of pandemic vaccine campaigns are scheduled for the 2010/2011 season and they're already underway. However, there appears to be a recombination that has changed the H1N1 lab created virus into a more lethal form and it is not a hoax, but it may be yet another CDC lab experiment.
The CDC has recently issued a Health Advisory in connection with two summer outbreaks of H3N2 in Iowa. Other reports from Russia and India indicate that a real epidemic may be upon us if the virus steadily recombines and acquires new genetics. Even though a new strain may have accidentally evolved in eggs, reassortment of H1N1-H5N1 has been a legitimate concern for years. The WHO first suggested the reassortment of H1N1-H5N1 in 2004.
If this is really the case, how will the public react after all the lies from health agencies who have sworn to protect us? Will they hype another vaccine and if so, will the public even respond?
Body Scanners
They've been approved all over the world and marketed as the next greatest airport scanning technology. The U.S., U.K., Russia, Australia, Europe and Canada have all installed airport body scanners which have potentially devastating health effects.
Many of these scanners are reportedly using terahertz (THz) waves, the radiation that fills the slot in the electromagnetic spectrum between microwaves and infrared. Evidence suggests that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication.
As the path toward rolling out wider use of whole-body scanners in U.S. airports ran through the White House, Obama expedited their deployment because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) didn't need legislation from Congress to start using the devices at any of the 560 U.S. airports.
The White House ignored all the scientific evidence presented which suggested negative health effects. Politicians and regulatory agencies then covered up the bad publicity on naked body scanners and focused on the presumed benefits under the guise of public safety.
Privacy commisioners and airport authorities have also insisted that there were no risks of images being stored or personal details being revealed to security screeners. Now there's new evidence to show that the scanners can do just that.
According to a CNET report, another federal agency, the U.S. Marshall's service, admitted that it had actually stored over 30,000 images recorded by a full-body scanner used at a Florida courthouse.
A watchdog group called the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained over 100 of the images and states on its web site that, "The images, which are routinely captured by the federal agency, prove that body scanning devices store and record images of individuals stripped naked." The group has filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of body scanners at airports.
EPIC also discovered that the TSA actually specified to manufacturers that the machines have the ability to send and store images. The TSA says that these functions are only for testing and training and insists on its web site that the airport body scanners are delivered to airports with storage and recording functions disabled.
Again, the upper levels of the echelon are caught lying and deceiving, yet they are still left to their own devices to further manipulate and continue misrepresenting facts to the gullible public.
BP Oil Disaster
When news unfolded about the April 20, 2010 BP oil disaster, it went from bad to worse. Instead of immediately mobilizing for action in the face of a massive public health threat, the response was to cover-up, deny and respond with ignorance. After all the public will always believe them, or so they thought.
The Obama administration, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, U.S. Coast Guard commandant admiral Thad Allen, energy and climate-change policy adviser Carol Browner, BP and all their contituents conspired to deliberately mislead the public from the inception of the disaster to present day. What's worse is they all agreed to further disseminate toxins in the Gulf by spraying 1.8 to 2 million gallons of the neurotoxin Corexit which was exposed by over a hundred scientists, toxicologists and other experts who have unequivocally classified the irresponsible aerial spraying of the chemical dispersant as a large-scale, uncontrolled non-consensual human and environmental experiment is being conducted in the Gulf region.
The media was grossly censoring the extent of the devastation in the Gulf. The poisons-oil and corexit are destined to spread globally, but honest reporting was and still is restricted, and many independent investigators have been arrested. Read 30 Facts Evidencing that The Gulf Oil Crisis Was Planned.
On June 12, 2010, The Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (ISAC) released "Risk of Global Climate Change By BP Oil Spill", a document detailing how the BP spill may cause irreparable damage to the Gulf Stream global climate thermoregulation activity. Read Gulf Loop Current Destroyed: May Lead To Shut Down of Atlantic Thermoregulation, Rapid Cooling.
According to Dr. Gianluigi Zangari, an Italian theoretical physicist, and major complex and chaotic systems analyst at the Frascati National Laboratories in Italy, the Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico has stalled as a consequence of the BP oil spill disaster. Zagari notes that the effects of this stall have also begun to spread to the Gulf Stream. This is because the Loop Current is a crucial element of the Gulf Stream itself and why it is commonly referred to as the "main engine" of the Stream.
The concern now, is whether or not natural processes can re-establish the stalled Loop Current. If not, we could begin to see global crop failures as early as 2011.
Zangari's assessment is based on daily monitoring of real-time data oceanographic satellite public data feeds called "Real-Time Mesoscale Altimetry" from the Jason, Topex/Poseidon, Geosat, Follow-On, ERS-2 and Envisat satellites.
These satellite feeds are captured and made publicly available by NASA, NOAA and by the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research (CCAR) at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The CCAR is now being accused of scientific fraud and tampering of data directly associated with the events surrounding the Loop Current phenomenon and its current anomalies. Various reporters have spear-headed the charge including radio personality Dr. Bill Deagle who has featured Dr. Zangari on his radio show The Nutrimedical Report where he detailed the events leading up to the destruction of the Loop Current in the Gulf.
Dr. Zangari has stated that he will no longer use CCAR data due to its unreliability.
Organized and Professional Disformation Operations
Well-funded and highly-organized disinformation operations are in full-swing throughout the internet. From forums to comment boards and even professional websites that have only one purpose: Defame, distract, and destroy the truth.
However organized, the tactics are very predictable in a world filled with lies and half-truths. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation.
Disinformation campaigns are launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. The H1N1 scandal was a prime example of how hundreds of operations can be launched to sway opinions on the facts. For every fact-based article on the realities of the H1N1 vaccine, there were both very primitive and sophisticated counters on message boards, comment forums and hundreds of alternative and mainstream websites.
Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch.com and supporters such as skeptic.org.uk and skepticblog.com are examples of websites who promote both synthetic and organic disinformation on almost any topic that does not concur with mainstream thought.
There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as H. Michael Sweeney has brilliantly detailed. Also included with this material are eight common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.
A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation. to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not. or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.
It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found. but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it - especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the `How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers.
Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such `arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a `wild rumor' from a `bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary `attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as `kooks', `right-wing', `liberal', `left-wing', `terrorists', `conspiracy buffs', `radicals', `militia', `racists', `religious fanatics', `sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run.
In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning - simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives.
Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority.
Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough `jargon' and `minutia' to illustrate you are `one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb.
No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
A derivative of the straw man - usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues - so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.
Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the `high road' and `confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made - but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, `just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly `call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already `done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for `coming clean' and `owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution.
Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions.
Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.
If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject.
Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can `argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how `sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs.
This is perhaps a variant of the `play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence.
Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations - as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body.
Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth.
Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions.
If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics.
If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish.
If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) Avoidance
They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity
They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental
They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork
They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial
They almost always have disdain for `conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions
An odd kind of `artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin - an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal.
But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the `image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to `act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation.
You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later - an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game - where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent
There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat `freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
Time Constant
There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to `get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.
mulitple links to info on original link
oneworldscam
Ken Doyle
I think most right thinking people are agreed that physical effects aside, the content of the majority of TV programming today (I emphasise the word programming, a process that involves a passive receptor of information) is designed to instil a social worldview and value system that is self-centric and is in fact the opposite of what a healthy and enduring society requires. Individualism at any cost rules the day and it is more and more evident that empathy for one?_s fellow citizen and a sense of personal responsibility are rapidly vanishing along with the morality that all healthy civilisations have known to be necessary for survival. Only recently a car I was travelling in was bumped from behind by a driver who was, I would guess, in his mid to late thirties, looked quite respectable and drove a new and expensive car. Rather than stop and offer his details for the damage done he feigned an apology and when our vehicle pulled off to park safely he took his opportunity to flee the scene, no doubt congratulating himself on avoiding a messy process involving insurance agencies etc. People today are only made to feel guilt when caught and exposed for their crimes. They have no higher authority to fear and the current direction of societal attitudes puts paid to that particular view often espoused that it is possible to remain moral and upstanding without religion or a guiding moral principal if you prefer. The crime figures, road rage and general attitude of fellow citizens would tend to indicate otherwise. I believe TV has much blame to shoulder for this.
People spend a lot of their spare time in front of the television. I don?_t think it?_s an exaggeration to state that TV is a major source of many people?_s opinions and views on pretty much everything. Given the amount of time people spend watching television it makes perfect sense that if you want to shape public opinion the TV is the medium par excellence by which to disseminate your information. It stands to reason then that if you agree that a movement exists, and I think a lot of people of do, whose aim is to re-make the world in man?_s image, albeit a skewed and perverse one, then it makes sense for such an organisation to consolidate control of the TV airwaves and turn it into a propaganda video-drome. Some might say that the proof is in the pudding, that TV is so biased toward the crude, libertine, amoral lifestyle and that the portrayal of the Christian religion, the very force that created our society, is so negative, misinformed and hostile that surely such a conspiracy exists. Now to extrapolate this thought is an article unto itself but the facts are there and the conspiracy is out in the open. To give just two examples, we have the admission by the
BBC following a leaking of an internal memo wherein it was admitted that they are anti-Christ in their outlook. After complaints that BBC programming repeatedly errs on the side of sensitivity to Islam & other minorities (religious or otherwise) & bias against Christianity (especially Roman Catholicism), the British Broadcasting Corporation has admitted its guilt. A summit meeting of BBC officials culminated in admissions that ??the BBC is not impartial or neutral,?? as BBC political editor Andew Marr put it. The closed-door summit?_s conclusions were leaked to the British newspaper The Mail on Sunday.
Evidence also exists that governments control news output and content. On January 14,1983 President Reagan of the USA signed into effect directive 77 which gave the CIA and government full power to determine and control the content of news that the American public receives, news which can now be uploaded and or modified in minutes with modern technology. Goebbels would be proud. Think about it. It only takes a decision made by one chief editor to determine the news received by millions and in the US it is said that upwards of 90% of all media formats including newspapers and magazines are controlled by 3 or 4 corporations, a number which is going down as more and more news agencies are bought up and amalgamated. All an agency has do to make sure the news delivered suits a particular agenda is to put a very small number of people into the right positions.
Alex Jones, a rising star in the American ??Truth Movement?? is an independent syndicated radio talk-show host and investigative journalist from Austin, Texas. He has had personal contact with people from many of the US?_s major news agencies like FOX and CNN and he says that many people employed with these companies don?_t agree with the style and content of news produced and in fact know and believe much of it to be contrived, mis-represented or simply incorrect.
The physical way in which TV affects the brain makes it a perfect vehicle for propaganda. It?_s important to note that your eyes grow directly, stem-like, from the brain. They really are the window to the soul and the perfect conduit to access the brain?_s inner sanctums.
The human brain works at 4 basic frequencies. These are Beta, Alpha, Theta and Delta.
Beta waves are produced when one is thinking and using one?_s higher faculties and Delta is associated with sleep and/or deep trance like states. The radiant light and flicker rates of TV cause the brain to drop down to a level of activity somewhere between Alpha and Theta "C essentially a sleepy dreamlike state of mind where the higher critical functions are turned off. Even if you?_re reading text on a television screen the brain registers low levels of Alpha wave activity. Theta brainwaves engage inner and intuitive subconscious. You will find theta in places where you hold memories, sensations and emotions Any information therefore imbibed from the TV by-passes our logical, critically thinking sieve and goes straight into those sub areas of the mind associated with more emotive response. TV then appeals more to the emotions than the mind and of course how many of us engage in lively informed debate anymore? Very few. The more common reaction to big questions is usually an emotive response followed by a quick change in subject. TV viewing is a somatic experience which means it is ??of the body, not of the mind??. I?_m reminded of Huxley?_s book, ??Brave New World?? where the drug of choice was called soma and enabled people to escape un-palatable intellectual life problems.
Psychologist Thomas Mulholland found that after just 30 seconds of watching television the brain begins to produce alpha waves, which indicates torpid (almost comatose) rates of activity. Alpha brain waves are associated with unfocused, overly receptive states of consciousness. A high occurrence of alpha wave activity does not occur normally when the eyes are open. In fact, Mulholland?_s research implies that watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank wall. It?_s worth noting that the goal of hypnotists is to induce slow brain wave states. Alpha waves are present during the ?rlight hypnotic?_ state used by hypnotherapists for suggestion therapy.
The critical side of your brain is the left. As you read this you are making judgements, passing opinions and coming to conclusions which take the form of beta brain wave activity. These are the waves activated when you begin to use that left hand side, the centre of logical human communication and analysis.
Researchers have found that once the television set is switched on, that left hand side and all it?_s faculties tends to switch off. Instead the image from television go straight to the right brain. The switch from beta to alpha waves shows this. Alpha brain waves are the ones we associate with meditation and sleep. By no means does this mean that we are not taking the information in "C we are taking it all in, we are just not able to critically evaluate it as we would with information coming from other sources.
Video Games have been shown to lower brain activity to below that of the Delta frequency!
The TV screen flicker rate alone is known to induce mesmerized states in people. This flicker rate is the rate at which the screen image is updated, generally about 50 or 60 times a second. DARPA is a US military funded research programme. One of their endeavours concerned developing TV flicker rates that could be played whenever a mesmerized state was required in a given section of the population.
Endorphins are released by overexposure to light. The radiant light from televisions causes a release of endorphins. Researcher Herbert Krugman showed that while viewers are watching television, the right hemisphere is twice as active as the left, a neurological anomaly. The crossover from left to right releases a surge of the body?_s natural opiates: endorphins, which include beta-endorphins and enkephalins. Endorphins are structurally identical to opium and its derivatives (morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.). Activities that release endorphins (also called opioid peptides) are usually habit-forming (we rarely call them addictive). These include cracking knuckles and strenuous exercise. External opiates act on the same receptor sites (opioid receptors) as endorphins, so there is little difference between the two.
Even casual television viewers experience such opiate-withdrawal symptoms if they stop watching TV for a prolonged period of time. An article from South Africa?_s Eastern Province Herald (October 1975) described two experiments in which people from various socio-economic milieus were asked to stop watching television. In one experiment, several families volunteered to turn off their TV?_s for just one month. The poorest family gave in after one week, and the others suffered from depression, saying they felt as though they had ??lost a friend.?? In the other experiment, 182 West Germans agreed to kick their television viewing habit for a year, with the added bonus of payment. None could resist the urge longer than six months, and over time all of the participants showed the symptoms of opiate-withdrawal: increased anxiety, frustration, and depression.
Herbert Krugman?_s research proved that watching television numbs the left brain and leaves the right brain to perform all cognitive duties. This has some harrowing implications for the effects of television on brain development and health. For one, the left hemisphere is the critical region for organizing, analyzing, and judging incoming data. The right brain treats incoming data uncritically, and it does not decode or divide information into its component parts.
Researches into the effects of TV have warned that children under two years of age shouldn?_t watch any at all due to the negative impact on various areas of a child?_s development which include skills of observation, speech, hearing, depth perception, reading ability, inducing attention deficit type behaviour, a lack of motor skills due to immobile viewing habits and so on. TV is a wholly inappropriate and ineffectual teaching tool. It?_s pointless having debates lamenting the demise of intellectual ability and endeavour when intellects have never even had a chance to naturally and properly grow due to the numbing effects of television on children particularly.
Conversely its worth noting that radio has the opposite effect and actually develops a higher rate of concentration, the audio forcing people to be stimulated to visualise what they hear. Reading of course further extends the ability to concentrate and critically examine information over longer periods.
Even the style of TV production these days is geared toward an amphetamine-like addiction people have with regard to information reception. The cadence of scene changes, that is the rate and beat at which images are changing on the screen is very fast and further inclines the mind under development to be unable to concentrate for long periods on long pieces of textual information. Average rates of attention span are down from a few decades ago to mere minutes where once it was more than one hour for deep critical thinking.
Studies have linked quality of life to high vocabulary rates which heavy TV consumption impacts negatively. If you have good communication skills you are better able to express the world you live in and how you define it and if this is a yardstick to judge by then for many of our countries?_ young folk the world must be very banal indeed. A poor vocabulary means you have a myopic existence, you have a tunnel-like perception of this great planet and your quality of life is adversely effected. Just listening to pop stars in particular, the idols of the young, can make one cringe with embarrassment at the vacuous and inarticulate clap-trap they come out with.
We live in a world today were people?_s personalities are formed by unreal things: TV, the music industry, video games, movies, the effects of drugs (be that of the recreational or psychotropic variety). Virtual reality dominates the interests of a lot of people out there, even young adults and people of my own age group in their 30??s. All conversation is about this or that TV show, the latest new video game on the latest new console or who?_s top of the Premiership. It?_s a sad state of affairs.
All these negative effects on society are known, they are in fact engineered and planned for. A New World Order is coming into view. Not so long ago in India, the then British Chancellor Gordon Brown, , in a speech mentioned this ??New Global Order?? that is being brought into existence. This New Order will be the stuff of nightmare as envisaged by Orwell. In fact I don?_t think even Orwell had the vision to picture the dystopian technocratic dictatorship in store for humanity. Huxley was somewhat closer to the mark in his novel, ??Brave New World ??.
The TV is our soma, it keeps us mesmerized and dulled while our freedoms are revoked and laws introduced to make criminals of us all so the New World Order can get on with the business of creating a prison planet with a prison based economic system, much like modern China.
Get rid of your TV?_s today. Exchange them for projection systems if you?_re not yet ready to give up the video drome. We need to reclaim our personalities from the agencies and organisations that use TV to claim our minds, create our consumerist loyalties and keep us from truth, reality and a full-spectrum human life. We need to reclaim for ourselves and instil in future generations a sense of wonder at the real world and its panoply of real life heroes and people genuinely worth admiring.
HuffingtonPost
There always was a dark cinematic thread to the story of Pat Tillman: the football star imbued with post-9/11 patriotism who was killed in a friendly-fire incident in the Afghan mountains and the allegations of a massive bureaucratic cover-up involving the highest levels of the U.S. Army in the wake of the tragedy.
So it wasn't terribly shocking when word broke this past winter that "The Tillman Story," a documentary film, was being purchased by the powerhouse Weinstein Company. The story, even without a director applying his artistic license to the script, obviously had many elements of a political thriller.
As the release date approaches -- the film will premiere in Los Angeles and New York on August 20 -- those elements are becoming a bit clearer and more intriguing. The Weinstein Company sent the Huffington Post two previously unseen letters written by Tillman's father at the peak of frustration with the army's investigation into his son's death. The notes, penned to Brigadier General Gary M. Jones (the man spearheading the investigation) as well as the Senate Armed Services Committee (which oversaw Jones's work), paint a picture of a man increasingly convinced that a massive conspiracy was emerging around the death of his son.
"You are a General," Tillman's father writes Jones after being presented with a briefing book of his findings. "There is no way a man like you, with your intelligence, education, military, experience, responsibilities (primarily for difficult situations), and rank... believes the conclusions reached in the March 31, 2005 Briefing Book. But your signature is on it. I assume, therefore, that you are part of this shameless cow cookies. I embarrassed myself by treating you with respect [on] March 31, 2005. I thought your rank deserved it and anticipated something different from the new and improved investigation. I won't act so hypocritically if we meet again."
"In sum: F... you... and yours."
The two letters are worth a read, if only for the insight they provide into how haphazard and mismanaged (deliberately or not) the investigations were. Tillman's father comes off as emotional, for good reason. But the questions he raised -- while conspiratorial in tone -- offer compelling drama (both real life and for the upcoming movie). Take, for instance, the notion that the shooters of his son may have been blinded by the glare of the sunset.
"The shooters were always looking North or Northwest," Tillman's father writes. "Even in Afghanistan, the sun sets in the West - Southwest. How on God's green earth can you add in a "glare factor" looking away from the sun that has set? (P-16) Immediately after the sunset , facing the wrong direction (North vs. Southwest), the glare impaired their vision? Don't you need sun to have glare?"
By the spring of 2007, indeed, evidence emerged that some of Pat Tillman senior's larger fears were driven not by emotion-driven conspiracy theories but by legitimate holes in the Army's story.
Infowars
August 13, 2010
Update:
Since the story first broke, a lot has happened. One reason for this could be that food is being poisoned. Collecting rainwater is now illegal in many states. Your intake is being controlled. For more information, visit the following articles as well:
Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water.
Why do people in America refuse to take active interest in their future?
S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US. It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.
"If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public's right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God." ~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower
It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.
Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto's Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create - without judicial review - if it passes. S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.
History
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton's HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization "WTO") meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband's firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.
S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.
1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.
2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into "the United States." Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, "entry of food into the US" covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and "entering into" it by virtue of being produced.
4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.
5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds - How to criminalize them, for more details.
6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.
7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production - put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.
8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.
9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed - the Five Pillars of Food Safety - are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.
10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review. It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the US.
David Kopel
Opposing Views
August 22, 2010
According to The Korea Times, the Obama administration has blocked efforts by the South Korean government to sell over a hundred thousand surplus M1 Garand and Carbine rifles into the United States market. These self-loading were rifles introduced in 1926 and 1941.
As rifles, they are especially well-suited to community defense in an emergency, as in the cases of community defense following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Along with AR-15 type rifles, the M1 rifles are the quintessential firearms of responsible citizenship, precisely the type of firearms which civic responsibility organizations such as the Appleseed Project teach people how to use.
According to a South Korean official, "The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions."
Regarding the second objection, any firearm lawfully imported into the United States would eventually be sold by a Federal Firearm Licensee who, pursuant to the background check system imposed by Congress (and endorsed by the NRA) would have to contact federal or state law enforcement to verify that the gun buyer is not prohibited from possessing firearms.
Accordingly, the risk that the South Korean surplus guns might fall into the hands of gangsters or other bad people is exactly the same as with the sale of any other retail firearm in the United States. Notably, neither the M1 Garand nor the M1 carbine are concealable, and the M1 Garand is long, heavy, and bulky. Accordingly, the criminal utility of such guns is relatively low.
The second Obama administration objection is accidents. But in fact, increasing gun density in the United States has been associated with steeply declining rates of gun accidents. In 1948 there were .36 guns per person. (That is, about one gun for every three Americans.) By 2004, there was nearly one gun for every American. In 1948, there were 1.6 fatal gun accidents per 100,000 persons. By 2004, the rate had fallen by 86%, so that there were .22 fatal accidents per 100,000 persons. (For underlying data, see Appendix B of my amicus brief in Heller.)
Legally, it is indisputable that the guns are importable. Being over 50 years old, the rifles are automatically "Curios and Relics" according to federal law. 27 CFR section 478.11. Accordingly, they are by statutory definition importable. 18 USC section 925 (e)(1). Notwithstanding the law, the Obama administration has the ability to pressure the South Korean government to block the sale of the guns.
President Obama was elected on the promise that he supported individual Second Amendment rights. His administration's thwarting of the import of these American-made rifles is not consistent with that promise.
Community Alliance for Global Justice
August 27, 2010
Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation's investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000 (see the Foundation's 2008 990 Form).
"The Foundation's direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels," said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. "First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests."
Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto's genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. "When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising," said Mayet. Monsanto's aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue-and bankrupt-farmers for "patent infringement."
News of the Foundation's recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, "We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA-the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto." Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, "The Foundation's ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa." In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation's grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)-considered by the Foundation to be its "African face"-work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program.
Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA's grantees in promoting the spread of industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, "AGRA is poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa."
A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes the report's warning that "continued reliance on simplistic technological fixes-including transgenic crops-will not reduce persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental problems and worsen social inequity." Furthermore, PANNA explains, "The Assessment's 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while protecting the planet."
The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation for investing in its own grantees and for its "holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices." The Times chastised the Foundation for what it called "blind-eye investing," with at least 41% of its assets invested in "companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially-concerned philosophy."
Although the Foundation announced it would reassess its practices, it decided to retain them. As reported by the L.A. Times, chief executive of the Foundation Patty Stonesifer defended their investments, stating, "It would be na?ve.to think that changing the foundation's investment policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of companies in which it invests billions of dollars." This decision is in direct contradiction to the Foundation's official "Investment Philosophy", which, according to its website, "defined areas in which the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is centrally tied to corporate activity that [Bill and Melinda] find egregious. This is why the endowment does not invest in tobacco stocks."
More recently, the Foundation has come under fire in its own hometown. This week, 250 Seattle residents sent postcards expressing their concern that the Foundation's approach to agricultural development, rather than reducing hunger as pledged, would instead "increase farmer debt, enrich agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta, degrade the environment, and dispossess small farmers." In addition to demanding that the Foundation instead fund "socially and ecologically appropriate practices determined locally by African farmers and scientists" and support African food sovereignty, they urged the Foundation to cut all ties to Monsanto and the biotechnology industry.
This is one company that needs to be ousted as very harmful and criminally neglegent to human life as well as animals. Not that I'm
the tree huggin type but Germany will not plant GMO corn because it kills honey bees.
Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
August 27, 2010
In addition to the recent PrisonPlanet-exclusive Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For "Mass-Scale" Fertility Reduction - which outlines the Rockefeller Foundation's efforts in the 1960s funding research into so-called "anti-fertility vaccines"- another series of documents has surfaced, proving beyond any doubt that the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization picked up on it, further developing it under responsibility of a "Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation".
WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation have worked together on "anti-fertility" vaccine since the 1960s.
Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund. Its mission, according to one of its members, to support:
"basic and clinical research on the development of birth control vaccines directed against the gametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involved the use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridoma technology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluation of a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As a result of this international, collaborative effort, a prototype anti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raising the prospect that a totally new family planning method may be available before the end of the current decade."
In regards to the scope of the Task Force's jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development Monitor reported:
"The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine."
One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:
"The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the development of fertility regulating vaccines."
Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the implementation in developing countries. Griffin:
"If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning programmes."
Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over "currently available methods of fertility regulation" the Task Force states, is the following (179):
"low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health services."
Already in 1978, the WHO's Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation) underlined the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of "large scale synthesis and manufacture" of the vaccine:
"The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel; (b) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and (c) in the case of antigens of known chemical structure, there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost."
In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction published a report, stating:
"In 1972 the Organization (.) expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO's technical assistance programme to governments at the service level."
Although the term "Anti-Fertility Vaccine", coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding "Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously the same. Besides, The time line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By extensions, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header "Scientific Dictatorship". The relationshipbetween the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation is intense. In the 1986 bulletin of the World Health Organization, this relationship is being described in some detail. While researching the effectiveness of "gossypol" as an "antifertility agent", the bulletin states:
"The Rockefeller Foundation has supported limited clinical trials in China and smallscale clinical studies in Brazil and Austria. The dose administered in the current Chinese trial has been reduced from 20 mg to 10-15 mg/day during the loading phase in order to see if severe oligospermia rather than consistent azoospermia would be adequate for an acceptable, non-toxic and reversible effect. Meanwhile, both the WHO human reproduction programme and the Rockefeller Foundation are supporting animal studies to better define the mechanism of action of gossypol."
In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding "fertility regulating vaccines". According to the document Fertility Regulating Vaccines (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.
In 1986 Mr. Spieler declared:
"A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(.). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible."
"Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for human testing by the early 1990s", Spieler wrote.
In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must conquer "variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines".
"Research", he goes on to say,"is also needed in the field of "basic vaccinology", to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles and delivery systems."
In the 1992 document, the problem of "variations in individual responses" is also discussed:
"Because of the genetic diversity of human populations", states the document, "immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines."
The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has since the early 70s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded "anti-fertility vaccine". What also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It's a mass-scale anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world's population: a dream long cherished by the global elite.
There are several links to info in the original article.
J.T. Coyot?
Infowars
August 31, 2010
In an unprecedented act of unconstitutional abridgment and over-reaching presidential power, Barack Obama is poised to call the United Nations Human Rights Council vultures down on the state of Arizona.
He is apparently not satisfied with his last 11th Amendment faux pas; the commanding of Attorney General Eric Holder to unconstitutionally sue Arizona for enacting a state law to correct federal inaction on Arizona's Constitutional request for assistance. Now, as if that wasn't enough 11th Amendment stumbling, he is bringing the UN into it.
In his report to the United Nations Human Rights Council on human rights in the US, aside from calling for U.N. involvement in Arizona, he leaps right into America bashing. He points out what he considers flaws in the U.S. Constitution, then toots his own horn as the president who promoted and passed universal health care legislation, and ended "torture" at Guantanamo. As if torture there was the American people's idea. Sounding more like a constitutional destroyer than a constitutional scholar, he points out what he calls our human rights inadequacies - discrimination and oppression of ethnic minorities, women, the handicapped and homosexuals. Making himself look like the American people's deliverer, our messiah - it reads like he's stumping for election, perhaps as Secretary General of the UN.
In this report the federal government will turn over to the UN, control of all action regarding Arizona border policy. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer demanded that it's new immigration law, SB-1070 be removed from the Human Rights report to the United Nations, which also contains the unconstitutional federal court challenge to the Arizona law, listing it as one of the federal methods used to protect human rights. Governor Brewer, in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the inclusion of the Arizona law as a human rights violation was not only wrong, but was "downright offensive." She continues, "The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to `review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional."
This unparalleled call for United Nations intervention to cover federal inaction on the border, and spin it as a civil-rights violation by Arizona, is incorrigible. Some would call it treasonous. Arizona has been fighting this illegal immigration problem now for over 30 years, while the federal government has been doing everything it can to avoid the problem. There are those who will say that the immigration situation is so vast that the only way the federal government can solve it, is by calling on the United Nations. This is poppycock, pure unadulterated internationalist tripe of the highest order. He's merely escalating the Bush open-door immigration policy Americans don't want, nor can we afford to have continue.
For the president to insinuate civil rights abuses as his reasons, is a slap in the face of the people of Arizona, and the United States. We have bent over backwards and been taxed to the hilt, to accommodate and pay for the 30 million from south of the border who have already entered the country illegally. The president's language suggests the beginnings of sanctions, that could escalate into actions similar to those on Iraq after the First Gulf War. Sanctions that took a first world nation back to Third World poverty in less than two decades. This President's actions betray his true loyalties, and begins the toppling of the first domino within the United States - Arizona. To quote Abraham Lincoln, "This nation can never be conquered from without. If it is ever to fall it will be from within."
By Stephen C. Webster
rawstory
Tuesday, September 7th, 2010
Law enforcement can still be required to obtain a search warrant for access to citizens' mobile phone location data, but police need not uphold the traditional Fourth Amendment standard of "probable cause" in the process of such an investigation, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
While civil liberties groups which argued in favor of stronger privacy protections largely called the ruling favorable, it still leaves room for law enforcement to continue large-scale mobile spying operations.
A friend-of-the-court brief [PDF link] in this case was given to the Third Circuit Federal Appeals Court on behalf of The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT).
The brief argued mobile phone users should not be subjected to a greater likelihood of government surveillance just by owning the device. Police all over the country have increasingly relied upon largely carte blanche access to mobile phone tracking data via web-based backend systems provided by major cellular carriers and third parties.
"Innocent Americans should not be made to feel the government is following them wherever they go - including in their own home," ACLU attorney Catherine Crump said, in a media advisory. "While there's no question that law enforcement agents should have the tools they need to stop crimes, such tools must be used in a manner that upholds the Constitution and personal privacy."
As Newsweek reported in February:
"How many of the owners of the country's 277 million cell phones even know that companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint can track their devices in real time? Most 'don't have a clue,' says privacy advocate James X. Dempsey. The tracking is possible because either the phones have tiny GPS units inside or each phone call is routed through towers that can be used to pinpoint a phone's location to areas as small as a city block. This capability to trace ever more precise cell-phone locations has been spurred by a Federal Communications Commission rule designed to help police and other emergency officers during 911 calls. But the FBI and other law-enforcement outfits have been obtaining more and more records of cell-phone locations-without notifying the targets or getting judicial warrants establishing 'probable cause,' according to law-enforcement officials, court records, and telecommunication executives."
However, in its decision, the court made a special exception to the Fourth Amendment for mobile phone tracking, saying that requests for location records "does not require the traditional probable cause determination".
On page 25 of their decision [PDF link], the judges compare the case to United States v. Miller, where the Supreme Court decided that because banks were party to transactions, individual citizens' financial records were fair game for warrantless searches.
They held that, in the same logic behind the availability of bank records, because mobile subscribers have shared their personal information with a third party, i.e., the phone service provider, constitutional protections effectively do not apply.
The Government argues that no CSLI can implicate constitutional protections because the subscriber has shared its information with a third party, i.e., the communications provider. For support, the Government cites United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), in which the Supreme Court found that an
individual's bank records were not protected by the Constitution because "all of the records [which are required to be kept pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act,] pertain to transactions to which the bank was itself a party," id. at 441 (internal quotation and citation omitted), and "[a]ll of the documents obtained, including financial statements and deposit slips, contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business," id. at 442.
CNet added:
In this case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permissible because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers have said that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
Though the court largely agreed with the administration's argument, it also found that location data can be used by defendants to show they were in a private location that is protected by the Fourth Amendment.
The ruling effectively leaves it up to individual judges' discretion as to how mobile tracking data is used and accessed by law enforcement.
"Although the court did not definitively rule on the Fourth Amendment status of cell phone location information, it made clear that under some circumstances the privacy of such data could be constitutionally protected, and that judges have the discretion to require a warrant to avoid potentially unconstitutional seizures of location data," EFF attorney Kevin Bankston explained.
infowars
September 9, 2020
Former US Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) and Richard Gage, AIA, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Discuss Scientific Findings
National Press Club, Washington DC, 2:00 pm, Thursday, September 9, 2010
On Thursday September 9, 2010, Gravel and Gage will host a central press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, presenting hard evidence that all three WTC skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, in NYC were destroyed by explosive controlled demolition.
Senator Gravel notes, "Critically important evidence has come forward after the original government building reports were completed."
This press conference will be webcast at AE911Truth.org and hosted concurrently in cities throughout the world.* Following the conference, there will be a mock debate during which public statements made by government investigators and other defenders of the official account will be presented and responded to in multimedia format. "They refuse to debate us in person," says Gage, "so we will let their public statements represent them."
Gage will release a media-friendly summary of his organization's findings, which are based on forensic evidence as well as video and eyewitness testimony that were omitted from official reports. He will show evidence that the WTC Twin Towers were not destroyed by jet plane impacts or fires, but by pre-set explosives and incendiaries. The non-profit organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, will also call for a grand jury investigation of government report lead engineers Shyam Sunder and John Gross of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. "They were in a position to know the evidence we have been presenting," says Gage.
Also speaking will be Florida State Professor Lance deHaven-Smith, who coined the academic term State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD). Prof. deHaven-Smith has appeared on Good Morning America, the Today Show, NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, CBS Nightly News with Dan Rather, and other national TV/radio shows.
* For information on satellite press conferences in your area, contact CongressionalOutreachTeam [at] ae911truth.org
Sorry this one was 2 days late but the press conference is on youtube.
1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition at World Trade Center on 9/11
Senator Gravel notes, "Critically important evidence has come forward after the original government building reports were completed."
The 9-11 truth movement has been very seriously mislead by the "original government building reports".
What is proven here is that NIST was deceived by FEMA who described the Towers core to NIST as looking like this. Steel core columns.
There is no image from 9-11 showing that core.
NIST never mentions their use of building plans in the forensic analysis of collapse they volenteered to do. Their disclaimer is about as close as can be found to their identifying their sources.
This Ph.D in physics has found a theory that feasibly describes EXACTLY how a building of that size can be brought to the ground as we saw and heard.
http://libertycalling.com/cbrowndemomodel.htm
Apparently the event only required massive secrecy during construction to prepare the buillding for demo years later.
Also, the site the Ph.D links to, details with substance, that a conspiracy exists to mislead and misinform the truth movement into asserting something that, using the misinformation, they can never explain. Instead they approach authority with nonsense like "nano thermite" which inures authority to any info whatsoever.
http://algoxy.com/conc/fema_deception.html
It looks as though the commie tactic of leading a movement to control it may have been very successful.
Those of us that actually know what it would take to bring down a skyscraper with explosives laugh at this BS.
Laugh all you want at the difficulty of bringing 3 buildings down with controlled demolition but know this, it is infinitely more difficult to accomplish knocking down 3 buildings with 2 planes.
Brad Steele
Those events set in motion a monster that changed everything in this country and helped make possible some of the things that the gov-beast can do today, without it things may not have gone their way, but don't expect them to either admit knowing about it or having been involved however.
I have never seen any building collapse like that in my life let alone more than one and I have seen several disasters, crashes, explosions you name it and the only time and I mean the only time that I have ever seen ANY building do that was from a controlled demolition.
Why didn't those buildings slant one way or another, why didn't those buildings collapse out instead of straight down, okay lets say one, but ALL of them perfectly straight down and most people don't want to question that and we are told that we know nothing blah blah blah etc...come on.
Yeah you keep just believing that the gov-beast is your friend, what about the rail cars and the fema camps for example, what are those for...okay they don't exist either, why are so many military units including some that I have been in training for civil disturbances to such a degree that they are, don't you anti's find anything strange about that, what will it take to get you to believe...
No one that believes in this mess really wants it to be true you know, we would all much rather be concerned about what color to paint the house this summer or about that next family picnic together, or our kids graduation etc, but not this, isn't it strange that this isn't just isolated to just a handful of people...
When it went down it keep going and going and cratered some other things including the foundations of building 7 with it.
This tragedy cannot simply be dismissed under any circumstances and there is of course alot more to this then they are letting on.