Archive for the ‘New World Orders Awesome’ Category

Obama Pushes for Government Health Control

September 11, 2009

September 10, 2009


Dear Friend of Liberty,

Last night, President Obama made it clear he intends to push hard for a government-run Health Control system. His plans, if enacted, will result over time in either a complete government takeover of Health Care, or the total destruction of any meaningful private system. 

Now is the time for us to raise our voices and insist Congress vote “NO” to this government power grab.

Make no mistake, the Obama plan will cause the price of insurance to skyrocket even further by increasing payouts and other costs of doing business, putting many more Americans in the position of having to drop their coverage.

One plan currently being considered in the Senate would impose a $3,800 fineon families who refuse to get health insurance. Health insurance will no longer be a free choice in our country.  President Obama has long advocated a universal, single-payer system, and that is the ultimate goal of enacting this so-called “reform” package.

In regards to his deficit-neutral promise, the Congressional Budget Office has
already statedthat HR 3200 will add over $200 billion to the deficit over the next ten years, and Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are already trillions of dollars in the red.

Are we really expected to believe that yet another government program on top of all these will save money?

And, hidden throughout the over 1000 pages that make up this bill are even more “goodies” for the allies of Big Government, such as a massive payoff to Big Labor, who will reap millions of new forced union dues and wield unprecedented power over government and “private” health care
as reportedin The Wall Street Journal.  

President Obama has repeatedly stated that we cannot deal with the rising cost of health care by maintaining the status quo. I wholeheartedly agree.

We must acknowledge that the root cause of the health care crisis in this country is
government interference. Of course, many in the insurance industry have taken full advantage of their lobbying power and monopolies, but they have been able to do this because of the government.

It is government that prohibits individuals from being able to shop across state lines for insurance.

It is government that imposes thousands of mandates on insurance providers.

It is government that created HMOs in the 1970s.

It is government that has
skewed the marketto prop up third party payers.

Simply put, the problems with health care in America are TOO MUCH government interference already. The solution is to lessen government control – NOT give them more power!

The Council for Affordable Health Insurance has identified a total of 2,133 mandated benefits and providers currently required by state legislatures, mandates they estimate increase the cost of basic coverage from around 20% to as high as possibly 50%. Read their report
here.

If the president thinks we can pay for his plan through saving billions of dollars by eliminating waste and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid, then why don’t we clean out those systems now and return that money through tax cuts to the American taxpayer, providing them extra funds to buy insurance if they want it?

Both major parties believe the answer to our health care crisis is through government intervention. They only differ in the degree of that intervention.

It’s time to choose freedom.

Americans should be free to shop across state lines for health insurance, to easily go outside the country for cheaper medications, and to buy health insurance without being taxed on it.

Congress should give Americans control over their health care by giving them control over their health care dollar via tax credits and deductions similar to those outlined in Congressman Ron Paul’s Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act (HR 1495).

And Congress should protect privacy rights by allowing patients and physicians to opt-out of any government-mandated or funded system of electronic health care records, and by repealing the federal law creating an “unique patient identifier” by adopting the policies contained in Congressman Ron Paul’s Protect Patients and Physicians Privacy Act (HR 2630).

Tell Congress todaythat you oppose cementing the status quo of government care. Urge your representative and senators to oppose HR 3200 and all other bills that would take control over your health care out of your hands. Clickhereto sign our petition.

President Obama ran on a platform of hope and change, but his policies have proved to be not only more of the same, but a fresh stamp of approval on the ways things have been done for the last thirty years.

Real reform starts with freedom, and real hope for America means upholding its founding principle of self-determination.


In Liberty,

John Tate

President

P.S. A complete government takeover of health care has been defeated before, but the odds have never been as stacked against us as they are now. If you are able, please consider
contributingto C4L today to help us promote true health care reform and defend the principles that made this nation great from further desecration.

Rethink Afghanistan

September 11, 2009

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/

Anti-gun Health Draft Includes Annual Fines Up To $3800

September 11, 2009

*GOA

Baucus Health Care Draft to Fine Reluctant Gun Owners up to $3,800

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, September 10, 2009

By now, members of Gun Owners of America should have received pre-written postcards opposing the anti-gun health care bills that are floating around on Capitol Hill.  

Please send in those postcards — as it’s very important for legislative offices to see mounds of gun owners’ mail being dumped on their desks

Now that Congress is back in session — and the President has given his televised push on health care — it is time for us to redouble our efforts. 

To review the bidding: 

Every major health care bill being considered in Congress would require many (if not most) Americans to be covered by insurance policies written by the Obama administration — so-called ObamaCare. 

Among other things, ObamaCare will almost certainly require, by regulation, that all gun-related medical data be fed into a federal health database — pursuant to a $20 billion program Obama insisted be included in the $787 billion stimulus bill. 

So, as a gun owner who doesn’t want this data to be trolled by the BATFE from a federal database, you might say: 

* “I’m not going to buy an ObamaCare policy.” 

or

* “I’m going to buy the type of insurance that I want to buy.”

Well, anti-gun Democrat Max Baucus (D-MT) has a question for you:  “How would you like to pay a $3,800 a yearfine?”

That’s right.  In a legislative draft released this week, Baucus would fine you up to $3,800 for not buying preciselythe insurance policy which Barack Obama orders you to buy. 

So, what’s going to be required under ObamaCare?  And how much is it going to cost? 

Baucus isn’t going to tell you that until after the bill is passed.  We do know that, under the Baucus draft, a lower middle income family could be forced to pay up to 13% of its income to buy an ObamaCare policy. And, presumably, a middle income family would be required to spend much, much more. 

Take into consideration that the Baucus draft — with its $3,800 per year fines and its ObamaCare -related gun databases — is the so-called “conservative” bill.  This is the one that they’re trying to get Republicans to sign onto because it’s so “conservative.”  The final Pelosi-written conference report will be much, much worse. 

Incidentally, Obama opposed forcing Americans to purchase government-approved insurance during the campaign, but guess what?  He lied. 

ACTION:

1. Write your Senators. Ask them to oppose the anti-gun Baucus draft, with its requirement that Americans purchase an Obama-approved insurance policy or pay a $3,800 annual fine.  This legislative draft has not yet been publicly released; however, several news agencies have reported on its key features — and these reviews are widely available on the Internet.  

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Centerathttp://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.

2. Distribute this email far and wide. There are people that you know who should be involved in the fight against socialized health care who are just sitting on the sidelines.  Please forward this email to them and get them involved in the fight!

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

Please oppose the open-ended anti-gun mandates contained in the Baucus health draft. Among other things, Baucus-mandated policies, which would have to be approved by the Obama administration, will almost certainly require, by regulation, that all gun-related medical data be fed into a federal health database — pursuant to a $20 billion program Obama insisted be included in the $787 billion stimulus bill. 

So, what if a gun owner insists on buying the type of insurance he wants to buy? Sen. Baucus would fine him up to $3,800 a year.

That’s right.  In a recently released draft, Baucus would fine gun owners up to $3,800 for not buyingpreciselythe insurance policy which Barack Obama orders them to buy. So, what’s going to be required by this Baucus-mandated policy? And how much is it going to cost? 

Baucus isn’t going to tell us that until after the bill is passed. We do know that, under the Baucus draft, a lower middle income family could be forced to pay up to 13% of its income to buy an ObamaCare policy. And, presumably, a middle income family would be required to spend much, much more.

Incidentally, Obama opposed forcing Americans to purchase government-approved insurance during the campaign.

In short, please oppose the anti-gun, anti-freedom Baucus “compromise” and please let me know exactly where you stand on this issue.

Sincerely,

(Your Name)

A year after financial crisis, a new world order emerges

September 11, 2009

“Told you.”

-F.F.

300ResisttheNewWorldOrder

By Kevin G. Hall, McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — One year after the near collapse of the global financial system, this much is clear: The financial world as we knew it is over, and something new is rising from its ashes.

Historians will look to September 2008 as a watershed for the U.S. economy.

On Sept. 7 , the government seized mortgage titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac . Eight days later, investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, sparking a global financial panic that threatened to topple blue-chip financial institutions around the world. In the several months that followed, governments from Washington to Beijing responded with unprecedented intervention into financial markets and across their economies, seeking to stop the wreckage and stem the damage.

One year later, the easy-money system that financed the boom era from the 1980s until a year ago is smashed. Once-ravenous U.S. consumers are saving money and paying down debt. Banks are building reserves and hoarding cash. And governments are fashioning a new global financial order.

Congress and the Obama administration have lost faith in self-regulated markets. Together, they’re writing the most sweeping new regulations over finance since the Great Depression. And in this ever-more-connected global economy, Washington is working with its partners through the G-20 group of nations to develop worldwide rules to govern finance.

“Our objective is to design an economic framework where we’re going to have a more balanced pattern of growth globally, less reliant on a buildup of unsustainable borrowing . . . and not just here, but around the world,” said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner .

The first faint signs that the U.S. economy may be clawing its way back from the worst recession since the Great Depression are only now starting to appear, a year after the panic began. Similar indications are sprouting in EuropeChina and Japan .

Still, economists concur that a quarter-century of economic growth fueled by cheap credit is over. Many analysts also think that an extended period of slow job growth and suppressed wage growth will keep consumers — and the businesses that sell to them — in the dumps for years.

“Those things are likely to be subpar for a long period of time,” said Martin Regalia, the chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce . “I think it means that we probably see potential rates of growth that are in the 2-2.5 (percent) range, or maybe . . . 1.8-1.9 (percent).” A growth rate of 3 percent to 3.5 percent is considered average.

The unemployment rate rose to 9.7 percent in August and is expected to peak above 10 percent in the months ahead. It’s already there in at least 15 states. Regalia thinks that it could be five years before the U.S. economy generates enough jobs to overcome those lost and to employ the new workers entering the labor force.

All this is likely to keep consumers on the sidelines.

“I think this financial panic and Great Recession is an inflection point for the financial system and the economy,” said Mark Zandi , the chief economist for forecaster Moody’s Economy.com. “It means much less risk-taking, at least for a number of years to come — a decade or two. That will be evident in less credit and more costly credit. If you are a household or a business, it will cost you more, and it will be more difficult to get that credit.”

The numbers bear him out. The Fed’s most recent release of credit data showed that consumer credit decreased at an annual rate of 5.2 percent from April to June, after falling by a 3.6 percent annual rate from January to March. Revolving lines of credit, which include credit cards, fell by an annualized 8.9 percent in the first quarter, followed by an 8.2 percent drop in the second quarter.

That’s a sea change. For much of the past two decades, strong U.S. growth has come largely through expanding credit. The global economy fed off this trend.

China became a manufacturing hub by selling attractively priced exports to U.S. consumers who were living beyond their means. China’s Asian neighbors sent it components for final assembly; Africa and Latin Americasold China their raw materials. All fed off U.S. consumers’ bottomless appetite for more, bought on credit.

“That’s over. Consumers can do their part — spend at a rate consistent with their income growth, but not much beyond that,” Zandi said.

If U.S. consumers no longer drive the global economy, then consumers in big emerging economies such as China and Brazil will have to take up some of the slack. Trade among nations will take on greater importance.

In the emerging “new normal,” U.S. companies will have to be more competitive. They must sell into big developing markets; yet as the recent Cash for Clunkers effort underscored, the competitive hurdles are high: Foreign-owned automakers, led by Toyota , reaped the most benefit from the U.S. tax breaks for new car purchases, not GM and Chrysler .

Need a loan? Tough luck: Many U.S. banks are in no condition to lend. Around 416 banks are now on a “problem list” and at risk of insolvency. Regulators already have shuttered 81 banks and thrifts this year.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. reported on Aug. 27 that rising loan losses are depleting bank capital. The ratio of bank reserves to bad loans was 63.5 percent from April to June, the lowest it’s been since the savings-and-loan crisis in 1991.

For all that, the U.S. economy does seem to be rising off its sickbed. The latest manufacturing data for August point to a return to growth, and home sales are rising. Indeed, there are many encouraging signs emerging in the global economy.

It’s all growth from a low starting point, however, and many economists think that there’ll be a lower baseline for U.S. and global growth if the new financial order means less risk-taking by lenders and less indebtedness by companies and consumers.

That seems evident now in the U.S. personal savings rate. It fell steadily from 9.59 percent in the 1970s to 2.68 percent in the easy-money era from 2000 to 2008; from 2005 to 2007, it averaged 1.83 percent.

Today, that trend is in reverse. From April to June, Americans’ personal savings rate was 5 percent, and it could go higher if the unemployment rate keeps rising. Almost 15 million Americans are unemployed — and countless others are underemployed or uncertain about their job security, so they’re spending less and saving more.

A few years ago, banks fell all over themselves to offer cheap home equity loans and lines of consumer credit. No more. Even billions in government bailout dollars to spur lending haven’t changed that.

“The strategy that was stated at the beginning of the year — which is that you would sustain the banking system in order that it would resume lending — hasn’t worked, and it isn’t going to work,” said James K. Galbraith , an economist at the University of Texas at Austin .

Over the course of 2008, the nation’s five largest banks reduced their consumer loans by 79 percent, real estate loans by 66 percent and commercial loans by 19 percent, according to FDIC data. A wide range of credit measures, including recent FDIC data, show that lending remains depressed.

Why? The foundation of U.S. credit expansion for the past 20 years is in ruin. Since the 1980s, banks haven’t kept loans on their balance sheets; instead, they sold them into a secondary market, where they were pooled for sale to investors as securities. The process, called securitization, fueled a rapid expansion of credit to consumers and businesses. By passing their loans on to investors, banks were freed to lend more.

Today, securitization is all but dead. Investors have little appetite for risky securities. Few buyers want a security based on pools of mortgages, car loans, student loans and the like.

“The basis of revival of the system along the line of what previously existed doesn’t exist. The foundation that was supposed to be there for the revival (of the economy) . . . got washed away,” Galbraith said.

Unless and until securitization rebounds, it will be hard for banks to resume robust lending because they’re stuck with loans on their books.

“We’ve just been scared,” said Robert C. Pozen , the chairman of Boston -based MFS Investment Management . He thinks that the freeze in securitization reflects a lack of trust in Wall Street and its products and remains a huge obstacle to the resumption of lending that’s vital to an economic recovery.

Enter the Federal Reserve. It now props up the secondary market for pooled loans that are vital to the functioning of the U.S. financial system. The Fed is lending money to investors who’re willing to buy the safest pools of loans, called asset-backed securities.

Through Sept. 3 , the Fed had funded purchases of $817.6 billion in mortgage-backed securities. These securities were pooled mostly by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae , Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae . In recent months, the Fed also has moved aggressively to lend for purchase of pools of other consumer-based loans.

Today, there’s little private-sector demand for new loan-based securities; government is virtually the only game in town. That’s why on Aug. 17 , the Fed announced that it would extend its program to finance the purchase of pools of loans until mid-2010. That suggests there’s still a long way to go before a functioning securitization market — the backbone of consumer lending — returns to a semblance of normalcy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090908/pl_mcclatchy/3307834_1

Obama Youth: Homeland Security Wants To Recruit Girl Scouts

September 11, 2009

100909top

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, September 10, 2009

The latest disturbing example of how the federal government, under the umbrella of Obama’s “civilian security force,” is recruiting young people to serve the state comes with the announcement that the Department of Homeland Security is planning to enlist the Girl Scouts.

“The United States wants to enlist its 3.4 million Girl Scouts in the effort to combat hurricanes, pandemics, terror attacks and other disasters. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched a campaign Tuesday to entice the blue, brown and green-clad multitudes to be even more prepared, with the promise of a new patch if they pitch in,” reports AFP.

The girls will be allowed to emblazon their sashes or vests with the new DHS patch if they complete training courses, according to the article.

The news that Girl Scouts are to be recruited for disaster preparedness by the federal government follows similar programs being run by the DHS that train Boy Scouts how to conduct armed raids on discontented American citizens, described as “terrorists” and “drug dealers” by Homeland Security.

As we reported back in May when the program was announced, one of the “terrorists” that the Boy Scouts were trained to kill in one scenario was actually a disgruntled U.S. war veteran.

In the mock training scenario, the Boy Scouts were ordered to, “Put him on his face and put a knee in his back,” by a Border Patrol agent, who added “I guarantee that he’ll shut up.”

Given recent concerns over the DHS definition of “right wing extremists” and the agency’s penchant to affiliate veterans, gun owners, Ron Paul supporters and even those who question the mainstream media with terrorists, one wonders exactly who the Boy Scouts and now the Girl Scouts are being trained to target.

Both programs will do nothing to quell concerns that President  Barack Obama’s promised “national civilian security force” is gradually being formed from such groups in a wider effort to oppress political opposition to Obama’s domestic agenda by demonizing opponents, flames that were fanned further recently when Obama’s own website described its political adversaries as “right-wing domestic terrorists”.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-youth-homeland-security-wants-to-recruit-girl-scouts/

Rep. Wilson is Right – Government Will Provide Obamacare to Illegals

September 11, 2009

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
September 10, 2009

Last night, in the middle of Obama’s corporate media prime-time address on health care, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson accused Obama of lying about illegals and health care. Wilson made his accusation after Obama pointed at the Republican side of the aisle and criticized them for opposing the government plan during his speech to a joint session of Congress.

Democrats have called for disciplinary action against Wilson, even though he quickly backed down, apologized for his outburst, and went so far as to scrape and grovel before White House Chief of Staff and political enforcer Rahm Emanuel.

For Democrats, this was not enough. “There’ll be time enough to consider whether or not we ought to make it clear that that action is unacceptable in the House of Representatives,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

“It’s time for us to talk about health care, not Mr. Wilson,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Indeed, it is time to talk about the government’s plan to take over health care, as Pelosi suggests.

Early last month, the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee defeated an amendment which would have excluded illegal aliens from Obama’s totalitarian health care bill. The Democrat-dominated committee voted 23-18 to defeat the measure introduced by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV), which would have required the use of the existing Income and Eligibility Verification System and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements System before care is dispensed.

In other words, there would be no way to verify the citizenship of those seeking care under Obama’s government plan.

CNN reported last month the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan policy research arm of Congress, found that without a citizenship verification system illegal aliens would receive subsidies. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, told CNN the report “undermines the claims of the president and others that illegal immigrants would not be covered under the House version of the bill.”

“Democrats can keep claiming all they want that illegal immigrants will not be covered in this bill. But their actions speak louder than their words. Democrats have rejected opportunities to close the gaping loopholes in this health care bill that will allow illegal immigrants to participate,” House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith said after the CRS report was released. “If President Obama is committed to ensuring that illegal immigrants do not benefit from the bill – as he says he is – why not include the same verification mechanisms in this bill as already exist for other federal benefits programs?”

In addition, undocumented immigrants who live in the United States for a certain period of time during the year would be classified as residents and would meet the substantial presence test required under HR 3200 to have health insurance, according to the report.

Pelosi said Wilson’s outburst during Obama’s speech shows the “bankruptcy” of Republicans’ ideas on health care, the Washington Post reports.

In fact, it shows how the Democrats in league with the corporate media are attempting to ram Obama’s totalitarian health care plan down the throat of the American people and stifle opposition.

http://www.infowars.com/rep-wilson-is-right-government-will-provide-obamacare-to-illegals/

China alarmed by US money printing

September 10, 2009

121381430479539900

The US Federal Reserve’s policy of printing money to buy Treasury debt threatens to set off a serious decline of the dollar and compel China to redesign its foreign reserve policy, according to a top member of the Communist hierarchy.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Cheng Siwei, former vice-chairman of the Standing Committee and now head of China’s green energy drive, said Beijing was dismayed by the Fed’s recourse to “credit easing”.

“We hope there will be a change in monetary policy as soon as they have positive growth again,” he said at the Ambrosetti Workshop, a policy gathering on Lake Como.

“If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation, and after a year or two the dollar will fall hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in US bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies,” he said.

China’s reserves are more than – $2 trillion, the world’s largest.

“Gold is definitely an alternative, but when we buy, the price goes up. We have to do it carefully so as not to stimulate the markets,” he added.

The comments suggest that China has become the driving force in the gold market and can be counted on to
buy whenever there is a price dip, putting a floor under any correction.

Mr Cheng said the Fed’s loose monetary policy was stoking an unstable asset boom in China. “If we raise interest rates, we will be flooded with hot money. We have to wait for them. If they raise, we raise.

“Credit in China is too loose. We have a bubble in the housing market and in stocks so we have to be very careful, because this could fall down.”

Mr Cheng said China had learned from the West that it is a mistake for central banks to target retail price inflation and take their eye off assets.

“This is where Greenspan went wrong from 2000 to 2004,” he said. “He thought everything was alright because inflation was low, but assets absorbed the liquidity.”

Mr Cheng said China had lost 20m jobs as a result of the crisis and advised the West not to over-estimate the role that his country can play in global recovery.

China’s task is to switch from export dependency to internal consumption, but that requires a “change in the ideology of the Chinese people” to discourage excess saving. “This is very difficult”.

Mr Cheng said the root cause of global imbalances is spending patterns in US (and UK) and China.

“The US spends tomorrow’s money today,” he said. “We Chinese spend today’s money tomorrow. That’s why we have this financial crisis.”

Yet the consequences are not symmetric.

“He who goes borrowing, goes sorrowing,” said Mr Cheng.

It was a quote from US founding father Benjamin Franklin.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6146957/China-alarmed-by-US-money-printing.html

“It’s The Vaccines Stupids!” “It’s The Vaccines Stupids!”

September 9, 2009

15074

Part I: Evidence Linking Autism Rise in Children to Vaccinations

by F. William Engdahl

The WHO and US Government CDC are escalating a public psychological conditioning to create hysteria and panic among an uninformed public about an alleged “virus” H1N1 Influenza A, aka Swine Flu, whose alleged effects to date appear comparable with a common cold. Before people line up in the streets demanding their vaccinations for their children and themselves, it would be wise to remember, to paraphrase a 1992 campaign statement of Bill Clinton to George H.W. Bush: “It’s the vaccination, Stupid!”

By countless scientific accounts, far more dangerous to human health than any reported incidences of Swine Flu are the dangers of severe health issues including paralysis, brain damage and even death arising from what is added to vaccines by virtually every major vaccine maker. Almost without exception, all commercial vaccines today contain various substances known as adjuvants designed to make the vaccine “work.” These adjuvants are the source of horrendous and sometimes deadly damage.

It has been speculated for some time that there might be a link in the alarming rise in cases of autism among tiny infants and children and massive multiple vaccinations today given routinely to infants and children from the first hours of birth. There is clear and shocking evidence of the link between the two. If you do not have a strong constitution, you are advised not to read further.

A new study shows a direct link between standard childhood vaccination series, MMR, and autism-like symptoms in monkeys. The principal scientist involved in the study, Dr. Laura Hewitson of the University of Pittsburgh, presented the alarming conclusions as an abstract pending publication at the International Meeting for Autism Research. It has been presented at scientific conferences in both London and Seattle, USA.

The study compared vaccinated macaque monkeys with non-vaccinated macaques. No major flaws in the study have been revealed by any attending scientist. The vaccines included the popular MMR series. The study found a marked increase in “gastrointestinal tissue gene expression” and “inflammation issues” with those monkeys which received vaccinations. They are a common symptom of children with regressive autism.

The study also found marked behavior changes and development differences in those monkeys given the vaccines versus those who were not. “Compared with unexposed animals, significant neuro-developmental deficits were evident for exposed animals in survival reflexes, tests of color discrimination and reversal, and learning sets,” the study`s authors reported. “Differences in behaviors were observed between exposed and unexposed animals and within the exposed group before and after MMR vaccination.”

US Government-mandated research approved by Congress was to begin this year, but the funds were rescinded in early January. Claiming “conflict of interest” because of ongoing court cases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a long-time supporter of infant vaccinations, withdrew the research plans.

The most shocking of all is the recent and now common medical practice, reinforced by an aggressive pharmaceutical industry, of giving multiple vaccines, often virtually within hours of birth, to infants despite the fact that no study including all of the vaccine series commonly given to children in the US and UK, about 30 in all, has been conducted until now. The practice of newborn multiple vaccinations has become widespread in Germany and other EU countries over the past decade. Significantly there have surfaced reports of dramatically increased instances of autism in newborn and infants in various German hospitals over the past decade, precisely the period multiple vaccinations of newborn and infants has become routine.

US Government coverup

Tragically, the US Government agency theoretically entrusted with guarding public health, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as with the case of health dangers of GMO foods, as well with the dramatic evidence of the link between autism and adjuvants used in typical vaccines, is accepting the argument of big and politically powerful Pharmaceutical companies.

The Food and Drug Administration considers vaccines safe but, just as with GMO, they have done no studies into the effects of multiple vaccinations as given in the common childhood series which started in the 1990s in the USA and spread to the UK and now across the EU.

According to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., son of the late Attorney General and an attorney active in campaigning to expose mercury (Thimerosal) and other toxicity dangers in vaccines, recently stated, “as autism is a behavioral affliction rather than a precisely defined biological injury — epidemiological studies are critical to establishing its causation. But the greatest source of epidemiological data is the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) — the government maintained medical records of hundreds of thousands of vaccinated children — which Health and Human Services Department has gone to great lengths to keep out of the hands of plaintiffs’ attorneys and independent scientists…The raw data collected in the VSD would undoubtedly provide the epidemiological evidence needed to understand the relationship between vaccines and autism. The absence of such studies makes it easy for judges to say to plaintiffs they have not met their burden of proving causation.”

Autism was virtually unknown in the United States until 1943 when it was diagnosed and identified eleven months after Thimerosal, a mercury-based vaccine “adjuvant” was first added to baby vaccines along with various aluminium compounds in the United States. Thimerosal is often used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines despite massive evidence of its severe effects as a potent neurotoxin. Following independent studies, Russia, Japan, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Britain have banned Thimersol from childrens’ vaccines. Germany to date has no such ban. The toxin was developed in 1930 by Eli Lilly. Tragically in 1991, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary the US Government’s Center for Disease Control (CDC), the same agency fuelling the current hysteria over the non-proven H1N1 Swine Flu virus danger, recommended that infants be injected with a series of  mercury-containing vaccines in some cases within 24 hours of birth for Hepatitis B and two months for diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

Before 1989 US pre-school children received eleven vaccinations—polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR). By 1999, because of the various CDC recommendations, the number of vaccinations was twenty two before first grade of school. Parallel with this explosive rise in vaccinations of the very young in the United States, according to Kennedy, the rate of autism among children. The state ofIowa reported a 700% increase in autism in children beginning in the 1990’s and along with California has banned mercury in vaccines. Despite evidence, however the US FDA continues to allow drug makers to include Thimerosal  in numerous over-the-counter non-prescription medications as well as steroids and injected collagen. The US Government ships vaccines preserved with Thimerosal to numerous developing countries as well, where some are reporting sudden explosion of autism rates as well. In China, where autism was unknown before introduction of Thimerosal by US drug makers in 1999, press reports indicate there are almost two million autistic children.

Instances of autism in the US exploded as some 40 million children were injected during the 1990’s with Thimersol-based vaccines, giving them unprecedented accumulations of mercury poison. The level of ethylmercury in a vaccine routinely given then to children of two months age was 99 times greater than the US Government’s daily limit for exposure. As with the current WHO pandemic declaration around H1N1 Swine Flu, the CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee is filled with scientists with close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Sam Katz, chairman of the committee was a paid consultant to most companies producing the vaccines he “recommended.”

The aluminium danger remains

While vaccines available in the US today exist with no Thimerosal (50% mercury), virtually all vaccines still contain aluminum, which has been linked to impaired neurological development in children. Aluminum has not replaced thimerosal as a vaccine preservative; it has always been used in vaccines.

In the recent past, most US chioldren got exposed to both thimerosal and aluminum simultaneously with the hepatitis B, Hib, DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) and pneumococcal vaccines. Combining mercury with aluminum increases the likelihood that the mercury will damage human tissue.

According to a recent report by Michael Wagnitz, an American chemist, “Currently eight childhood vaccines that contain aluminum ranging from 125 to 850 micrograms (mcg). These vaccines are administered 17 times in the first 18 months of life, an almost six-fold increase compared to the vaccine schedule of the 1980s.”

Wagnitz adds, “According to the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, based on IV feeding solutions, a child should not exceed a maximum daily dose of 5 mcg of aluminum per kilogram of weight per day. That means if a child weighs 11 pounds, the child should not exceed 25 mcg in a day. This level was determined to be the maximum safety limit based on a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Aluminum Neurotoxicity in Preterm Infants Receiving Intravenous Feeding Solutions.”

The hepatitis B vaccine, administered at birth, contains 250 mcg.

In a 1996 policy statement, “Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children,” the American Academy of Pediatrics states, “Aluminum can cause neurological harm. People with kidney disease who build up bloodstream levels of aluminum greater than 100 mcg per liter are at risk of toxicity. The toxic threshold of aluminum in the bloodstream may be lower than 100 mcg per liter.” What level of aluminium toxicity is contained in vaccines routinely given German, French and other children n the EU is not known. It might be time for a public demand for such information to be disclosed, and before governments launch mass vaccination campaigns for untested vaccines against a non-proven H1N1 Swine Flu threat.

F. William Engdahl is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by F. William Engdahl

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15074

Obama May Need Sense of Crisis to Revive Health-Care Overhaul

September 9, 2009

“The guys a dick. Face up to it.”

-Fred Face 9/08/09

barack-obama-bw1

By Julianna Goldman and Nicholas Johnston

Bloomberg.com

Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama returns to Washington next week in search of one thing that can revive his health-care overhaul: a sense of crisis.

Facing polls showing a drop in his approval, diminished support from independents, factions within his Democratic Party and a united Republican opposition, Obama must recapture the sense of urgency that led to passage of the economic rescue package in February, analysts said.

“At the moment, except for the people without insurance, we’re not in a health-care crisis,” said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington. “You do need a crisis to generate movement in Congress and to help build a consensus.”

Obama speaks to labor leaders on Sept. 7 and to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9 as he attempts to rebuild support for his top domestic priority, one that affects 17 percent of the economy. Lawmakers, trying to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and rein in costs, are considering mandates on employers to provide coverage, new rules for insurers, and creating a government program to compete with private insurers such as Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc.

Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said the administration made unprecedented health-care progress in eight months.

‘Not There Yet’

“We gave Congress a charge, we gave them broad outlines, which is the reason we are farther along than any of the five presidents that have tried,” Emanuel said in an interview yesterday. “We’re not there yet, and this speech is intended to finish the job.”

Presidential speeches historically do little to move public opinion significantly, saidGeorge Edwards, author of “The Strategic President: Persuasion and Opportunity in Presidential Leadership.”

“This is almost like a Hail Mary, because they know that they’re substantially behind and the trajectory is negative for them,” Edwards said.

Unlike the financial crisis he inherited, the health-care debate is of Obama’s making and places a different burden on him, Edwards said.

“The best thing in presidential leadership is to recognize and exploit opportunities,” said Edwards. “The White House overestimated the nature of the opportunity.”

Stimulus Debate

Obama’s economic stimulus was debated as the Dow Jones Industrial Averagedropped 18 percent from Nov. 4, 2008, to Feb. 13, when Congress approved the legislation. Unemployment had risen to more than 7 percent.

On the stimulus, Obama was able to say “that unless we do X right now, and X is pretty painful and pretty expensive, there is a serious danger in the next few weeks that the entire financial system will come crashing down,” said Bill Galston, a former official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, now a Brookings Institution scholar in Washington.

Emanuel remarked at the time that a crisis was a terrible thing to waste, and Obama pushed for health-care overhaul and energy legislation along with financial and auto bailouts.

He has framed health-care legislation as part of his long- term strategy to improve the economy. Republicans focused on the potential impact on patients. Throughout the summer and in town halls, Republican opponents said Obama wanted a government takeover of the system and creation of panels to decide end-of- life issues.

Democratic Critics

Within the Democratic Party, critics say Obama hasn’t pushed universal health care and others say the overhaul would balloon the federal deficit.

Obama “has said about this issue continually, if it was easy it would have been done by now,” said White House Communications Director Anita Dunn.

Obama’s difficulty on health care is compounded by broader economic worries. While 36 percent of Americans say the economy is getting better, only 10 percent see improvements in their households, according to a CBS poll at the end of August.

“People are not convinced the president’s strategy has helped their family during the economic downturn,” said Robert Blendon, a health-policy pollster at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “That has forced them to be more skeptical towards the president’s health-care proposals.”

Less than a fifth of Americans say a health-care overhaul will help them personally, compared to 31 percent who think the government’s efforts will hurt, and 46 percent who say it will have no effect, the CBS poll showed.

‘Not a Crisis’

“There is a problem in our health-care system today, and we need reform; it’s not a crisis,” said Ed Gillespie, White House counselor to President George W. Bush. “It’s just people saying this is way too much, way too fast, we don’t know where this money is going and we don’t know where it’s coming from.”

The CBS survey of 1,097 Americans Aug. 27-31 found Obama’s approval fell 12 percentage points from a high of 68 percent in April to 56 percent; the error margin is 3 percentage points.

A survey of 4,518 likely voters by Zogby International Aug. 28-31 put Obama’s approval rating at a record-low 42 percent; it also showed he’s well liked.

“He’s got to get control of his presidency,” said John Zogby, president of Zogby International. “There’s a way out of this. Some of it is going to have to be his personality and his ability to frame messages, which is still good.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5HawfX.Mxt8

United Nations conference calls for new global currency

September 9, 2009

UnitedNationsImage2

BY STEPHEN C. WEBSTER

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development said in a report published Monday that the U.S. dollar should be replaced as the world’s standard reserve currency, giving rise to a new global currency managed by an as-yet undetermined financial regulatory organization.

Heiner Flassbeck, director of the conference, told Bloomberg News that changes needed in the world’s financial systems rival the scope of the Bretton Woods or European Monetary System agreements.

The Bretton Woods agreement established in 1944 the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, following allied victory in World War II.

“[The] dominance of the dollar as the main means of international payments [has] played an important role in the build-up of the global imbalances in the run-up to the financial crisis,” the report says. “Another disadvantage of the current international reserve system is that it imposes a greater adjustment burden on deficit countries (except if it is a country issuing a reserve currency) than on surplus countries.”

The UN adds: “Such a multilateral system would tackle the problem of destabilizing capital flows at its source. It would remove a major incentive for speculation and ensure that monetary factors do not stand in the way of achieving a level playing field for international trade. It would also get rid of debt traps and counterproductive conditionality. The last point is perhaps the most important one: countries facing strong depreciation pressure would automatically receive the required assistance once a sustainable level of the exchange rate had been reached in the form of swap agreements or direct intervention by the counterparty.”

The move should not be surprising to observers of global economics, as a U.N. panel of currency experts came to the same conclusion in March, according to Reuters.

The conference specifically emphasizes the enhancement of the International Monetary Fund’s “special drawing right” (SDR), which may serve as the “supranational” currency.

World-wide shake-up
The past year has seen a dramatic shake-up in oversight and management of the U.S. and global economies.

For months, Russia and China have been calling for a new world reserve currency.

Russia, for its part, supports replacing the dollar on the world stage, suggesting the Chinese yuan may be the quickest path to diversified reserves.

“There is a need to make the IMF a true representative of the world’s leading economies. It’s not there right now,” said Russian finance minister Alexei Kudrin in June, noting that China had a lower representation quota than Switzerland or Belgium.

Kudrin also said he did not expect to see any new monetary unions rise, although the Gulf states agreed in May to use Saudi Arabia as a base for a pending “monetary union” and new central banking authority.

The issue of IMF reform should therefore be raised “in earnest, in a bold way,” Kudrin said, adding countries should be “represented in proportion to the strength of these economies and their role in the world economy.”

Over the weekend, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner argued successfully tostrengthen the “Basel II” framework for international commerce, which would see all G20 member nations increase their currency liquidity and allow centralized, “global supervision” of financial industries. The Obama administration is committed to full compliance with the framework by 2011.

The Group of 20 finance ministers and central bank governors plan to meet in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on Sept. 24 and 25. Several major liberal groups are planning demonstrations, including the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition. The city has alreadysecured a deal to use National Guard troops to provide a security buffer for the world’s financial elite during their meeting.

Also on Sunday, a key Chinese official predicted that the dollar’s increasing supply, which grows with added liquidity, meant the currency could “fall hard” within “a year or two.” The official also signaled that China is moving its reserves away from the dollar and toward gold, euros and yen.

Washington has staunchly defended the dollar as the world’s reserve, with President Obama, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner all insisting there is no need for a new global reserve currency.

The UN report which makes the recommendations is available online (PDF link).

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/07/united-nations-calls-for-new-world-currency/

Charlie Sheen Requests Meeting With Obama Over 9/11 Cover-Up

September 9, 2009

080909top3

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Actor and television star Charlie Sheen has publicly requested a meeting with President Barack Obama to urge him to reopen the official investigation into 9/11 in light of the fact that the majority of the 9/11 Commission members have now publicly gone on record to express their conviction that the government agreed to lie about the official story.

Sheen’s request takes the form of a letter to the President in the context of a fictional meeting between the two entitled “20 Minutes With The President,” published exclusively on radio talk show host Alex Jones’ Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com websites.

The letter cites evidence, backed up by a substantial online bibliography, that proves the official story behind 9/11 is a fraud and that this conclusion was also reached by the majority of the 9/11 Commission members, a fact that mandates President Obama to reopen the investigation into the terrorist attacks.

Sheen expresses his hope that President Obama will follow through on his promises of change, accountability and government transparency by using his executive powers to re-examine 9/11, adding that he voted for Obama with the understanding that he would follow a different course to the Bush administration.

However, as Sheen highlights in his letter, the course of Obama’s first year in office clearly indicates that he will do nothing to reverse policies crafted by the Bush regime, and in fact has sought to exceed outrages of the previous administration in areas such as warrantless wiretapping, rendition, detention without trial, and wars in the Middle East – all of which arrived as a consequence of 9/11.

Sheen’s letter is a public declaration demanding the truth behind 9/11 as America approaches its eighth anniversary since the tragic events of that day. His questions are shared by a majority of victims’ family members, according to Bill Doyle, the representative of the largest 9/11 families group.

The letter focuses around the fact that no less than 60 per cent of the 9/11 commissioners have now publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.

Sheen also presents a plethora of other evidence to illustrate how the official story is a fraud, including the revelations of whistle blowers like FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who recently broke a Federal gag order to expose how Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were working for the U.S. government right up until the day of 9/11.

The issues highlighted by Sheen do not represent idle speculation or conspiracy fodder, they are documented facts that have been deliberately ignored by strawman 9/11 truth hit pieces that are now doing the rounds again as the anniversary approaches, particularly last months’ 9/11: Science and Conspiracy which was aired by the National Geographic Channel and wasted little time in portraying people who have doubts about the official 9/11 story as extremist cranks, while failing to acknowledge that the majority of the members of the 9/11 Commission have publicly expressed similar concerns.

Charlie Sheen is once again using his prominent public platform in an attempt to expand a national debate about the disturbing unanswered questions behind 9/11, having first spoken out on the issue in March 2006. After he first went public, Sheen was asked to do more and now he is doing more as he feels there is a chance to get more traction behind a new investigation with a new President in the White House.

Sheen is directly appealing to Barack Obama to read his letter and to look into the lies surrounding 9/11 for himself.

Regardless of whether or not President Obama agrees to meet with him, Sheen is confident that his letter will serve as a catalyst from which questions surrounding 9/11 and other false flag events will be brought to national attention.

This is a call to action and a declaration of war on the lies of 9/11 that have formed the foundation of the endless wars abroad and the police state at home as the Republic falls. Sheen is demanding that truth activists and those who simply care about the future of the country stand up beside him and speak truth to power.

Sheen is now urging grass roots political organizations and individuals across the country, such as the town hall protesters and We Are Change groups, to go to press conferences and other public events and demand answers about the truth behind 9/11. As much awareness as possible around the issue of false flag terrorism needs to be generated in order to prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again. Sheen emphasizes in his letter that we cannot let 9/11 become ancient history, try and forget about it or just move on, because if a nation forgets its history then it is doomed to repeat it.

We cannot allow governments to continue to advance their political agendas by exploiting forged pretexts, argues Sheen, and the fact that big budget hit pieces against 9/11 truth are still being rolled out proves that the establishment is upset that the population is waking up to false flag terror.

Sheen will appear live on The Alex Jones Show on Wednesday and Friday to discuss the content of his “20 Minutes With The President” piece and how he plans to move forward with this exciting new initiative. You can listen free here or subscribe to prison planet.tv to watch live streaming video.

No matter what your views are on 9/11, Sheen is begging the thinking public to look at how manymembers of the 9/11 Commission itself have questioned the official story, along with the scores of other highly credible former and current government officials, intelligence professionals, military officials, scientists, structural engineers and architects, and legal scholars who have all publicly denounced the fraud that continues to masquerade as the official 9/11 story.

For media requests on this subject email sheen@infowars.com.

http://www.infowars.com/charlie-sheen-requests-meeting-with-obama-over-911-cover-up/

Related Story:

Twenty Minutes with the President

http://www.infowars.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president/

We are Living in an Artificially Induced State of Consciousness

September 9, 2009

dog2

Nathan Janes
Infowars
September 8, 2009

Since its inception in American homes in the late 1930’s, television has essentially given America it’s culture. Today, television watching is the most popular leisure activity as more and more people are choosing the fantasy world of TV over engaging with others in real communication and experiences. Where people once wanted to explore the wonders of the world and nature, now many explore the world outside their homes only through what they view on television. Once a vast majority is living the same reality through television, then they are more predictable and easily managed. The television does an excellent job placing everyone that watches it on the same page, all sharing the same views, worries, interests, and idols.

Through the television, we are trained from birth to death as to what to believe. Many studies have demonstrated that the young unquestioningly accept whatever reality is presented by television. Impressionable children will often spend hours in front of the television each day as it is used as a trust worthy babysitter. As they sit down for their daily intake of cartoons, children’s programming and commercials, many parents fail to realize what lessons the television is teaching their children. And so culture and norms of behavior are often more strongly influenced by what is on television rather than by what parents are teaching children. The parents of today grew up in front of the television as well and so the television is not often questioned and instead accepted as a part of the family’s daily life. Children who grow up in front of the TV learn to arrange their lives around TV programming and will likely grow up to be adults who get their entertainment, news, and information from it.

Heavy television watching is culturally accepted and expected in our society. In fact, the act of not watching TV can actually offend some people. With the average American adult watching more than 4 hours of television each day, the television plays a major role in continually creating the reality in which we live. Those who create the television programming- the 6 corporations and little over 100 board members who control all American mass media outlets shape this reality. The interests of these corporations and those who lead them are to make money for both the media corporations and those corporations that the board members have special ties to. Rather than creating television shows that engages critical thinking and keeps Americans well informed on topics that may affect their well being, the TV causes us to see ourselves as consumers who need to be entertained. Television is creating a culture of occupied minds- an apathetic and passive population only interested in being entertained by mindless trivia with no interest in analyzing information and instead relying on the TV for all answers.

TV has lead us into a world controlled by science and run by experts. In predicting a “Scientific Dictatorship,” Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World and well known for his studies on the development of new techniques by which to control and direct human behavior, described a world run by experts, which isn’t hard to imagine when we’ve been trained through our television sets to always listen to experts. Major media promotes experts on just about every topic you can imagine while implying that the public is too dumb or uneducated to make their own decisions about such topics as vaccinations, financial management, and medical interventions. In this way, the television is creating in individuals a sense of learned helplessness, leaving us dependent on those given to us as experts to direct our decisions and actions.

The act of watching TV regularly is obedience to those in control. For total control in any system, everyone must be predictable. TV creates a collectivism society, where to be an individual is seen as an enemy to the peace within the collective society. Groupthink is essential in a society where everyone is to be controlled by those in power. Aldous Huxley once said, “It is possible to make people contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the past. I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with bread and circuses and you can provide them with endless amounts of distractions and propaganda.”

http://www.infowars.com/we-are-living-in-an-artificially-induced-state-of-consciousness/

Yet Another Anti-gun Obama Nominee

September 9, 2009

*GOA

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Just when you thought the news about the Obama administration couldn’t get any worse, gun owners find themselves needing to rally the troops once again.

This time it’s the proposed “Regulatory Czar” who will be coming to a vote this week in the U.S. Senate.

His name is Cass Sunstein, and he holds some of the kookiest views you will ever hear.

Interview with this dip shit:  http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=7207

cass-sunstein



For starters, Sunstein believes in regulating hunting out of existence.  He told a Harvard audience in 2007 that “we ought to ban hunting.” And in The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer(2002), he said:

I think we should go further … the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering.  It is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities.  (Italics are his emphasis.)

If that’s all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky.  Unfortunately, when you look at WHY he wants to restrict hunting, this is where he goes beyond extreme.  

In Sunstein’s world, animals should have just as many rights as people … and they should be able to sue humans in court!

“We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are persons, or that they are not property,” Sunstein said on page 11 of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions(2004).

Well, that’s a relief … he is at least willing to concede that animals are not persons!  But he would still have animals suing humans, apparently, with more enlightened humans representing the cuddly critters. 

Imagine returning from a successful hunting trip … only to find out that you’ve been subpoenaed for killing your prize.  Who knows, maybe Sunstein would have the family of the dead animal serving as witnesses in court!

By the way, if you’re wondering what he thinks about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you won’t be surprised to know that Sunstein is a huge supporter of gun control.  

In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America(2005), Sunstein says:

Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine…. [O]n the Constitution’s text, fundamentalists [that is, gun rights supporters] should not be so confident in their enthusiasm for invalidating gun control legislation.

Hmm, what part of “shall not be infringed” does Sunstein not understand?

Imagine the power that Sunstein could have as the Regulatory Czar — the nickname for the person heading the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House.

As the Regulatory Czar, he could bring about changes in the regulations that affect hunting, gun control and farming.  In short, he could make your life hell.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) objected to his nomination several weeks ago, preventing him from being unanimously confirmed.

That means that the Senate will now need to garner 60 votes to confirm this radical, kooky choice to the OIRA.

No doubt, many of the people our President wants to associate with are radical kooks.  First, there was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright … then there was the self-avowed communist (Van Jones) who was nominated for the Green Jobs Czar … now, there’s an extreme animal rights activist who wants to take away our guns and get Bambi to sue us in court.

It’s time to take a STRONG STAND against this radical administration.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators right away and urge them to vote AGAINST the Cass Sunstein nomination.  You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Centerat http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.  



—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

I urge you to vote AGAINST Cass Sunstein as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as I am very concerned about the impact this “Regulatory Czar” would have upon firearms and hunting.

Sunstein told a Harvard audience in 2007 that “we ought to ban hunting.”  If that were all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky.  Unfortunately, in Sunstein’s world, animals should have just as many rights as people … and they should be able to sue humans in court!  

Moreover, he is a firm supporter of gun control.  In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America(2005), Sunstein says that, “Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if Sunstein is part of the small minority — 11% of Americans, according to a Zogby/O’Leary poll in August — who opposes licensed concealed carry. 

I hope you will understand that Cass Sunstein’s views are WAY OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM of American thought and that you should vote NO on this radical, kooky nomination.

Sincerely,

(Your Name)

***************

****************

*******************

Once Again… To Send All You Gun Control People Hurdling Back To Reality… Cause God Knows You Chose Not To Live In It:

German Government Advisor Proposes Personal CO2 Budget For Everyone On Planet

September 8, 2009

“This is why a lot of us amazingly handsome and astute humans have been trying to tell people WHY global warming is a huge production of a hoax.  It’s to bleed you suckers more dry with taxes you’d throw yourself in front of a bus to pay because you think your carbon ass-print is gonna make the world explode.”

“Just because Brad Pitt doesn’t have the brain capacity to understand that he is selling you something straight from the minds of some of the most evil people who pollute this land and his babies daddy Al Gore seems like a harmless shark-headed human in his natural habitat doesn’t mean they are right. Smarten up butter-cups and stop listening to semi-retarded celebrities. I’m broke and I can’t afford any more taxes on the account of  lazy-azz brains.”

(Yes, WE DO need to take better care of the Earth but apocalypse, no,  check out the factual science and the natural cooling & heating trends of this earth-thing where you live).

-Fred Face 9/07/09

070909top

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, September 7, 2009

The top climate science advisor to the German government has proposed that everyone on the planet should have a personal CO2 budget and be forced to pay a tax if they exceed it, adding that westerners have already exceeded their allocations and should pay climate reparations to poorer countries.

This is not just another tax being rammed through using the phony pretext of global warming, it’s the entrée for complete government tracking and control over your personal life. This is the “inventory” that Nancy Pelosi called for during her visit to China in May.

On May 28, the Associated Press reported that Pelosi told a Chinese student that in order to cut back on CO2 emissions, “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory.”

German climate scientist Joachim Schellnhuber is pushing for the same thing – the nanny state on steroids.

How will a personal CO2 budget be enforced? Every plane ticket you buy, every time you fill up at the station, every mile of every journey you make will be fed into a centralized government database, creating a leviathan matrix system to catalogue every aspect of your personal behavior. Exceed your personal carbon budget and you’ll be hit with a hefty fine, with the majority of the proceeds no doubt going straight to the huge international banking interests that own the carbon trading market, mainly N M Rothschild & Sons, as well as people like Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This CO2 tax will bankroll the very same globalist interests, specifically groups like the Club of Rome, that resolved decades ago to invent hysteria surrounding climate change in order to advance their agenda for global government.

“Schellnhuber is proposing the creation of a CO2 budget for every person on the planet, regardless whether they live in Berlin or Beijing,” reports Der Spiegel, a “breathtaking” idea according to Czech physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, who said Schellnhuber’s proposal helped him “to understand how crazy political movements such as the Nazis or communists could have so easily taken over a nation that is as sensible as Germany.”

Schellnhuber goes further, claiming that westerners have already exceeded their CO2 allocations and will need to pay climate reparations to poorer countries amounting to no less than $142 billion dollars a year, every year.

“Humankind has to limit itself to emit only fixed amount of carbon into the atmosphere until 2050. […] Because the industrialized nations have already exceeded their quotas if you take into account past emissions. […] With the current output you see that Germany, the US and other industrialized nations have either already used up their permissible quota, or will do so within the next few years. […] The industrialized nations are facing CO2 insolvency. This means that they have to notch up their efforts to reduce climate change, otherwise they will use up the CO2 budget actually designated to poorer countries and future generations,” he told Der Spiegel.

The proposal mirrors similar measures called for by MP’s in Britain, which would force every adult to use a “carbon ration card’ when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy.”

The next step has also already been floated. Should you become a serial carbon offender, no doubt your thermostat will be forcibly turned down by the government via remote control. Sound too far fetched? According to a January 2008 New York Times report, “State regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.”


http://www.infowars.com/german-government-advisor-proposes-personal-co2-budget-for-everyone-on-planet/

Glenn Beck is a Neocon (Not a Libertarian)

September 8, 2009

“Not to mention a flaming asshole of a freak.”

-F.F. 9/07/09

Secret US spontaneous human combustion beam tested

September 8, 2009

advanced_tactical_laser

By Lewis Page

American death-tech goliath Boeing has announced a long-delayed in-flight firing for the smaller of its two aeroplane raygun-cannon prototypes, the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL). The ATL blaster, mounted in a Hercules transport aircraft, apparently “defeated” an unoccupied stationary vehicle.

“This milestone demonstrates that directed energy weapon systems will transform the battlespace and save lives,” said Boeing exec Greg Hyslop. “The ATL team has earned a distinguished place in the history of weapon system development.”

“The bottom line is that ATL works, and works very well,” added corporate raygun honcho Gary Fitzmire.

The ATL is much smaller than Boeing’s headlining laser weapon, the jumbo-jet-mounted Airborne Laser (ABL), intended to blast enemy ICBMs as they soar upward from pad or silo. Rather the ATL is intended to pick off individual ground targets, somewhat in the fashion of existing Hercules-based side-firing AC-130 gunships. Indeed Boeing has referred to the ATL in the past as its “Laser Gunship”.

ATL does resemble the ABL in some important respects, however. Like the bigger weapon, it is a chemically-fuelled laser rather than a solid-state electrically powered one, meaning that it can fire only a limited number of blasts before its sealed, six-ton laser module must be maintained and refuelled with hazardous toxic chemicals.

Just how many shots the ATL can fire before being rearmed is unclear, but hints dropped by Pentagon sources suggest it could be as few as six. This compares poorly with the firepower available aboard a normal AC-130, leading some analysts to wonder what the point of the ATL really is.

Boeing say that it will offer “ultra-precision” and “dramatically reduce collateral damage”, though so far nothing of this sort has really been shown. A 40mm cannon aboard a normal AC-130 could “defeat” a stationary ground vehicle without damaging its surroundings: a .50-cal sniper rifle fired from a helicopter could do the same to a moving one.

It hasn’t escaped notice, however, that neither of those things could strike silently – perhaps from so far off that the carrying aircraft wouldn’t be noticed either – and without leaving any solid evidence of US military presence. Nor have observers failed to note that the US military agency in charge of ATL is the secretive Special Operations Command (SOCOM).

Boeing have evidently had some problems with the ATL – airborne test firings were expected last year, but this success didn’t happen until last Sunday. However it would seem that the system may soon be as ready for frontline use as it will ever be, at least until electric lasers without fuel limitations are weaponised.

In years to come, the secret supertroopers of SOCOM may be able to cause a cell tower to stop working, a vehicle’s fuel tank to suddenly explode, or a single person to inexplicably be incinerated – all completely silently and tracelessly, without anyone knowing they were ever there and not so much as a spent bullet left behind.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/02/atl_first_flight_test_against_target/

Wall Street wants to do to life insurance what it did to housing

September 7, 2009

estpl042908

By Daniel Tencer

The “securitization” of mortgages — bundling mortgage policies and selling them on to investors — is considered to be one of the major reasons for last year’s financial collapse.

Now, Wall Street banks want to do it all again — but this time, with life insurance policies instead of real estate.

The New York Times reports that large investment banks are lining up to begin securitizing “life settlements,” life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell so that they can get cash before they die.

According to the Times:

[Banks] plan to “securitize” these policies, in Wall Street jargon, by packaging hundreds or thousands together into bonds. They will then resell those bonds to investors, like big pension funds, who will receive the payouts when people with the insurance die.

The earlier the policyholder dies, the bigger the return — though if people live longer than expected, investors could get poor returns or even lose money.

Life settlement companies — companies that buy life insurance policies and cash in when the original policy holder dies — have been around for some time, but this would mark the first time that life insurance policies are turned into big business on Wall Street.

THE FASTER YOU DIE, THE MORE INVESTORS MAKE

One of the principal dangers in this plan is that it creates an incentive to see ill people die quickly. The investors who buy life insurance policies have to pay the premiums on those policies in order to collect when the original holder dies. So the faster an ill person dies, the fewer premiums have to be paid, and the higher the profit.

Conversely, life insurance securitization would create a disincentive for finding cures for diseases. If a person sells their life insurance policy and then their illness is cured, the investor who bought their policy loses money.

As the Times points out:

In addition to fraud, there is another potential risk for investors: that some people could live far longer than expected.

It is not just a hypothetical risk. That is what happened in the 1980s, when new treatments prolonged the life of AIDS patients. Investors who bought their policies on the expectation that the most victims would die within two years ended up losing money.

LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS WILL GO UP

A certain percentage of life insurance policies is never paid out by insurance companies. This is because some policy-holders stop paying their premiums, either because they no longer need the additional financial security or because the premiums have become too expensive.

But if life insurance policies are packaged and sold to investors, those investors will invariably pay the premium until the original policy holder dies. Insurance companies calculate their premiums on the expectation that some policies will lapse. If fewer policies lapse, the insurance industry will have to raise insurance premiums.

“This defeats the idea of what life insurance is supposed to be,” Steven Weisbart, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, told the Times. “It’s not an investment product, [it’s] a gambling product.”

PREYING ON THE WEAKEST?

One of the principal reasons people sell their life insurance policies is to be able to pay for their health care before they die. If the buying and selling of life insurance policies becomes big business, then there would be little incentive to reform health care, as reform would — presumably — make treatment more affordable, thereby reducing the number of people willing to sell their life insurance.

Thus the plan to securitize life insurance would likely create even more resistance among bankers and investors to any plan to reduce health care costs, or to introduce a public health care option. Indeed, a public health care option would eliminate the need for terminally ill people to seek new sources of money, thereby potentially decimating the life insurance securities market.

WHO’S INVOLVED?

The Times names two companies that it evidently believes to be heading up the effort to securitize life insurance. One is the Swiss bank Credit Suisse, and the other is investment bank Goldman Sachs.

Some financial firms are moving to outpace their rivals. Credit Suisse, for example, is in effect building a financial assembly line to buy large numbers of life insurance policies, package and resell them — just as Wall Street firms did with subprime securities.

The bank bought a company that originates life settlements, and it has set up a group dedicated to structuring deals and one to sell the products.

Goldman Sachs has developed a tradable index of life settlements, enabling investors to bet on whether people will live longer than expected or die sooner than planned. The index is similar to tradable stock market indices that allow investors to bet on the overall direction of the market without buying stocks.

According to the Economist, the life-settlement market in existence today is worth about $18 billion to $19 billion, meaning that about that amount of life insurance policies is bought and sold every year. The Times estimates that a securitized market for life insurance policies could be worth about $500 billion.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/05/wall-street-life-insurance/

Canada to stage mock Afghan attack in Washington

September 7, 2009

“This is like a story from the Onion but unfortunately it’s not. So, it makes this story very unfunny and insane.”

-F.F. 9/6/09

afghan-village03_209761gm-a

Paul Koring

Washington From Friday’s Globe and Mail

The Taliban will attack an Afghan village set up in the heart of Washington courtesy of the Canadian Forces, who will send in a medic in a dramatic effort to save a civilian crippled by the explosion.

At least four times over two days this month, simulated IED blasts will bring the Afghan war – and Canada’s combat role in Kandahar – home to Americans if an elaborate scheme based on modern training realism attracts widespread attention, as is hoped.

“If this works the way I want it to, more Americans will know what Canada is doing in Afghanistan,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Douglas Martin, a military attaché at the Canadian embassy.

A clutch of top American generals, powerful Capitol Hill players and Afghan experts from both sides of the border are expected at the two-day conference hosted by the embassy.

But the highlight will be the explosive blasts, simulating the powerful improvised explosive devices wreaking havoc in Afghanistan, to be staged twice a day.

Whether they will send jumpy tourists and Washingtonians on Pennsylvania Avenue fleeing in fear remains unknown, but embassy officials say they have a green light from the Secret Service, the State Department and the D.C. fire marshal.

The mock village, complete with a small souk and peopled by nearly a dozen Afghan actors, will be created in the courtyard of the Canadian embassy, halfway between the Capitol and the White House. A handful of Canadian soldiers and, Col. Martin hopes, U.S. Marines will arrive to “see the village leader” just as the IED blows up, “critically injuring” at least one Afghan, who will get immediate first aid from a Canadian medic.

“It should provide the full flavour of hyper-realistic training,” said Col. Martin, adding: “Absolutely, you are going to hear it out on Pennsylvania Avenue.”

The dramatic recreation of combat, using sophisticated simulations developed by American companies and used to train U.S. and Canadian troops before they are sent to Afghanistan, is intended to garner attention for the often overlooked Canadian combat effort.

“Unfortunately there are still a lot of Americans … who don’t know about how great the Canadian commitment is,” Col. Martin said.

Continue Retarded Article

Forced Catheterization Used In DUI Case

September 7, 2009

“It was the most humiliating thing that has ever happened to me, ever.”

boot-735943

“That is what this is all about. The TSA flight screening insanity, cops drawing your blood, not being able to take family photos in front of Washington D.C. landmarks, etc. It’s getting in your mind that YOU are the potential threat. It’s sick… really sick psychological warfare being committed by the same people who are creating this false terrorist threat. All in the guise of you and your kids safety.  They’ve broke you down this far without a stink. Whats next… Forced Vaccinations? DUI anal probing? It’s totally fucking cool. It’s the new thing. You’ll learn to love it!”

-Fred Face 9/6/09

tsa-frisking-nun

LAWRENCEBURG, Ind. — An Indiana man has filed a lawsuit claiming that police forcibly withdrew blood and urine from his body during a drunken driving arrest, WLWT-TV reported.According to the suit, police arrested Jamie Lockard, 53, on suspicion of drunken driving in March.A Breathalyzer test showed he was under the legal limit, but Officer Brian Miller doubted the findings. Lockard and his attorney claim in the suit that police took him to Dearborn County Hospital and forced him to submit to a urine and blood test.Police said they obtained a warrant, but Lockard’s attorney said his client was shackled to a gurney and had a catheter inserted against his will.”It has to be executed reasonably,” said attorney Doug Garner. “No one would say this is reasonable behavior. It’s reprehensible that anyone could think that this is appropriate.”The blood test showed that Lockard’s blood-alcohol level did not exceed Indiana’s legal limit, police said.Garner said the police officer did not apologize, but instead charged Lockard with obstruction of justice.”He took it too far. He thought he could do whatever to me,” Lockard said.The suit names the Lawrenceburg police department and Dearborn County Hospital, in addition to Miller and Dr. Ronald Cheek.”I would hate for this to happen to someone else,” Lockard said. “It was the most humiliating thing that has ever happened to me, ever.”

http://www.newsnet5.com/health/20703731/detail.html

(Somewhat) Related:
http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-5476-0-5-5–.html

Trucks Carrying Nuclear Weapons Around The Country Revealed

September 5, 2009

*WARNING* “Bored at work Editorial”

“This is fucked, (read story below). I can see it right now. Some C.I.A. backed (fake) terrorist blows up one of these blue night rider trucks. Then the story comes out how the identity of these trucks were released by “Freedom of Information Act.”

(So lets get the roll down of how this would benefit our insanely criminal U.S. government):

1. The government can have a lightning rod of an example for getting rid of the Freedom of Information Act.

2. They can use a “crazy white right-wing militia dude” (CIA op) terrorist as the mastermind of this attack. When asked his reason for carrying out the attack…. because he hates having a black president. Or they can go with the proverbial Arab terrorist… so they can continue to demonize another race of people, (and to keep Americans from “fully” caring), as our government commits nothing short of genocide in Iraq & Afghanistan.

So, how does this benefit the Government??:

3. They get rid of another tool, (Freedom of Information Act),  that Americans with brains can keep (minimal) tabs on their retardedly corrupt government.

4. They have a new group to demonize… good white people who speak out about the current administration. (As all of you know, who have a brain & a spine… it’s not because the president is black but because he’s as corrupt & fucked as the last idiot). And yes, I understand that their are real actual racists people who exist but it is nothing like you are being spoon fed.

5. Thus.. sending out even more “chilling affects” through the media that you are a racist if you speak out against Obama.  Creating more fear and delusion amongst these kind of people who buy into it, (people who are glued to the TV watching msnbc, Olbermann, and Maddow), you know… people who can’t grasp the concept that these liberal talk shows are just as slick at providing disinformation and dividing the American people. The same corporate fuck-nuts who fund the dumb liberal shows are happily bankrolling the dumber Republican shows.  Keeping y’all bickering amongst each other all the while each party screws y’all decade after decade.

“Obviously I’m not saying this is what is really going to happen with the nuclear 18-Wheeler but it’s happening 10-folds with all of the retarded racial stuff for criticising Obama. And it’s no secret that our media is 100% corporate/pentagon funded.  And most importantly to understand is the left/ right paradigm that has kept the people, of all America’s  glorious diversities, from having any substantial change at all.”

-Fredrick Face 9/4/09

The Story:

bombtruck

The idea of nuclear weapons being carted around in our highways, cities and neighborhoods doesn’t really put one’s mind at ease. However, the government has been transporting seriously dangerous stuff like enriched uranium and plutonium secretly without public warning. Friends of the Earth through the Freedom of Information Act has forced the Department Of Energy to release color photos of the trucks used to transport weapons. According to FOE, these are the first of such pictures that have been released in many years.

Tom Clements, Southeastern Nuclear Campaign Coordinator with Friends of the Earth in Columbia, South Carolina made the following statement about the importance of the release of the photos.
“The trucks carrying nuclear weapons and dangerous materials such as plutonium pass through cities and neighborhoods all the time and the public should be aware of what they look like. Release of these photos will help inform the public about secretive shipments of dangerous nuclear material that are taking place in plain view.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/03/trucks-carrying-nuclear-w_n_276765.html

Audit the Fed Action Alert!

September 5, 2009

September 4, 2009

Greetings Liberty Loving Texans!

The drive to audit the Federal Reserve continues to gain momentum, thanks to hundreds of thousands of patriots like you that have made their voices heard on the issue.  Now we need your help again to make sure that our efforts end in victory.  With your support, we will get an audit bill passed!

Here’s the situation:

Right now there are 282 cosponsors to HR 1207 in the House of Representatives.  That’s just under 2/3rds of the House, a truly remarkable accomplishment.  How did we get there?  By calling our congressmen, signing petitions, sending letters, and by letting our representatives know in every possible way that this issue is important to us and important to America.

But there is still work to be done in the Senate.  The Audit the Fed companion bill, S 604 has 23 cosponsors.  That’s a great start and the bill is certainly gaining momentum, with 20 cosponsors since the 4th of July.  But to overcome resistance from the Senate leadership, we’re going to need even greater support.

We didn’t come this far just to watch the audit bill stall out in the Senate!

That’s why Campaign for Liberty is organizing a nationwide Mass Action Event to bring as many senators as possible on board with S 604 and round up some obstinate representatives.  Last spring, a similar effort for HR 1207 resulted in over 50 new cosponsors as the support in the House doubled in just a few weeks.

Since that time, our organization has grown and the American people have become increasingly aware of the damage being done to our country by the Federal Reserve.  Over 75% of Americans want to see an audit of the Fed, and more Americans actually think less of the Federal Reserve than the hated IRS.  We’ve made monetary policy a key issue in the public conscience.  Our efforts can and will be more successful during this Mass Action Event.

We are very fortunate in Texas: both of our senators have already cosponsored S 604 (let’s call and thank them!).  However, we still have a few representatives who have not signed on to HR 1207, and we need to put pressure on them.

If you live in or near any of these congessional districts, please help us make a final push to get them on board! We need to collect petition signatures and deliver them to these representatives:

Green (9), Hinojosa (15), Reyes (16), Jackson Lee (18), Gonzalez (20), Rodriguez (23), Cuellar (28), Green (29), Johnson (30)

We need everyone to show up for petition drop-off events on Tuesday, September 15th at 4PM across Texas.  Campaign for Liberty’s Mass Action Event will culminate with nationwide visits to local congressional offices.  Our goal is to have over 100 people show up for the rally and petition drop at Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson’s Dallas office at 3102 Maple Avenue, Suite 600, Dallas, TX, 75201

Please join us if possible!  From there we will head over to the Federal Reserve Bank, 2200 N Pearl St,  Dallas, TX 75201 for an evening rush hour sign wave.

Smaller events will be planned at office locations across the state.  If you are one whose representative hasn’t signed on, we need you to step up and choose a good location for your area’s rally. Please contact me.

We know what we have to do to succeed. We also know that victory could mean a revolution in the United States’ monetary policy, once the workings of the Fed are finally revealed.

If that’s not enough motivation (really?), Campaign for Liberty is offering prizes for truly outstanding efforts.  The person that collects the most signatures in the state (as certified by a State, Regional, or County Coordinator) will win an autographed copy of Congressman Paul’s new book, End the Fed.   And if Texas collects the most signatures (as a percentage of the population), we’ll win a $1,500 gift certificate to the Campaign for Liberty store.

Working tirelessly for freedom,

Debbie McKee

Interim State Coordinator

Full Spectrum Dominance

September 4, 2009

by: F. William Engdahl

Bush: No Plans to Run in 2012

September 4, 2009

“Why don’t you do humanity a favor for once and just stay home & do whatever it is you guys do that keeps you from accepting the horrendous nightmare that is your lives.”

-F.F.

bushes-george-and-jeb

By Eric Berman
9/2/2009

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush says he’s not running for president in 2012 — but he’s not closing the door completely.

The brother of one Republican president and son of another was in Indianapolis Wednesday to tout Florida’s education reforms to Indiana’s Education Roundtable. Bush says he’s not running for anything “right now.”

“I’m focused on my own private life and trying to help others continue their public service,” Bush says. “It’s a secondary role, not a primary role, and it’ll probably remain that way.”

Bush’s hedged denial of interest stands in contrast to the man at his side as he spoke, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Daniels’ name has been floated by some Republican insiders — including Bush, who’s called him one of the GOP’s top leaders — but Daniels has been unequivocal in declaring he won’t run for president or any other elected office.

Bush praises President Obama for supporting some of the same education reforms Bush backed as governor, including charter schools. But he says he disagrees with the administration’s overall path.

“I’m just very disturbed by the rapid change of who we are as a nation, or the attempt,” Bush says.

Earlier this year, Bush passed up a chance to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Florida Republican Mel Martinez, who has since resigned. Bush’s successor as governor, Charlie Crist, is running for the post.

http://www.wibc.com/news/Story.aspx?id=1135897

Why Won’t Healthcare Workers Take The Swine Flu Vaccine?

September 4, 2009

question mark

by Rachel Friedman

Can vaccinations actually fuel pandemics? According to a study released August 26, 2009 by the British Medical Journal, more than half of Hong Kong’s healthcare workers surveyed said they would refuse the H1N1 shot, which is not yet available, because they are afraid of side effects and doubt how safe and effective it will be.

More importantly, the study suggested the trend would be repeated worldwide.

“The truth is that vaccines aren’t effective, generally carry dangerous side effects, and in many cases actually fuel the spread of pandemics,” said Dr. Leonard Horowitz, a Harvard Universitytrained medical researcher who also holds a Master’s Degree in Public Health. “The fact is that most healthcare workers know this, and they don’t trust that any swine flu vaccine will do anything but cause more problems and potential harm to the patients they care for.”

In Dr. Horowitz’s view, vaccines do more harm than good, and are little more than a way for the pharmaceutical companies to profit from epidemics and side effects.

“In April, 2009, the swine flu scare placed the world at high alert thanks to gads of suspicious publicity,” Dr. Horowitz said. “Anglo-American officials and Reuters News Service first claimed this was a rapidly spreading combination of the world’s scariest flu’s – swine, avian and Spanish flu viruses. They were all said to be rolled up in this never-before-seen Mexican pathogen.”

The scare, however, seemed to have less substance than volume, as the thousands of U.S. deaths that were predicted never happened, Dr. Horowitz added.

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212254207.shtml

Why Psychologists Are Infinitely More Dangerous Than Conspiracy Theorists

September 4, 2009

030909top

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, September 3, 2009

According to a Psychology Today hit piece written by psychologist John Gartner, people prone to thinking that powerful men might actually get together and plan to maintain and advance their power are borderline psychotics who are a danger to society. In reality, hundreds of years of history has taught us that psychologists routinely aid authoritarian regimes in enforcing tyrannical and inhumane policies while helping them crush political opposition by defining suspicion of authorities as a mental illness.

As we highlighted in our article yesterday, psychologists in the Soviet Union were used to stifle free speech by classifying skepticism and political opposition to the state as a mental illness, which is precisely the implication  littered throughout Gartner’s crass hit piece.

In the former Soviet Union, psikhushkas — mental hospitals — were used by the state as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. The Soviet state began using mental hospitals to punish dissidents in 1939 under Stalin.

According to official Soviet psychiatry and the Moscow Serbsky Institute at the time, “ideas about a struggle for truth and justice are formed by personalities with a paranoid structure.” Treatment for this special political schizophrenia included various forms of restraint, electric shocks, electromagnetic torture, radiation torture, lumbar punctures, various drugs — such as narcotics, tranquilizers, and insulin — and beatings. Anne Applebaum, author of Gulag: A History, indicates that at least 365 sane people were treated for “politically defined madness,” although she surmises there were many more.

The profession of psychology blossoms under tyrannical regimes, as is explored in Ulfried Geuter’s The Professionalization of Psychology in Nazi Germany. Under Hitler’s Third Reich, the relationship between the ruling Nazi thugs and psychologists was close and mutually beneficial. People like Nazi psychologist Robert Ritter, Ph. D. (pictured top) were instrumental in persecuting minorities and enforcing eugenicist policies of genocide.

“From Nazi Germany, South Africa, Russia and the former Yugoslavia, to Iraq today, psychiatry has been and/or remains a key player. In fact, the marriage between authoritarian government and psychiatry is as old as psychiatry itself,” writes Jan Eastgate, International President, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, “In the 1800s, Germany’s militaristic “Iron Chancellor,” Otto von Bismarck, utilized psychiatry to influence and control whole populations in order to fulfill his dreams of conquest through war.”

In his book Dangerous Minds: Political Psychiatry in China Today and Its Origins in the Mao Era, praised as “eloquent and convincing” in a New York Times Review of Books piece, author Robert Munro exposes how psychiatrists and psychologists continue to be at the forefront of the brutal Communist Chinese system of ascribing mental illnesses to those who express even mildly negative political opinions towards the ruling Party.

The book reveals how, “From the 1950s onward not only Chinese dissidents but people who submitted petitions to the authorities have been detained by the police, examined by psychiatrists, and found to be criminally insane—or, if found mentally “normal,” designated as criminals to be cast into the prison system.”

An official Chinese police designation for those worthy of “psychiatric custody” cited by Munro lists people who write anti-government letters, make anti-government speeches or those who merely express opinions on important domestic and international affairs that could be considered anti-government.

But the use of psychologists in the pursuit of inhumane policies is not just resigned to tyrannical regimes of the first half of the 20th century.

Recent revelations surrounding the torture scandal highlight the role of psychologists in what the Physicians for Human Rights organization alleges amounted to “unlawful human experimentation” and torture on inmates at Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and other U.S. detention sites.

“PHR says health professionals participated at every stage in the development, implementation and legal justification of what it calls the CIA’s secret “torture programme,” reports the London Guardian.

Doctors and psychologists actively monitored CIA torture techniques and helped evaluate their effectiveness, a “violation of core ethical values” according to the American Medical Association and a flagrant abuse of the 1947 Nuremberg Code, which forbids experimentation on humans without their consent.

The CIA’s close relationship with psychologists and psychiatrists in conducting illegal torture programs stretches back decades.

“Historian Alfred W. McCoy has shed light in this area in his recent book A Question of Torture and in numerous articles and interviews,” writes Stephen Soldz. “He documents the decades-long CIA effort to utilized psychological expertise to develop forms of torture that could break down the personality of detainees, rendering them, it was hoped, incapable of withholding desired information. Many of these technique were utilized during the Vietnam conflict and in the various brutal U.S.-supported counterinsurgency campaigns in Latin American in the 1970s and 1980s.”

While Psychology Today’s John Gartner cites a single example of a “conspiracy theorist” who voiced support for Alex Jones entering Bohemian Grove armed with guns, and uses it to make the implication that “conspiracy thinking” is a major threat to society, documented history stretching back hundreds of years shows that psychologists, and particularly their tactic of classifying suspicion of authorities and “conspiracy thinking” as a mental illness, have played a key role in preserving the power of dictatorial elites and helping them to carry out inhumane practices while crushing free speech and legitimate political opposition.

RELATED: Psychology Today Hit Piece Labels Conspiracy Thinking A Psychotic Illness

Afghanistan for Dummies

September 4, 2009

Ray McGovern
Infowars
September 3, 2009

I’m going to ask for my money back. I’ve seen this Afghanistan movie before. The first time, Vietnam was in the title.

As in an early scene from the Vietnam version, U.S. military officials are surprised to discover that the insurgents in Afghanistan are stronger than previously realized.

And our protagonist, Gen. Westmoreland — sorry, I mean McChrystal — sees the situation as serious but salvageable. As Westmoreland did with President Lyndon Johnson, McChrystal is preparing to tell President Barack Obama that thousands of more troops are needed to achieve the U.S. objective — whatever that happens to be.

As in Vietnam, uncertainty about objectives and how to measure success persist in Afghanistan. Never has this come through more clearly than in the fuzzy remarks of “Af-Pak” super-envoy Richard Holbrooke who has purview over Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On Aug. 12 at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C., think tank, Holbrooke tried to clarify how the Obama administration would gauge success in Afghanistan.

John Podesta, the center’s president who was President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff and served as head of Obama’s transition team, waxed eloquent not only about his friend Holbrooke but Holbrooke’s team; really spectacular, impressive, multidisciplinary, interagency, truly exceptional were some of the bouquets thrown at team members.

Holbrooke said his Af-Pak squad is “the best team” he’d ever worked with, adding that “Hillary” – the Secretary of State whose last name is Clinton – personally approved “every member.”

It may indeed be a good team but that doesn’t change the fact that it appears to be on a fool’s errand. Each member has considerable expertise to offer, but no one knows where they’re headed.

The whole thing reminds me of the old saw: If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there. (Or you might say Holbrooke’s team finds itself in a dark place peering into the distance looking for a light at the end of the tunnel.)

Pressing for Answers

To his credit, Podesta kept trying to get a clear answer from Holbrook about the overall objective in Afghanistan, as well as seeking some metrics to judge progress.

“There is increasing concern here at home and in allied capitals abroad about the cost of winning in Afghanistan, and to what end-goals we should aspire,” Podesta said. “I hope to focus on … our objectives in Afghanistan and how we measure progress.”

Holbrooke was as smooth — and vacuous — as Gen. William Westmoreland and his briefers were in Saigon:

“We know the difference with input and output, and what you are seeing here is input,” Holbrooke said. “The payoff is still to come. We have to produce results, and we understand that.

“And we’re not here today to tell you we’re winning or we’re losing. We’re not here today to say we’re optimistic or pessimistic. We’re here to tell you that we’re in this fight in a different way with a determination to succeed.”

In an apparent attempt to get Podesta to stop asking about objectives and how to measure success, Holbrooke tossed a bouquet back at the Center for American Progress for doing “an extraordinary job of becoming a critical center for our efforts.”

For those who may have missed it, Podesta’s Center surprised many, including me, by endorsing Obama’s non-strategy of throwing more troops at the problem in Afghanistan. (The charitable explanation is that there is something in the water here in Washington; less charitably, the Center may have feared losing its place at Obama’s table.)

Holbrooke’s flattery, though, did not deter Podesta, who kept insisting on some kind of cogent answer about objectives and metrics.

Podesta: “From the perspective of the American people, how do you define clear objectives of what you’re trying to succeed as outputs with the inputs that you just talked about?”

Holbrooke: “A very key question, John, which you’re alluding to is, of course, if our objective is to defeat, destroy, dismantle al-Qaeda, and they’re primarily in Pakistan, why are we doing so much in Afghanistan? …

“If you abandon the struggle in Afghanistan, you will suffer against al-Qaeda as well. But we have to be clear on what our national interests are here….

“The specific goal you ask, John, — is really hard for me to address in specific terms. But I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we’ll know it when we see it.” (Emphasis added.)

Holbrooke almost chokes on the words as they proceed out of his mouth, and then takes a very visible gulp of air. Up until this point, Podesta has been bravely suppressing any outward sign of frustration with Holbrooke’s vacuous comments on U.S. objectives and measures of success.

After the “we’ll know it when we see it” remark, Podesta pauses for a few seconds and looks at Holbrooke — as if to say, and that’s it? Then, like a high school teacher ready to move on to the next ill-prepared student, Podesta utters a curt “okay.”

“Know It When You See It”

The Supreme Court test involving “know it when you see it” refers to a phrase used by former Justice Potter Stewart 45 years ago. Frustrated at not being able to define pornography in an obscenity case, he gave up and fell back on the “know it when you see it” formulation.

The same phrase was used by a similarly frustrated official, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in December 2002, just three months before the U.S.-U.K. attack on Iraq.

Unable to come up with any specific evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, but determined to rebut Saddam Hussein’s claims that he had none, Wolfowitz quipped, “It’s like the judge said about pornography. I can’t define it, but I will know it when I see it.”

How is it that we let people get away with that kind of rubbish when it means people — Iraqis, Afghanis, as well as Americans — are going to get killed and maimed?

But Holbrooke’s “we’ll know-it-when-we-see-it” measure of success is just the latest sign that the Obama administration has been playing the Af-Pak strategy by ear. The President himself seems generally aware of this, given his readiness to give wide latitude, not clear instructions, to Holbrooke and the generals.

An early hint of the disarray came on March 27, a little more than two months into his presidency, when Obama showed up a half-hour late to the press conference at which he announced a “comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

No explanation was given for his lateness, which required TV talking heads to reach new heights of vapidity for a full 30 minutes. I ventured a guess at the time that his instincts were telling him he was about to do something he would regret.

It soon became apparent that Obama’s 60-day Afghan policy review lacked specificity on strategy but tried to make up for that with lofty rhetoric — kudos to the alliterative speechwriter who coined the catchy phrase “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda.”

More important, the President also took pains to assure us that: “Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course.” Rather, he promised there will be “metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.”

(Yet the key “metric” appears to be what Holbrooke blurted out on Aug. 12, “we’ll know it when we see it.”)

In Holbrooke, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appear to have picked a loser. It is bad enough that he does not seem to have a clue about how to measure success toward U.S. objectives — or, at least, cannot articulate them — even before a friendly audience.

Perhaps Secretary Clinton and President Obama were also unaware of his well-deserved reputation for logical inconsistencies, not to mention the delight he takes in bullying foreign officials — the more senior the person, the better.

A former Foreign Service officer who worked on the Balkans confided that he believes Holbrooke actually prolonged the Yugoslav civil war for several years by pushing a policy of covert military support for the Muslim side.

It should come as no surprise, then, if Holbrooke ends up playing a role in deepening the Af-Pak quagmire, if only by adopting a belligerent attitude towards the Pashtuns and also the Pakistani government — not to mention rival U.S. officials.

In sum, Holbrooke will probably prove more hindrance than help in working out a sensible U.S. strategy and objectives. Worse, he is not likely to serve as a much needed counterweight to the generals, who may well succeed in persuading Obama to give them still more troops for an unwinnable war.

George Will Favors Pullout

Surprisingly, one of the new voices urging a troop drawdown in Afghanistan is conservative columnist George Will, who showed his human side in an op-ed appearing Tuesday in the Washington Post, “Time to Get Out of Afghanistan.”

Will starts and ends the piece with references to a young Marine who had just lost two buddies. To his credit, Will avoids the customary quote from the poet Horace — “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori”(“How sweet and fitting it is to die for one’s country”) or anything like it.

Will says, in effect, that syrupy sentiments and faux appeals to patriotism do not apply in present circumstances. He would probably be the last to draw this connection, but he has begun to sound like Cindy Sheehan, who has been trying for over four years to get George Bush to explain to her the “noble cause” for which her son Casey died in Iraq.

Will ends his article with a heartfelt appeal for substantial troop reductions now, “before more American valor…is squandered.”

On Wednesday, the neoconservative editors of the Post compiled a series of rebuttals to Will’s column in a section entitled “Where Will Got It Wrong,” including a lengthy excerpt from a blog post by leading neocon theorist William Kristol, who attacks Will for sentimentality when “it would be better to base a major change in our national security strategy on arguments.”

Not surprisingly, given his enthusiastic support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Kristol advocates “a surge of several brigades of American forces” in Afghanistan and a determination “to support a strategy, and to provide the necessary resources, for victory.”

Alongside Kristol’s blog post was an op-ed by Post columnist David Ignatius, another enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq War.

Regarding Afghanistan, Ignatius concludes that “this may be one of those messy situations where the best course is to both shoot and talk – a strategy based on the idea that we can bolster our friends and bloody our enemies enough that, somewhere down the road, we can cut a deal.”

You may recall that President Johnson followed a similar strategy of trying to bomb his Vietnamese enemies to the bargaining table.

Counting the tragedy in Iraq – as well as the one in Vietnam – this is the third time I’ve seen this movie.


http://www.infowars.com/afghanistan-for-dummies/

Health care reform means more power for the IRS

September 4, 2009

irs

By: BYRON YORK
Chief Political Correspondent
September 2, 2009

There’s been a lot of discussion about the new and powerful federal agencies that would be created by the passage of a national health care bill. The Health Choices Administration, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, the Health Insurance Exchange — there are dozens in all.

But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats’ health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers.

In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS.

Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an “acceptable” health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don’t have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.

The Democrats’ plan would require all Americans to have “acceptable” insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of “acceptable”) and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have “acceptable” coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.

If it all matches up, you’re fine. If it doesn’t, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don’t have “acceptable” coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.

Under some versions of health reform now circulating on Capitol Hill, the IRS would also be intimately involved in how you pay for insurance. Everyone would be required to buy coverage. The millions of Americans who can’t afford it would receive a subsidy to pay for it. Under the version of the plan currently under negotiation in the Senate Finance Committee, that subsidy would come through the IRS in the form of a refundable tax credit. Under the House plan, the subsidy would come directly from the Health Choices Administration.

In either scenario, the IRS would be the key to making the system work. Before you could receive any subsidy, whether through the IRS or not, the Health Choices Administration would have to determine whether you are eligible for it. To do so, the bills under consideration would give the Health Choices Commissioner the authority to demand sensitive, confidential information from the IRS about individual taxpayers. The IRS would have to provide it.

Under current law, it is a felony for a government official to release taxpayer information in all but the most limited of circumstances. One such exception is for law enforcement; the IRS is allowed to give taxpayer information to prosecutors in criminal cases. The information can also, in some instances, be released to the Social Security Administration and the Veterans’ Administration for the determination of benefits. The health care bills would change the Internal Revenue Code to permit the IRS to give similar information to the vast, new health care bureaucracy. 

That means the personal tax information of millions of Americans would enter the system whether they want it to or not. “There’s a mandate to buy insurance,” says one Republican House aide. “You have to buy it. You have millions of people who can’t buy it without a subsidy, so they will have no choice but to accept the subsidy in order to buy insurance, and then the Health Choices Commissioner will have access to their tax records.”

“How many hands would this information go through?” asks a GOP source in the Senate. “What are the quality controls? This increases the risk of misusing this information.”

Some versions of the bill even permit the release of confidential taxpayer information for decidedly less pressing reasons. In H.R. 3200, the IRS would be required to provide taxpayer information to the Social Security Administration for the purpose of helping Social Security officials find qualifying seniors who can then be encouraged to enroll in the prescription drug program. “There is no precedent for using taxpayer information for the purpose of identifying people to go out and advertise to them,” says the House expert.

So far, there has been little substantive public debate about the integral role of the IRS in nearly every aspect of the various national health care proposals. But people who are closely involved with the process are deeply concerned about what they view as a massive, and in some senses unprecedented, expansion of the Internal Revenue Service.

First, they wonder whether the IRS can handle the new demands. “There is a sense at the IRS that their purpose is to collect revenue and not to implement all sorts of other programs,” says a second Senate GOP aide. “Also, the IRS isn’t necessarily great at doing what it does already. How is it going to determine whether 300 million people have health insurance?”

Second, they are concerned about anticipated abuse of the system. “You’re going to have lots of fraud,” says the House source. “People claiming lots of affordability credits or refundable tax credits. The IRS is not going to have the resources and expertise to police this stuff.”

Finally, there is a third concern, more fundamental than questions of whether the IRS can handle the job: Should the IRS be involved in health care enforcement in the first place? As seen in the town halls across the country in August, many Americans are concerned about the coercive nature of the proposed national health care system. Handing the IRS the power to monitor every American’s place in the system worries them even more.

Backers of the Democratic bills are betting that the handouts involved — giving people money to buy health insurance — will outweigh concerns about privacy and coercive government. Perhaps. But before Congress makes any decision on national health care, voters should know just what it will involve.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Health-care-reform-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html

The Piggies Slide Show

September 3, 2009

(Hit Play & Scroll Down)

obamaImage2

George-Bush frowning

55_cheney

Rumsfield_12

biden

BERNANKE

US-CONDOLEEZZA RICE

alangreenspan

US Obama Science

Bill Clinton

nov19_eric_holder

442px-nancy_pelosi_official_portrait

timothy-geithner1

gordon_brown

summerslawrence_w

david_rockefeller

george_soros

brezinski

Etc… Etc… Etc..

(This is just installment # One.  There’s plenty more were that came from).

Blackwater Founder Accused in Court of Intent to Kill

September 3, 2009

APTOPIX Blackwater Iraq

By Jerry Markon

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 29, 2009

The attorneys singled out Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL who is the company’s owner, for blame in the deaths of more than 20 Iraqis between 2005 and 2007. Six former Blackwater guards were criminally charged in 14 of the shootings, and family members and victims’ estates sued Prince, Blackwater (now called Xe Services LLC) and a group of related companies.

“The person responsible for these deaths is Mr. Prince,” Susan L. Burke, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. “He had the intent, he provided the weapons, he provided the instructions, and they were done by his agents and they were war crimes.”

Judge T.S. Ellis III expressed deep skepticism about the claims. “Are you accusing Mr. Prince of saying ‘I want our boys to go out and shoot innocent civilians?’ ” he asked the attorneys.”These are certainly allegations of not engaging in very nice conduct, but where are the elements that meet the elements of murder? I don’t have any doubt that you can infer malice. What you can’t infer, as far as I can tell, is intent to kill these people.”

Attorneysfor the former Blackwater company denied the allegations at the hearing, which was called to consider their motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Ellis said he would issue a ruling “promptly.”

The hearing — combative in its words but respectful in tone — was the latest fallout from Blackwater’s controversial actions in Iraq. The North Carolina company, which has provided security under a lucrative State Department contract, has come under scrutiny for a string of incidents in which its heavily armed guards were accused of using excessive force.

The deadliest was a September 2007 shooting in central Baghdad in which Blackwater guards opened fire on Iraqis in a crowded street, killing 17 civilians. The company has said the guards’ convoy came under fire. Five former Blackwater guards have been indicted on federal charges in 14 of those shootings. A sixth guard pleaded guilty.

The lawsuit cites that incident and other shootings to accuse the company of “lawless behavior.” A consolidation of five earlier lawsuits, it says the company covered up killings and hired known mercenaries. In sworn affidavits recently filed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, two anonymous former Blackwater employees also say — without citing evidence — that the company may have conspired to murder witnesses in the criminal probe.

Attorneys for Blackwater say the lawsuit should be dismissed on a variety of legal grounds and that although the deaths were tragic, the guards were closely supervised by U.S. government officials. The allegations “go far beyond describing the harm allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs,” the Blackwater attorneys wrote in their motion to dismiss. “They include an encyclopedia of vituperative assertions.”

The Blackwater attorneys are also calling on the judge to strike the affidavits from the former employees from the court record, calling them “scandalous and baseless” and designed to get publicity. Ellis has yet to rule on that motion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/28/AR2009082803782.html

**Related Stories:

Xe-Blackwater warcrimes case: complaint, 2009

This complaint forms part of a lawsuit filed against the US mercenary firm Blackwater for war crimes, wrongful death, summary exectuion, and other matters. It is a public record, but currently only available for a fee from PACER.

There is an outstanding motion to seal two exhibits by anonymous Blackwater employees which contain reports about the company’s allegedly illegal actions.

PDF: http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/xe-blackwater-warcrimes-and-complaint-2009.pdf


The Fed’s Interesting Week

September 3, 2009

By Ron Paul
Published 09/01/09

It has been an interesting week indeed for the Federal Reserve. Early this week, it was announced that President Obama intends to reappoint Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second term in January, signaling a vote of confidence in him. Bernanke seems to be popular with the administration and with Wall Street, and with good reason. His lending policies have left big banks flush with newly created cash that covers up old mistakes and allows for new ones. By buying up mountains of Treasury debt he has also enabled spending to soar to ridiculous levels that should startle any responsible economist, and scare any American concerned about the value of the dollar. However, these highly sensitive decisions about our money are not made by economists, they are made by politicians. Bernanke, like most of his predecessors, is the politician’s best friend. However, there is no reason to believe any other central planner would behave any differently, considering the immense political pressure on the Fed.

Fed policies have been as bad for the economy as they are good for politicians and bankers, as the recently released numbers on the debt and deficit demonstrate. For the first time since World War II the annual budget deficit is projected to be over 11 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. It is also projected that by 2019 the national debt will be 68% of GDP. Our path, if unchanged, is completely untenable.

The administration claims that it inherited a dire situation from the last administration, which is absolutely true. However, that hasn’t stopped them from accepting all the policies and premises that got us here, and accelerating those policies to rapidly make a bad situation much worse. The bailouts started with the last administration. They have gotten bigger with this one. The last administration gave us expanded government involvement in healthcare with a new prescription drug benefit. This administration gave us a renewal and expansion of SCHIP, and now the current healthcare takeover attempts. In reality, we can afford none of this, but shady monetary policy allows Washington to continue along its merry way, aggravating all our economic problems.

Not everyone in government finds it acceptable that the Fed wields so much power and privilege in secrecy. Last week, a federal judge ruled against Fed secrecy, compelling them to release under the Freedom of Information Act information regarding which banks received emergency loans, and under what terms. The Fed will, of course do everything in its power to fight this ruling and it is certainly not the last word on the issue. Still, it is encouraging to see that the interests of the taxpayers were defended victoriously in court, while the Fed only sees the plight of its big banker friends.

Meanwhile HR 1207 and S604, legislation to open up the Fed’s books to a complete audit, continue to gain momentum in Congress as the people continue to insist on real transparency of the Federal Reserve. One way or another, the days of Fed autonomy are coming to an end, as well they should. No one should have the power to debauch the currency and gut the economy as they do. It is time they answered for their actions, so the people can understand that we truly are better off with freedom instead of Fed tyranny.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=189

Massachusetts Senate Passes Draconian Flu Pandemic Bill

September 3, 2009

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
September 2, 2009

The corporate media is ignoring S. 2028, the flu pandemic bill that was unanimously passed by the Massachusetts Senate. The draconian bill was covered extensively by the alternative news sites, but not a word from the New York Times or the Washington Post.

S. 2028 will be used as a template for legislation in other states. The bill imposes a virtual police state and martial law on Massachusetts at the behest of the governor in the event of a flu pandemic this autumn. It gives the state health commissioner, law enforcement, and medical personnel wide authority to mobilize forces, vaccinate the population, enter private property with no warrants, and even quarantine people against their will in violation of the Constitution. The bill allows the state to enter property without a search warrant and destroy the property without a court order. It would force in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination.

Law enforcement authorities are authorized to “arrest without warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order for isolation or quarantine and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order. Any person who knowingly violates an order for isolation or quarantine shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than 30 days and may be subject to a civil fine of not more than $1,000 per day that the violation continues.”

Other states are in the process of implementing legal actions in response to the H1N1 virus hyped by the government and the corporate media. Florida has distributed blank quarantine order forms, including a voluntary home quarantine agreement, a quarantine to residence order, a quarantine to residence order (non-compliance), a quarantine to facility order, quarantine detention order, quarantine of facility order, building quarantine closure order and area quarantine closure order. North Carolina released a draft isolation order that would provide for imprisonment for up to two years and pretrial detention without bail for any citizen who fails to comply with an isolation order. Washington has granted authority to local health officers to issue emergency detention orders forcing citizens to be immediately and involuntarily isolated or quarantined for up to 10 days.

A form released by the state of Iowa for voluntary home confinement, home quarantine and home isolation recently made the rounds on the internet. “Rumors started swirling after a quarantine form was found by someone on the internet,” KIMT 3 reported. “Health leaders in Iowa are reassuring people that there are no H1N1 related quarantines being ordered.” The form calls quarantine of all individuals suspected of coming in contact with the virus.

S.2028 is now in Massachusetts House Ways and Means Committee. The Liberty Preservation Association of Massachusetts has vowed to kill the legislation before it can reach the House (see MassLPA video above). The organization plans to lobby lawmakers at the capital on Beacon Hill on September 9 and convince them not to vote for and pass the bill.

http://www.infowars.com/massachusetts-senate-passes-draconian-flu-pandemic-bill/

Obama to increase use of mercenaries in Afghanistan

September 3, 2009

hopeinafghanistan5

By Julian E. Barnes

L.A. Times

September 2, 2009

Reporting from Washington – U.S. officials are planning to add as many as 14,000 combat troops to the American force in Afghanistan by sending home support units and replacing them with “trigger-pullers,” Defense officials say.

The move would beef up the combat force in the country without increasing the overall number of U.S. troops, a contentious issue as public support for the war slips. But many of the noncombat jobs are likely be filled by private contractors, who have proved to be a source of controversy in Iraq and a growing issue in Afghanistan.

The plan represents a key step in the Obama administration’s drive to counter Taliban gains and demonstrate progress in the war nearly eight years after it began.

Forces that could be swapped out include units assigned to noncombat duty, such as guards or lookouts, or those on clerical and support squads.

“It makes sense to get rid of the clerks and replace them with trigger-pullers,” said one Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the plans have not been announced. Officials have spoken in recent days about aspects of the plan.

The changes will not offset the potential need for additional troops in the future, but could reduce the size of any request from Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and allied commander, officials said.

McChrystal submitted a broad assessment of the Afghanistan war effort this week, calling the situation there “serious.”

Details of the assessment remain secret, but officials said it did not contain a request for more troops. Such a request could be submitted in coming weeks.

The planned changes in the U.S. troop mix are part of what military officials call a “force optimization” review, a critical middle step between the assessment and a request for additional troops, designed to ensure that the existing force is operating as efficiently as possible.

The plan reflects the view that much of the military bureaucracy that has built up in Afghanistan no longer serves a useful purpose. Services performed by troops that are no longer considered crucial could be outsourced to contractors or eliminated, officials said.

Defense officials said they would not know how many positions and jobs might be eliminated until the McChrystal review was completed. But two officials estimated the total could be 6,000 to 14,000 troops.

The review will scour the U.S. roster for situations in which several people perform the same job or for service members considered less than fully utilized, for example, working just a six-hour shift.

Army Col. Wayne M. Shanks, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said that some people may no longer be needed and can be “streamlined.”

“We have asked all commands to take a hard look to reduce redundancy, eliminate any excess and generally look for efficiencies in all our structures,” Shanks said.

He declined to outline any specific groups of soldiers or Marines that were no longer needed, but said the command would not “compromise the welfare of the troops.”

Raising the overall number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is a controversial issue.

President Obama has ordered an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan to bring the U.S. force to about 68,000. About 38,000 non-U.S. troops with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are also deployed in the country.

Top Obama administration officials have sent mixed signals about whether they would approve more troops.

Complicating any decision to approve more troops is declining public support for the Afghanistan war as the number of casualties climbs, with August the deadliest month for U.S. troops there since the war began. According to a CNN poll, 57% of Americans oppose the war, up from 46% at the end of last year.

But advisors to the military command believe that McChrystal needs a larger force to carry out his counterinsurgency strategy, perhaps as many as 20,000 additional troops. Culling unneeded units would allow McChrystal to increase U.S. combat power without running afoul of political sensitivities at home.


Continue Article


UK HEALTH SYSTEM: PATIENTS WITH TERMINAL ILLNESSES MADE TO DIE PREMATURELY

September 3, 2009

obamacare

Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors warn today.

By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients.”

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.

Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.

It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.

However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems.

Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance.

When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit.

If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention.

Dr Hargreaves said that this depended, however, on constant assessment of a patient’s condition.

He added that some patients were being “wrongly” put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die.

He said: “I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this “death pathway” that is coming in.

“It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.”

He added: “What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying.

“It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking.”

He said that he had personally taken patients off the pathway who went on to live for “significant” amounts of time and warned that many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition.

Prof Millard said that it was “worrying” that patients were being “terminally” sedated, using syringe drivers, which continually empty their contents into a patient over the course of 24 hours.

In 2007-08 16.5 per cent of deaths in Britain came about after continuous deep sedation, according to researchers at the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, twice as many as in Belgium and the Netherlands.

“If they are sedated it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better,” Prof Millard said.

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “Even the tiniest things that happen towards the end of a patient’s life can have a huge and lasting affect on patients and their families feelings about their care.

“Guidelines like the LCP can be very helpful but healthcare professionals always need to keep in mind the individual needs of patients.

“There is no one size fits all approach.”

A spokesman for Marie Curie said: “The letter highlights some complex issues related to care of the dying.

“The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient was developed in response to a societal need to transfer best practice of care of the dying from the hospice to other care settings.

“The LCP is not the answer to all the complex elements of this area of health care but we believe it is a step in the right direction.”

The pathway also includes advice on the spiritual care of the patient and their family both before and after the death.

It has also been used in 800 instances outside care homes, hospices and hospitals, including for people who have died in their own homes.

The letter has also been signed by Dr Anthony Cole, the chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr David Hill, an anaesthetist, Dowager Lady Salisbury, chairman of the Choose Life campaign and Dr Elizabeth Negus a lecturer in English at Barking University.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “People coming to the end of their lives should have a right to high quality, compassionate and dignified care.

“The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is an established and recommended tool that provides clinicians with an evidence-based framework to help delivery of high quality care for people at the end of their lives.

“Many people receive excellent care at the end of their lives. We are investing £286 million over the two years to 2011 to support implementation of the End of Life Care Strategy to help improve end of life care for all adults, regardless of where they live.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html#mce_temp_url#l

Sheehan: Wars Barely Register in U.S. National Psyche

September 3, 2009

Provocateurs At End The Fed Rally?

September 3, 2009

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, September 1, 2009

According to testimony given at a Missouri House of Representatives meeting yesterday, anarchists attempted to get other protesters to commit criminal acts during the End the Fed protests late last year, in what was a possible attempt to instigate chaos to justify a harsh crackdown on behalf of the authorities.

In March it came to light that the End the Fed protests, which took place at banks and regional Federal Reserve branches across the country on November 22, were being monitored closely by the United States Army Reserve Command, who implied that those protesting against the Fed and the bankster bailout were essentially terrorists.

On November 22, 2008, Alex Jones led a rally at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas Texas. The Dallas protest is specifically mentioned in the official Army document. Ron Paul’s brother was also in attendance.

During testimony given in response to the infamous Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report, a document authored by Missouri Highway Patrol and distributed to fellow law enforcement agencies that characterizes Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display political bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag as potential domestic terrorists, one of the organizers who attended the protests said that “anarchists” attempted to recruit followers and encouraged them to commit illegal acts.

“My group was at the End the Fed rally and there were a bunch of different groups there,” Cisse Spragin told the Missouri House of Representatives on Monday. “And there was this group of anarchists who started talking to us. And then they tried to recruit us or have us join their group. Then they started telling us what should we should write on our signs, and insisting on letting them re-write some of our signs. Later we overheard them saying they couldn’t even get us to jaywalk.”

Spragin’s testimony suggests that the anarchists were attempting to steer the nature of the protests in the opposite direction to guidelines published by End the Fed rally organizers before the protests which called for “Cooperation and respect for local laws and authorities,” and “No blocking of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.”

This wouldn’t be the first time that anarchist groups have been used as a tool with which to stir chaos. As we have documented before, the black bloc anarchist groups are routinely infiltrated and steered by authorities who use them to provoke disorder as a pretext to crack down on legitimate demonstrators.

During the April 2009 G20 summit in London, police stood back and watched anarchists attack banks and other buildings in an incident that had all the hallmarks of a staged event.

Following the SPP protests in Canada in 2007, Quebec provincial authorities were forced to admit that three rock-wielding black mask-wearing “anarchists” were in fact police infiltrators used to gather information on protesters.

Video shows two of the provocateurs pick up rocks and try to incite violence before they are outed as cops by legitimate demonstrators. The two thugs then tried to slip behind police lines before their fellow officers were forced to stage their arrest. Again, the fact that they were cops in disguise was later admitted by authorities.

Alex Jones’ film Police State 2: The Takeover exposed how the black bloc anarchists were completely infiltrated and provocateured by the authorities during the violent 1999 WTO protests in Seattle.

The authorities declared a state of emergency, imposed curfews and resorted to nothing short of police state tactics in response to a small minority of hostile black bloc hooligans. Police allowed the black bloc to run riot in downtown Seattle while they concentrated on preventing the movement of peaceful protestors. The film presents clear evidence that the black bloc anarchist group was actually controlled by the state and used to demonize peaceful protesters. Watch the video below.

At the WTO protests in Genoa 2001 a protestor was killed after being shot in the head and run over twice by a police vehicle. The Italian Carabinere also later beat on peaceful protestors as they slept, and even tortured some, at the Diaz School. It later emerged that the police fabricated evidence against the protesters, claiming they were anarchist rioters, to justify their actions. Some Carabiniere officials have since come forward to say they knew of infiltration of the so called black bloc anarchists, and that fellow officers acted as agent provocateurs.

At the Free Trade Area of Americas protests in Miami in late November 2003, more provocateuring was evident. The United Steelworkers of America calling for a congressional investigation, stated that the police intentionally caused violence and arrested and charged hundreds of peaceful protestors.

Blackwater Scum

September 1, 2009

They“, (being the real people who really run this country… not puppet Obama… though he sure ain’t helping), may use Blackwater like Hitler used his SS scum-fuck’s to help run this country in the ground. It’s a huge throbbing steroid of a possibility. This will be their army to carry out all the treasonous actions that 99% of real working-class service men & women would not carry out against their own country. They’ll use little yuppie toy soldiers from homophobic Erik Prince’s fairy stable. (If that sounds like the most ridiculous thing ever said then look into the companies history). These are the kind of people to worry about. Not fake middle-eastern or, (the media’s new one), right-wing American terrorists. These Blackwater guys are no good. Period.

“Well ok… they’ve done one good thing… you can thank Eric Prince for driving even more good American people into gun ownership.”

-Fred Face 8/31/09

No Compromise on Audit the Fed!

September 1, 2009

August 31, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Our grassroots Revolution has set its sights on restoring a sound monetary policy to our nation, and every day we are awakening more of our countrymen to the dangers of Federal Reserve secrecy and its stranglehold on our economy.

A year ago, no one in the political establishment would have believed that a bill to thoroughly audit the Fed would have almost two-thirds of the House (including every Republican representative and nearly one hundred Democrats) and a quarter of the Senate on board.

Certainly, no one would have bet that three-fourths of the American people would supportsuch an audit.

As many of you may have heard by now, recent statements from Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, have indicated that the House will vote on Audit the Fed in the next few months.

However, rather than voting on HR 1207 as a standalone bill, many in Congress hope to roll it into the comprehensive regulatory reform package recently proposed by the White House.

This reform package grants new, more comprehensive powers to the Fed and strengthens the government’s control over our economy. C4L and other friends of liberty stand in opposition to this proposal, as well as any other attempt to convert this historic movement for transparency into yet another rubber-stamping of politics as usual.

It is imperative that Audit the Fed come before the House and Senate on its own merits.

The American people stand behind a thorough audit of the Fed, and we should not be adding additional powers when we don’t fully know what is being done with the ones they currently have.

Call Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office today at (202) 225-0100 and urge her to stand with the American people by giving the Audit the Fed bill full debate and a standalone vote on the House floor.

Click herefor contact information for your representatives and senators and ask them to get behind Audit the Fed if they have not yet done so. If they have already cosponsored, tell them to push for a roll call vote on HR 1207 and S 604 on the bills’ own merits.

Our movement has worked hard to bring transparency and accountability to one of the nation’s most secretive institutions. Audit the Fed has received a bipartisan level of support that is very rare in politics today.

Together, we can see a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve signed into law, but it should not be accompanied by more of the same interventionist legislation that helped create the current crisis.

In Liberty,

John Tate

President

P.S. Click hereto take action, and don’t forget to tell your family and friends about AuditTheFed.com, where they can view the coalition in support of transparency, sign a petition, and learn more about this historic effort.

The Anti-Fed Fact Sheet

September 1, 2009

Full View

focus-anti-fed

Historical facts about the dangers (and failures) of vaccines

August 31, 2009

baby-shots-734181

Saturday, August 29, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Vaccines are the quackery of modern medicine. Mass vaccination programs not only fail to protect the population from infectious disease, they actuallyaccelerate the spread of disease in many cases.

Many website have cropped up over the last few years to counter the pro-vaccine propaganda put out by drug companies (who profit from vaccines) and health regulators (who serve the drug companies). One of those sites iswww.VaccinationDebate.com , which lists the following historical facts about vaccines:

• In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that bothpolio vaccines were contaminated with the SV 40 virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children had been injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555)

• In 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with avaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. (http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/020…)
The Hadwen Documents

• In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria cases were up from 40,000 to 250,000. (Don’t Get Stuck, Hannah Allen)

• In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)

• In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 “Abstracts” )

• In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)

• In the 1970’s a tuberculosis vaccine trial in India involving 260,000 people revealed that more cases of TB occurred in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. (The Lancet 12/1/80 p73)

• In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People’s Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)

• The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.

• In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)

• In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue 7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld)

http://www.naturalnews.com/026940_vaccines_vaccination_health.html

NM Rothschild Pitches UK Infrastructure Grab

August 31, 2009

Rothschilds

Robert Watts and Dominic O’Connell

A radical plan to raise £100 billion by privatising the motorway network has been presented to the three main political parties by NM Rothschild, the influential investment bank.

Rothschild, an architect of several privatisations, made its pitch in the weeks running up to the summer recess on July 21, Whitehall sources said. Bankers told leading politicians that the sale of the roads overseen by the Highways Agency — all motorways and most big trunk roads — could help revive battered public finances.

Toll-road companies and infrastructure funds would compete to operate and maintain stretches of the network.

In one version of the scheme, the government would pay for upkeep through a system of “shadow” tolls. A more radical, and less politically palatable, option would be for companies to charge motorists directly through toll booths or electronic card readers. The RAC Foundation, a motorists’ group, advocated privatisation in a report last week.

The Rothschild plan has already won the support of Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats’ deputy leader and Treasury spokesman.

“This is an attractive, positive idea which could release considerable resources to the public finances and may have real environmental merits,” Cable said. “The scale of it is vast — it makes rail privatisation look like small beer.”

Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, said the Conservatives had “no plans” to back Rothschild’s proposals: “Rothschilds, like many other banks and consultancies, have approached me and my team on a range of ideas for our transport network, including their ideas for our road infrastructure, but we are not working on any proposals for privatisation of the strategic road network and have no plans to do so.”

Motorway privatisation was considered by John Major’s Conservative administration, which sold British Rail, but was rejected.

A spokesman at the Department for Transport said: “It is not unusual for organisations to suggest ideas to government departments but ultimately all policy is decided by ministers and there are no plans to sell off a stake in the Highways Agency.” Rothschild declined to comment.

The bank was behind many of the key privatisations of the 1980s and 1990s, including British Steel, British Gas and British Coal. It has close links to the Conservatives, having employed several senior Party figures including Lord Lamont, John Redwood and Lord Wakeham. Oliver Letwin, the former shadow chancellor, works there part-time.

Politicians of all Parties are seeking ways to decrease the need for large tax rises or heavy cuts in public services. The bank bailouts and a recent collapse in tax revenues has seen public sector debt rise to more than £800 billion, 56.8% of GDP — up from 35.5% just two years ago.

Road tolls are unpopular, however. When Labour mooted road pricing two years ago, more than 230,000 signed a petition on the Downing Street decrying the plan.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6814923.ece

Related:

57% Would Like to Replace Entire Congress

August 31, 2009

“Its time for the tar & feathers people.”

-F.F.

bums

Sunday, August 30, 2009

If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure how they would vote.

Overall, these numbers are little changed since last October. When Congress was passing the unpopular $700-billion bailout plan in the heat of a presidential campaign and a seeming financial industry meltdown, 59% wanted to throw them all out. At that time, just 17% wanted to keep them.

There has been a bit of a partisan shift since last fall. With Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress, it’s not surprising to find that the number of Democrats who would vote to keep the entire Congress has grown from 25% last fall to 43% today. In fact, a modest plurality of Democrats would now vote to keep the legislators. Last fall, a plurality of Democrats were ready to throw them all out.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

While Democrats have become more supportive of the legislators, voters not affiliated with either major party have moved in the opposite direction. Today, 70% of those not affiliated with either major party would vote to replace all of the elected politicians in the House and Senate. That’s up from 62% last year.

Republicans, not surprisingly, overwhelmingly support replacing everyone in the Congress. Their views have not changed. But Republican voters are disenchanted with their team as much as the Congress itself: 69% of GOP Voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) now believe that members of Congress are overpaid. That’s up 10 percentage points from last October. Just five percent (5%) think their Congress member is paid too little. Thirty percent (30%) think the pay is about right.

One reason for this attitude may be that most voters say they understand the health care legislation better than Congress. Just 22% think the legislature has a good understanding of the issue. Three-out-of-four (74%) trust their own economic judgment more than Congress’.

Just 14% give Congress good or excellent review for their overall performance, while only 16% believe it’s Very Likely that Congress will address the most important problems facing our nation. Seventy-five percent (75%) say members of Congress are more interested in their own careers than they are in helping people. On the brighter side, just 37% say most in Congress have extramarital affairs.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans believe that when members of Congress meet with regulators and other government officials, they do so to help their friends and hurt their political opponents. Most believe that’s why politicians are able to solicit contributions from business leaders. Most, however, say it’s generally a good investment because political donors get more than their money’s worth. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American adults say political donors get more than their money back in terms of favors from members of Congress.

Despite these reviews, more than 90% of Congress routinely gets reelected every two years. It’s a shock when any incumbent loses. One explanation for this phenomenon frequently heard in Washington, D.C. is that “people hate Congress but love their own congressman.”

Voters have a different perspective, and 50% say ‘rigged’ election rules explain high reelection rate for Congress.

When the Constitution was written, the nation’s founders expected that there would be a 50% turnover in the House of Representatives every election cycle. That was the experience they witnessed in state legislatures at the time (and most of the state legislatures offered just one-year terms). For well over 100 years after the Constitution was adopted, the turnover averaged in the 50% range as expected.

In the 20th century, turnover began to decline. As power and prestige flowed to Washington during the New Deal era, fewer and fewer members of Congress wanted to leave. In 1968, congressional turnover fell to single digits for the first time ever, and it has remained very low ever since.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2009/57_would_like_to_replace_entire_congress

Media Matters Hit Piece Attempts to Link Alex Jones and Glenn Beck

August 31, 2009

Kurt Nimmo

Infowars
August 30, 2009

On August 28, Media Matters posted a hit piece on Glenn Beck. In the article, Oliver Willis attempts to link the Fox News disinformation operative Beck to Alex Jones. “We’re used to Glenn Beck being ‘out there’, but today’s show was special,” writes Willis. “Beck’s hour (the second day in a row in which he didn’t say a thing about the passing of Sen. Kennedy) was all about the supposed secret army being built by President Obama. This secret army idea, not supported by any facts, though possibly written in invisible ink that Beck can interpret, is a pet cause of fringe radio host Alex Jones.”

In fact, during the election last year, Obama admitted his desire to create a national security force, what Mr. Willis calls a “secret army.” The U.S. “cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set” and needs a “civilian national security force,” he said. Obama said his national security force needs to be as well funded — to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars — as the U.S. military. See the video clip below.

The idea did not disappear after the election. On March 12, during a speech at the National Defense University, Obama said the following: “America must also balance and integrate all elements of our national power. We cannot continue to push the burden on to our military alone, nor leave dormant any aspect of the full arsenal of American capability. And that’s why my administration is committed to renewing diplomacy as a tool of American power, and todeveloping our civilian national security capabilities.” (Emphasis added.)

It gets worse. In January, without any recognizable corporate media coverage, Rep. Bob Filner, a California Democrat, introduced H.R. 675. The bill would amend title 10 of the United States Code and extend to civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms. The bill was referred to the Armed Services Committee on January 26, 2009. At approximately the same time, the DoD issued a Defense Directive 1404.10 that establishes a “DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce” and rescinds a prior Clinton era directive dealing with the emergency use of civilian personnel. The Obama administration describes the Civilian Expeditionary Workforce as follows:

Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05

In other words, Congress is busy proposing bills that would accomplish what Obama announced during his campaign speech in Colorado.

Mr. Willis and the Clintonite organized Media Matters are uncomfortable with the facts. Here is another one — the Obamas have organized a cadre for a civilian national security force since 1993. It’s called Public Allies and is modeled after the  communist Saul Alinsky’s “people’s organizations.” It is under the watchful eye of Michelle Obama. It has received $75 million per year from private donors, including the Rockefellers and the Ford Foundation.

In the lead up to the election, budding activists in the Marxist tradition of Alinsky were sent to Camp Obama. “Obama is not like other candidates, and part of this training is learning to mimic the methods he used before he was an elected official — back when he was a community organizer in Chicago following the textbook of legendary agitator Saul Alinsky,” the Chicago Sun Times reported in September, 2007. Camp Obama was described as a “national program for social change,” no doubt of the sort envisioned by Alinksy,  who once said: “From all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

Incidentally, taking money from globalists and bankers is not a problem for Media Matters. In 2005, CNS News uncovered the fact David Brock, the former conservative turned liberal and Media Matters CEO, had taken money from the arch globalist George Soros. In addition, Media Matters receives money from Democracy Alliance. George Soros is a member of this “progressive” organization.

Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, wrote a book entitled “The Plan: Big Ideas for America.” In the book, Emanuel states: “It’s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.” (Emphasis added.)

Emanuel calls this a “new social contract,” that is to say an obligation imposed on the people by the government. “If you forget everything else you read in these pages, please remember this: The Plan starts with you. If your leaders aren’t challenging you to do your part, they aren’t doing theirs. We need a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us by establishing, for the first time, an ethic of universal citizen service,” writes Rahmbo. “Universal citizen service will bring Americans of every background together to make America safer and more united in common purpose.”

It’s a “common purpose” envisioned by George Soros, the communist Alinksy, the Ford Foundation, and globalist “progressives.”

Mr. Willis declares there is nothing sinister about AmeriCorps, created under former president Clinton — a member in good standing with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group. Clinton’s administration was a virtual Who’s Who of CFR members and globalists, apparently a good thing for liberals like Mr. Willis.

Here’s what Willis and Media Matters didn’t tell you about AmeriCorps — the legislation initially called for “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people.” It anticipated requiring “all individuals in the United States” to become indentured servants for the government – including elementary school students. A Washington Examinereditorial on March 26, 2009, stated:

The bill also summons up unsettling memories of World War II-era paramilitary groups by saying the new program should “combine the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service,” while establishing “campuses” that serve as “operational headquarters,” complete with “superintendents” and “uniforms” for all participants. It allows for the elimination of all age restrictions in order to involve Americans at all stages of life. And it calls for creation of “a permanent cadre” in a “National Community Civilian Corps.”

In short, the people who wrote the bill had the same totalitarian mindset as Joe Stalin and Mao.

No mention of the original bill or the mindset of its authors in Mr. Willis’ hit piece against Glenn Beck and Alex Jones. He mentions the fact George W. Bush was all for AmeriCorps and even met with AmeriCorps volunteers for Earth Day. But then “progressives” and those mesmerized by the false right-left paradigm always insist there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans and between Obama and Bush — never mind virtually nothing has changed under Obama, not the twin occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, not the unconstitutional surveillance of the American people, not the torture camps and the murder of hundreds of people in Pakistan — and certainly not the bogus global war on terror (although Obama’s people decided to play asemantic game with the term).

Finally, the article posted on the Media Matters website is a transparent effort to link Alex Jones to the Fox News disinformation operative Glenn Beck and thus discredit him. As a slick disinfo operative, Beck is tasked with taking down the truth and patriot movements by agreeing with their basic arguments while coming off as a kook that can be easily criticized and lampooned by the so-called “liberal” media, thus inflicting damage on the patriot community.

Addendum

Regardless of the philosophy of the Marxist Saul Alinsky, Obama is not a communist, a fact underscored by the heavy presence of CFR and Bilderberg members in his administration.

Lawrence Summers, the Director of the White House’s National Economic Council, is a former Chief Economist at the World Bank and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin, the former Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup and Chairmen of Goldman Sachs. Summers is a member of the CFR. Timothy Geithner, the current United States Secretary of the Treasury, was previously the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Geithner also worked for Kissinger and Associates. In 2002 he left the Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department and was director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund.

“The council has gained a virtual lock-hold on the U.S. government, regardless of which party is in office,” writes John McManus. “No other organization comes close to boasting the kind of clout that the CFR members have held: eight presidents of the U.S.; seven vice presidents; 17 secretaries of state; 20 secretaries of war/defense; 18 secretaries of the Treasury; 15 directors of the CIA. And on it has gone throughout the Cabinets, in seriatim — through Democrat and Republican administrations — with hundreds of deputy secretaries, assistant secretaries, etc.”

One of Obama’s professors at Columbia Universality and an ardent supporter of his campaign — and his early foreign policy adviser — was Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski cofounded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, a director of numerous multinational corporations and “endowment funds” and a central figure in the Council on Foreign Relations.

“If the Council on Foreign Relations could be said to be a spawning ground for the concepts of one-world idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the ‘task force’ assembled to assault the beachheads. Already the Commission had placed its members in the top posts the U.S. had to offer.” writes Patrick Wood.

Bankers and one-worlders are not communists in the traditional sense, although they have traditionally used that political ideology to consolidate and centralize power and influence.

“If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs,” wrote the late Gary Allen. “Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/media-matters-hit-piece-attempts-to-link-alex-jones-and-glenn-beck.html

Scientist Warning of Health Hazards of Monsanto’s Herbicide Receives Threats

August 31, 2009

monsanto_dvd

“I expected a reaction but not such a violent one”

In April 2009 Andrés Carrasco, an Argentinian embryologist, gave an interview to the leading Buenos Aires newspaper Página 12, in which he described the alarming results of a research project he is leading into the impact of the herbicide glyphosate on the foetuses of amphibians. Dr Carrasco, who works in the Ministry of Science’s Conicet (National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations), said that their results suggested that the herbicide could cause brain, intestinal and heart defects in the foetuses. Glyphosate is the herbicide used in the cultivation of Monsanto’s genetically modified soya, which now covers some 18 million hectares, about half of Argentina’s arable land. [1]

Carrasco said that the doses of herbicide used in their study were “much lower than the levels used in the fumigations”. Indeed, as some weeds have become resistant to glyphosate, many farmers are greatly increasing the concentration of the herbicide. According to Página 12, this means that, in practice, the herbicide applied in the fields is between 50 and 1,540 times stronger than that used by Carrasco. The results in the study are confirming what peasant and indigenous communities – the people most affected by the spraying – have been denouncing for over a decade. The study also has profound consequences for the USA’s anti-narcotics strategy in Colombia, because the planes spray glyphosate, reinforced with additional chemicals, on the coca fields (and the peasants living among them).

Three days after the interview, the Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition with the Argentine Supreme Court, calling for a ban on the use and sale of glyphosate until its impact on health and on the environment had been investigated. Five days later the Ministry of Defense banned the planting of soya in its fields. This sparked a strong reaction from the multinational biotechnology companies and their supporters. Fearful that their most famous product, a symbol of the dominant farming model, would be banned, they mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats. He was accused of inventing his whole investigation, as his results have not yet been peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious scientific journal. 

According to an article in the Argentine press, after news about the study broke, Dr. Carrasco was the victim of an act of intimidation, when four men arrived at his laboratory in the Faculty of Medicine and acted extremely aggressively.

Two of the men were said to be members of an agrochemical industry body but refused to give their names. The other two claimed to be a lawyer and notary. They apparently interrogated Dr. Carrasco and demanded to see details of the experiments. They left a card Basílico, Andrada & Santurio, attorneys on behalf of Felipe Alejandro Noël.

Carrasco was firm in his response: “When one is dealing with a subject of limited public interest, one can keep the study secret until all the last details have been resolved. But when one uncovers facts that are important for public health, one has an obligation to make an effort to publish the results urgently and with maximum publicity.” Even so, he was clearly taken aback by the strength of the reaction. “It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction”, he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached. One has to remember, too, that the study originated in contacts with communities that have suffered the impact of agro-chemicals. They are the undeniable proof of the impact.” He is not intimidated: “If I know something, I will not shut my mouth.”

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18944.cfm

From dust to bust, America’s poor take on a new type of monster

August 31, 2009

VIDEO HERE

Seventy years after The Grapes of Wrath, Chris McGreal recreates John Steinbeck’s famous fictional journey to reveal life in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression

Chris McGreal in Tulsa, Oklahoma

Looking back on the past few weeks, Johnnie Levy can see how she was driven to the brink of death and didn’t care.

The sharpest economic downturn of her 63 years stripped Levy of her beloved job as a seamstress and unravelled her world until she found herself sitting in a church hall in the black end of Tulsa waiting to see a nurse with a syringe in one hand and a Bible in the other.

Tulsa has seen its share of poverty and desperation over the years. In the 1930s, it saw a tide of hundreds of thousands struggling west along Route 66 to escape economic collapse in the north and the notorious dustbowl of drought and wind across the Midwest. Whether they had lost their land or their jobs, that flow of desperate humanity – chronicled so devastatingly through the fictional Joad family in John Steinbeck‘s Grapes of Wrath – struggled hard to find enough to feed and clothe their children as they trekked towards an illusory dream of prosperity in distant California.

To travel the old road today – stumbling across crumbling ghost towns and half-abandoned communities, across the sprawling Native American desert reservations, through cities where people work all the hours they aren’t sleeping and still cannot afford to go to the doctor – is to encounter new despair, some of it still recognisable to the Joads.

The banks are once again evicting. Foreclosures plague the parts of northern Arizona and New Mexico traversed by the evicted 70 years ago.

But the monster – as Steinbeck described the financial system – has spawned modern beasts unknown to the Joads, such as the vast multinationals discarding American workers in favour of cheaper labour in Mexico and the health insurance companies that cut off the medical lifelines to the gravely ill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/27/grapes-of-wrath-1-tulsa

The Science of 9/11

August 31, 2009

http://www.scienceof911.com.au/

Study Says World’s Stocks Controlled by Select Few

August 30, 2009

Companies from US, UK and Australia have the most concentrated financial power.

stock market for beginners[3]

Aug 25, 2009

By Lauren Schenkman
Inside Science News Service

WASHINGTON — A recent analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries has revealed that the world’s finances are in the hands of just a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first clear picture of the global concentration of financial power, and point out the worldwide financial system’s vulnerability as it stood on the brink of the current economic crisis.

A pair of physicists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich did a physics-based analysis of the world economy as it looked in early 2007. Stefano Battiston and James Glattfelder extracted the information from the tangled yarn that links 24,877 stocks and 106,141 shareholding entities in 48 countries, revealing what they called the “backbone” of each country’s financial market. These backbones represented the owners of 80 percent of a country’s market capital, yet consisted of remarkably few shareholders.

“You start off with these huge national networks that are really big, quite dense,” Glattfelder said. “From that you’re able to … unveil the important structure in this original big network. You then realize most of the network isn’t at all important.”

The most pared-down backbones exist in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. Paradoxically; these same countries are considered by economists to have the most widely-held stocks in the world, with ownership of companies tending to be spread out among many investors. But while each American company may link to many owners, Glattfelder and Battiston’s analysis found that the owners varied little from stock to stock, meaning that comparatively few hands are holding the reins of the entire market.

“If you would look at this locally, it’s always distributed,” Glattfelder said. “If you then look at who is at the end of these links, you find that it’s the same guys, [which] is not something you’d expect from the local view.”

Matthew Jackson, an economist from Stanford University in Calif. who studies social and economic networks, said that Glattfelder and Battiston’s approach could be used to answer more pointed questions about corporate control and how companies interact.

“It’s clear, looking at financial contagion and recent crises, that understanding interrelations between companies and holdings is very important in the future,” he said. “Certainly people have some understanding of how large some of these financial institutions in the world are, there’s some feeling of how intertwined they are, but there’s a big difference between having an impression and actually having … more explicit numbers to put behind it.”

Based on their analysis, Glattfelder and Battiston identified the ten investment entities who are “big fish” in the most countries. The biggest fish was the Capital Group Companies, with major stakes in 36 of the 48 countries studied. In identifying these major players, the physicists accounted for secondary ownership — owning stock in companies who then owned stock in another company — in an attempt to quantify the potential control a given agent might have in a market.

The results raise questions of where and when a company could choose to exert this influence, but Glattfelder and Battiston are reluctant to speculate.

“In this kind of science, complex systems, you’re not aiming at making predictions [like] … where the tennis ball will be at given place in given time,” Battiston said. “What you’re trying to estimate is … the potential influence that [an investor] has.”

Glattfelder added that the internationalism of these powerful companies makes it difficult to gauge their economic influence. “[With] new company structures which are so big and spanning the globe, it’s hard to see what they’re up to and what they’re doing,” he said. Large, sparse networks dominated by a few major companies could also be more vulnerable, he said. “In network speak, if those nodes fail, that has a big effect on the network.”

The results will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review E.

http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few

Misinformation Alert: Barney Frank Never Said That HR 1207 Will Pass In October

August 30, 2009

By tmartin • August 28, 2009

Missing Sentence in Transcript Causes Premature HR 1207 Victory Celebration

Several blogs and forums reported during the past 24 hours that Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, said that Ron Paul’s bill to audit theFederal ReserveHR 1207, will pass in October.

Incorrect Reports about Barney Frank’s Statement on HR 1207

    A sloppy and incomplete transcript, which appears to have originated at theWashington Times, is making the rounds. The transcript is missing an essential sentence, which is marked in bold:

    Barney Frank: “I have been pushing for more openness from the Fed. I want to restrict the powers of the Federal Reserve. First of all, the Fed will be the major losers of power if we are successful, as I believe we will be, setting up a financial product protection commission. The Federal Reserve is now charged with protecting consumers. They were supposed to do subprime mortgage restrictions.

    Congress in 1994 gave the Fed powers to ban subprime mortgages. Alan Greenspan refused to do it. They had the power to ban credit card abuses. Under Greenspan they did nothing. Under Bernanke they started but only after Congress acted.That’s one of the reasons why in the new consumer protection agency, we will take away from the Federal reserve the power to go consumer protection.

    Secondly, they have has since 1932 a right under Herbert Hoover to intervene in the economy whenever they could. Last September, the Federal Reserve they were going to advance $82 billion to AIG. I was kind of surprised and said, ‘Mr Bernanke do you have $82 billion?’ Mr. Bernanke replied, ‘I have $800 billion and under section 13.3 of the Federal Reserve Act they can lend anything they want.’

    We are going to curtail that lending power. We are going to put some restrictions on it.

    Finally we will subject them to a complete audit. I have been working with Ron Paul, who is the main sponsor of that bill. He agrees that we don’t want to have the audit appear as if it influences monetary policy as that would be inflationary.

    One of the things the audit will show you is what the Federal Reserve buys itself. And that will be made public, but not instantly because if it was made instantly people would be trading off it, so the data would be released after a time period of several months, enough time so it will not be market sensitive. That will be part of the overall federal regulation that we are redacting. This will probably pass in October.”

    With “This will probably pass in October”, Frank is referring not to HR 1207, but to his own financial regulation bill, which might or might not include some aspects of Ron Paul’s HR 1207. The preceding sentence, “That will be part of the overall federal regulation that we are redacting,” is for some reason missing from the widely distributed transcript, and has therefore been completely ignored by bloggers and commentators.

    In recent weeks Ron Paul repeatedly warned against just this sort of thing happening: that HR 1207 might become part of a more comprehensive financial regulation bill and be watered down so that it appeases the angry masses without instituting any real changes. It would be an irony of history if that happened — if HR 1207 were watered down and integrated into an unconstitutional bill that Ron Paul would have to vote against.

    What did Ron Paul really say?

    It has become fashionable for the political elite to try to distort Ron Paul’s statements for political gain or even put entirely new words into his mouth. Just the other day,Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, “Even [Ron Paul] recognizes how important it is to us to have the Fed independent of politics.”

    Now Barney Frank claims that “[Ron Paul] agrees that we don’t want to have the audit appear as if it influences monetary policy as that would be inflationary.”

    Ron Paul never said that an audit of the Federal Reserve would be inflationary. In fact, he has credibly demonstrated the exact opposite: that the secretive Federal Reserve itself is responsible for inflation, with the dollar having lost 96% of its value since the Fed’s creation in 1913.

    Here is what Ron Paul actually said about HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve, and why only a real audit will protect the public’s interest.

    purchasepower

    Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, the big guns have lined up against HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What is it that they are so concerned about? What information are they hiding from the American people? The screed is: transparency is okay except for those things they don’t want to be transparent.

    Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, argues that HR 1207, the legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, would politicize monetary policy. He claims that monetary policy must remain independent, that is; secret. He ignores history because chairmen of the Federal Reserve in the past, especially when up for reappointment, do their best to accommodate the president with politically driven low interest rates and a bubble economy.

    Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Arthur Burns, when asked about all the inflationhe brought about in 1971 before Nixon’s reelection, said that the Fed has to do what the president wants it to do, or it would lose its independence. That about tells you everything.

    Not by accident Chairman Burns strongly supported Nixon’s program of wage and price controls the same year, but I guess that’s not political. Is not making secret deals with the likes of Goldman Sachs, international financial institutions, foreign governments and foreign central banks politicizing monetary policy?

    Bernanke argues that the knowledge that their discussions and decisions will one day be scrutinized will compromise the freedom of the Open Market Committee to pursue sound policy. If it is sound and honest and serves no special interest, what’s the problem?

    He claims that HR 1207 would give power to Congress to affect monetary policy. He dreamt this up to instill fear, an old statist trick to justify government power. HR 1207 does nothing of the sort. He suggested that the day after an FOMC meeting, Congress could send in the GAO to demand an audit of everything said and done. This is hardly the case. The FOMC function under HR 1207 would not change.

    The detailed transcripts of the FOMC meetings are released every 5 years, so why would this be so different and what is it that they don’t want the American people to know? Is there something about the transcripts that need to be kept secret, or are the transcripts actually not verbatim?

    Fed sycophants argue that an audit would destroy the financial markets’ faith in the Fed. They say this in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in history brought on by none other than the Federal Reserve. In fact, Chairman Bernanke stated on November 14th 2007, “A considerable amount of evidence indicates that Central Bank transparency increases the effectiveness of monetary policy and enhances economic and financial performance”.

    They also argue that an audit would hurt the value of the U.S. dollar. In fact, the Fed, in less than a 100 years of its existence, has reduced the value of the 1914 dollar by 96%.

    They claim HR 1207 would raise interest rates. How could it? The Fed sets interest rates and the bill doesn’t interfere with monetary policy. Congress would have no say in the matter and besides, Congress likes low interest rates.

    It is argued that the Fed wouldn’t be free to raise interest rates if they thought it necessary. But Bernanke has already assured the Congress that rates are going to stay low for the foreseeable future. And again, this bill does nothing to allow Congress to interfere with interest rate setting.

    Fed supporters claim that they want to protect the public’s interest with their secrecy. But the banks and Wall Streets are the opponents of HR 1207, and the people are for it. Just who best represents the public’s interest?

    The real question is: why are Wall Street and the Fed so hysterically opposed to HR 1207? Just what information are they so anxious to keep secret? Only an audit of the Federal Reserve will answer these questions.”

    75% Want A Real Audit

    We need to keep up the pressure to make sure that HR 1207 itself is put up for vote.75% of the American people want a real audit of the Federal Reserve, not a pretend investigation that goes to great pains not to ruffle any feathers, claiming that too close a look at what the Wizard is doing behind the curtain would be “inflationary” (Frank) and “problematic for the country” (Geithner).

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-08-28/barney-frank-didnt-say-that-hr-1207-will-pass-in-october/

Trailer for the upcoming ‘Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Obama’

August 30, 2009

Alex Jones: TV is Pentagon Designed Mind Control Device

August 30, 2009

http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-tv-is-pentagon-designed-mind-control-device/

Quarantine or 30 day jail for refusing the toxic vaccine

August 29, 2009

“Insanity from my home state. I hope people up there make a serious opposition to this, (for my families sake), or we will be stepping into a new state of ultra-control and the next incremental step to a new dawn of totalitarianism in the United States.

I just hope people smarten up and that they do it fast. You are being plaid like little children by the military industrial complex controlled media. This theatre they are creating is insanity on a massive scale. Don’t become the person you don’t want to be. There is the strength in all of you.

The people in this country are being tested and I think the government is underestimating the burning backlash of a wrath the collective American family will rain on anyone who unnecessarily and seriously threatens the health of their loved ones.”

-Fred Face  8/28/09

Financial Parasites Have Killed the American Economy

August 29, 2009

A Review of Economist Michael Hudson

Michael Hudson is a highly-regarded economist. He is a Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, who has advised the U.S., Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research. He is a former Wall Street economist at Chase Manhattan Bank who also helped establish the world’s first sovereign debt fund.

Hudson has frequently described Wall Street as “parasitic”. For example, in a 2003 interview, Hudson said:

The problem with parasites is not merely that they siphon off the food and nourishment of their host, crippling its reproductive power, but that they take over the host’s brain as well. The parasite tricks the host into thinking that it is feeding itself.

Something like this is happening today as the financial sector is devouring the industrial sector. Finance capital pretends that its growth is that of industrial capital formation. That is why the financial bubble is called “wealth creation,” as if it were what progressive economic reformers envisioned a century ago. They condemned rent and monopoly profit, but never dreamed that the financiers would end up devouring landlord and industrialist alike. Emperors of Finance have trumped Barons of Property and Captains of Industry.

More recently, Hudson said:

You can think of the financial sector as being wrapped around the real economy, almost like a parasite, and that’s why it’s been called parasitic for so long. The financial sector extracts interest from the economy, the property sector extracts economic rent, as do monopolies. Now the key thing about parasites, is that it’s not simply that they extract nourishment from the host. The parasite takes over the host’s brain, to make it think it’s part of the economy, to make it think it’s part of the host’s own body, and, in fact, that’s it almost like a child of the host, to be protected. And that’s what the financial sector has done today.

You have Obama coming out and saying, “We have to save the banks in order to save the real economy”. The fact is, you can’t serve both the parasite and the host.

And see this.

Today, I heard the podcast of an interview by KPFA radio host Bonnie Faulkner in which Hudson went even further. Specifically, he said:

  • The giant financial institutions have already killed their host – the real American economy
  • Since they realize that the American economy is dead, they are trying to suck as much blood out of America as possible while the corpse is still warm
  • Because the American economy is dead, their plan is to soon jump to another host. They will ship all of their money overseas

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14922

Racketeering 101: Bailed Out Banks Threaten Systemic Collapse If Fed Discloses Information

August 29, 2009

Article Here

geithner-bernanke-pointing_rt_20090114

Bill would give president Obama emergency control of Internet

August 29, 2009

sad-obama1

by Declan McCullagh

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate billproposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

The Move to Depopulate the Planet (Is Old Hat To These Old Piggish Control Freaks)

August 29, 2009

“These are sick people in control and they are obsessed with population control. This is what your swine flu hype is about. Those vaccines are full of additive fillers to help you on your way with fun stuff like Cancer and Arthritis. Stop assuming everybody is good like you.”

“The regular seasonal flu kills thousands more every year than this little media contrived, ultra-hyped, Mexico & U.S. outbreak we just had. Time to step back and look at the bigger picture. Stand up for yourselves for once. You can accept the truth or be in love with your indoctrinated self-hatred, (global warming, cough… cough), and love of death.”

-Fred Face 8/28/09

david_rockefeller

kissinger4

un2

Henry Kissinger, 1978:

“U.S. policy toward the third world should be one of depopulation”

It is my intention to give you clips from documents, many from the United Nations that prove there is a plan to depopulate this planet. I will also provide quotes from various people and organizations that further show this agenda is afoot. I pray the guidance of the Lord God Almighty will be with me in this pursuit to warn others of this dark plot against humanity.

Everything written in this paper is easily verifiable. It may take some time and effort, but I took great pains to make this paper as accurate as I possibly could.

The depopulation agenda is based on nature worship, or Gaia worship. In Genesis, God clearly told Adam and Eve, and then Noah and his family to go forth and multiply to fill the earth. Nowhere in the Bible does God rescind that clearly spoken commandment. Therefore man is attempting to supercede the command of the Lord God in heaven: The Creator! I ask you, who knows more about the state of the earth, the created, or the Creator?

The basis for the depopulation agenda is a standard all elitist’s hold dear. This standard is called:

The Hegelian Dialectic:

Problem – Reaction-Solution

Create the Problem Cause a Reaction Offer a Solution

You will see exactly how they have created the problem; caused a reaction so widespread it is really quite impressive how successful they have been; and offered a solution: A deadly solution.

I ask that you please make an attempt to distribute this paper everywhere you possibly can. The time grows short and so many are going to be caught unawares. By getting the word out, you may be able to prevent someone from needless pain and suffering.

Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill (this is absolute proof that man made global warming is a fabrication)…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

David Rockefeller: Memoirs 2002 Founder of the CFR:

“We wield over American political and economical institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political structure, one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

David Rockefeller, Co-founder of the Trilateral Commission:

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine & other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plans for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American Case Officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA) (now the US State Dept. Office of Population Affairs, est. by Henry Kissinger in 1975): “There is a single theme behind all our work -we must reduce population levels,” said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA). “Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. “The professionals,” said Ferguson, “aren’t interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population -or else we will have trouble.

“So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it…. There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there.” (1981)

Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, funded by the Rockefellers) said in her proposed “The American Baby Code”, intended to become law:

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

This is the woman (Margaret Sanger) whom Hillary Clinton publicly declared she looked up to, during the 2008 presidential debates.

Here is a short list of some advocates of eugenics; Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw H. G. Wells, Sidney Webb, William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling, Sidney Webb, Sir Francis Galton, Charles B. Davenport Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard (who wanted to create a Dept. of Peace):

“Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend…One-fourth is ready to so choose, given the example of one other…One-fourth is resistant to election. They are unattracted by life ever evolving. One-fourth is destructive. They are born angry with God…They are defective seeds…There have always been defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a ‘natural death’…we, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow…Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human—the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers—the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds. Fortunately you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God…the riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity…”

Alexander Haig is quoted referring to the US State Department Office of Population Affairs, which was established by Henry Kissinger in 1975. The title has since been changed to The Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs:

“Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nation’s access to nuclear energy technology–the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population. According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a “firm believer” in population control.

Although the above stated quotes should be sufficient to prove that the elitists in power have definite intent to depopulate this planet to what they deem to be a sustainable level. Some will argue these are only opinions and are of no real consequence. I will now move on to providing bits of documentation showing this is a plan that has a worldwide scope of influence.

Most of these documents are at least 10 years old, some older. That however, does not take away from the seriousness of the content. Do not think them invalid due to their age. It takes time to foment plans on such a grand scale. But, if you are honest with yourself you can see glimpses of these things happening today.

I am going to cover some issues stemming from the UN Treaty on Biological Diversity (Agenda 21), which Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993 before it was sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

Continue Article

Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory “decontaminations”

August 29, 2009

The entire population of the USA is now but one pen stroke away from being subjected to mandatory swine flu vaccinations at gunpoint.

police-vac

Mike Adams
Natural News
August 28, 2009

The United States of America is devolving into medical fascism and Massachusetts is leading the way with the passage of a new bill, the “Pandemic Response Bill” 2028, reportedly just passed by the MA state Senate and now awaiting approval in the House. This bill suspends virtually all Constitutional rights of Massachusetts citizens and forces anyone “suspected” of being infected to submit to interrogations, “decontaminations” and vaccines.

It’s also sets fines up to $1,000 per day for anyone who refuses to submit to quarantines, vaccinations, decontamination efforts or to follow any other verbal order by virtually any state-licensed law enforcement or medical personnel. You can read the text yourself here:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/sen…

Here’s some of the language contained in the bill:

(Violation of 4th Amendment: Illegal search and seizure)

During either type of declared emergency, a local public health authority… may exercise authority… to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises; to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be
decontaminated any building or facility; to destroy any material; to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;

(Violation of 14th Amendment; illegal arrest without a warrant)

…an officer authorized to serve criminal process may arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order given to effectuate the purposes of this subsection and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order. [Gunpoint]

(Government price controls)

The attorney general, in consultation with the office of consumer affairs and business regulation, and upon the declaration by the governor that a supply emergency exists, shall take appropriate action to ensure that no person shall sell a product or service that is at a price that unreasonably exceeds the price charged before the emergency.

“Involuntary Transportation” (also known as kidnapping)

Law enforcement authorities, upon order of the commissioner or his agent or at the request of a local public health authority pursuant to such order, shall assist emergency medical technicians or other appropriate medical personnel in the involuntary transportation of such person to the tuberculosis treatment center.

$1,000 / day in fines

Any person who knowingly violates an order, as to which noncompliance poses a serious danger to public health as determined by the commissioner or the local public health authority, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 30 days or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars per day that the violation continues, or both.

Forced vaccinations

Furthermore, when the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction determines that either or both of the following measures are necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health the commissioner or local public health authority may exercise the following authority: (1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis to individuals as protection against communicable disease…

Forced quarantine for those who refuse (illegal imprisonment without charge)

An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction.

Arrest for refusal to be “decontaminated”

If an individual is unable or unwilling to submit to decontamination or procedures necessary for diagnosis, the decontamination or diagnosis procedures may proceed only pursuant to an order of the superior court… During the time necessary to obtain such court order, such individual may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal to submit to decontamination or diagnosis procedures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health.

Interrogation

When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condition that poses a threat to the public health, in addition to their authority under section 96 of chapter 111, the commissioner or the local public health authority may detain the person for as long as may be reasonably necessary for the commissioner or the local public health authority, to convey information to the person regarding the disease or condition and to obtain contact information… If a person detained under subsection (1) refuses to provide the information requested, the person may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health…

Continue Article

Madsen on RT: Vaccine Creators Refuse to Take H1N1 Vaccine

August 29, 2009

Journalist Wayne Madsen tells Russia today scientists involved in creating previous vaccinations are telling family and friends not to take the H1N1 vaccine. Madsen also warns that the government may make the vaccination mandatory.

Volunteers Forum Attacked and Hacked!

August 28, 2009

I just received this Skype message from General Bert:

We have to send out an emergency notice to all of our forums and an emergency Health Freedom Action eAlert blast telling all Health Freedom supporters that our NSCC Yahoo! Forum for Health Freedonm Volunteers has been hacked and attacked – in fact, actually removed from Yahoo! by stealthbecausewhat we are doing is so important! 

Someone realizes that the more hands – and hearts – we have committed to health and freedom, the more powerful we are.  They knew that our Wednesday calls and our volunteer program are dynamic and gaining members all the time. Clearly, we are a significant threat to them.
– ANS”

Volunteers are important  Perhaps we did not realizehowimportant until  now: Natural Solutions Foundation’s Volunteer Forum, NSCC has disappeared from the Internet! None of our other forums has been harmed.. makes one wonder?

You  can see all the forum links (and more) at our Social Networking page:

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=713

Clearly, the more hands we have to do the work of health freedom, the more effective we will be.  So what better way to attack us than to cut off our communications?

While no one’s private information was jeopardized, the Forum held our contact list of Volunteers, their entries in the Skills Database, the Volunteer Calendar and our accumulated Volunteer Messages. We have emailed Yahoo requesting an investigation.

It’s something that the other side has tried before.  Instead of erasing us from the map, it lets people know just how meaningful their efforts for health freedom are and we come back stronger each time!

Is this a way to make sure that we cannot follow-up with the Emergency FDA “Stop the Shot” Petition?

We need all of you who had joined the NSCC forum to join our new volunteer forum ASAP:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NSF-volunteers/

Like other NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) Natural Solutions depends on the work of volunteers to do all the things we do to make your Push Backpossible – and to make it work! So, it is not surprising that this one forum out of nearly a dozen should be attacked.

General Bert tells me that we need to meet this sort of attack head-on and should consider such attacks to be demonstrations of the strength and increasing ability to impact public affairs. By refusing to be intimidated; by picking ourselves up and rebuilding our Volunteer Communications, we grow even stronger.

Thank you for your continued support!

Ralph Fucetola JD
Foundation Trustee

New Ron Paul Super Hero Comic Book Cover

August 28, 2009

paul-super

“FREAKED OUT WHITE PEOPLE”—MSNBC & The Great Liberal Narrative: The Truth About The Tyranny of Political Correctness

August 28, 2009

604_obama_white_liberal_guilt

Freaked out white people,” the new political kool-aid for Washington. The overwhelming majority of people showing up to these healthcare town hall meetings are non-racists, good middle-class, well informed!!, people of all races. Your being lied to on a massive scale when you watch stupid liberal TV or stupid republican TV. Yes, there are racist people of all races and unfortunately there may always be some. They live in fear and are not very bright.

Your television is off the hook with insane propaganda right now. Just because you oppose Obama doesn’t mean your a racist. He is fucking up things just as bad as Bush fuck, (actually much worse if you want the truth). They all work for the same people. And they are working in overdrive right now to divide this country… divide & conquer, get it?? You need to tap back into your brain and realize you have options. It’s the 21st century, we all need to wake up and evolve a bit.”

-Fred Face 8/27/09

Video:

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_with_Bill_Whittle/___MSNBC_%26_The_Great_Liberal_Narrative:_The_Truth_About_The_Ty ranny_of_Political_Correctness/2343/;jsessionid=abcr9MUSX7v9o8RnbEuns

n56606005190_2202

Ron Paul On Obamacare

August 27, 2009

The Big Takeover

August 26, 2009

U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks trial on global warming

August 26, 2009

“Uhhhyuuullllghurrooooonhhhhhggg”

al-gore-in-black

The business lobby, hoping to fend off potentially sweeping emission limits, wants the EPA to hold a ‘Scopes’-like hearing on the evidence that climate change is man-made.

By Jim Tankersley

L.A. Times.com

Reporting from Washington – The nation’s largest business lobby wants to put the science of global warming on trial.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.

Chamber officials say it would be “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” — complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.

“It would be evolution versus creationism,” said William Kovacs, the chamber’s senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. “It would be the science of climate change on trial.”

The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.

The EPA is having none of it, calling a hearing a “waste of time” and saying that a threatened lawsuit by the chamber would be “frivolous.”

EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency based its proposed finding that global warming is a danger to public health “on the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare.”

Environmentalists say the chamber’s strategy is an attempt to sow political discord by challenging settled science — and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end.

The chamber proposal “brings to mind for me the Salem witch trials, based on myth,” said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist for the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists. “In this case, it would be ignoring decades of publicly accessible evidence.”

In the coming weeks, the EPA is set to formally declare that the heat-trapping gases scientists blame for climate change endanger human health, and are thus subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The so-called endangerment finding will be a cornerstone of the Obama administration’s plan to set strict new emissions standards on cars and trucks.

The proposed finding has drawn more than 300,000 public comments. Many of them question scientists’ projections that rising temperatures will lead to increased mortality rates, harmful pollution and extreme weather events such as hurricanes.

In light of those comments, the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial-style public hearing, which is allowed under the law but nearly unprecedented on this scale, is the only way to “make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science.”

Most climate scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions, caused by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, are warming the planet. Using computer models and historical temperature data, those scientists predict the warming will accelerate unless greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically reduced.

“The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable,” said a recent letter to world leaders by the heads of the top science agencies in 13 of the world’s largest countries, including the head of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

The EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, as proposed in April, warned that warmer temperatures would lead to “the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems.”

Critics of the finding say it’s far from certain that warming will cause any harm at all. The Chamber of Commerce cites studies that predict higher temperatures will reduce mortality rates in the United States.

jtankersley@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-trial25-2009aug25,0,901567.story


Don’t Need No Trojan Horse — when Troy is your Home

August 26, 2009

obama-laughing

By Joe Bageant (about the author)

Almost a year after the Great Giddy Swarming of the Obamians last November, some of the revelers are waking up with one booger of a hangover. And they are asking themselves, “What were we thinking when we had that 10th drink of Democratic Party Kool-Aid?” It was a clear cut case of seduction and date rape. The spike in the drink was of course, hope. Poor pathetic American liberals. Forever doomed to be naive freshmen at the senior beer bash.

Corporate interests? Yup. It’s like this. Congress and the president hands the public treasury to elite financial corporations, via bailouts, special tax breaks and cash stuffed aircraft carriers bound for their fortified French20villas. Then Congress and the administration go looking for some new scheme to the pay for the Congressional Country Club out there in Bethesda, MD, the White House heating bill and money to keep Air Force One in toilet paper and armengnac marinated quail breasts.

This newest Social Security shell game is quite a bit slicker than the previous one. The old one consisted of simply ripping the money out of the SS fund, and replacing it with bad paper — IOUs repayable in up to 100 years. Since our Social Security checks cannot be cut by law, the boys on the Hill had a problem. The solution was to raise the Medicare prescription drug premium deducted from SS payments. Now I ask you, could the old zombie war hero and the semi-slutty Alaskan have come up with anything like that? I doubt it. It takes a Harvard degree in constitutional law and a devil on your shoulder named Tim Geithenr whispering the game plays in your ear.

A poster on AlterNet named monkeywrench observed that Obama couldn’t have handed the corporate owners of this country more if he had been a Trojan Horse candidate. So prescient was the poster that I have highjacked his chain of thought herein. Could Obama be a Trojan horse? Maybe, but it would be a waste of time and effort. Trojan hoses are not necessary in a country that has only one political party anyway – Big Business. You don’t need a Trojan Horse when Troy is your home. The Republicans vs. Democrats mock combat are mere bread and circuses for the clamoring crowd. Personally, I have no problem with that. I fully understand I was born under a corpocracy. But I do wish our masters grasped the importance of free alcohol in the suspension of disbelief.

Continue Article

CIA spies ‘certified’ with 2 weeks training

August 26, 2009

CIA_seal

By PAMELA HESS and MATT APUZZO – THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — With just two weeks of training, or about half the time it takes to become a truck driver, the CIA certified its spies as interrogation experts after 9/11 and handed them the keys to the most coercive tactics in the agency’s arsenal.

It was a haphazard process, cobbled together in the months following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington by an agency that had never been in the interrogation business. The result was a patchwork program in which rules kept shifting and the goals often were unclear.

At times, the interrogators went too far, even beyond the wide latitude they were given under the Bush administration’s flexible guidelines, according to newly unclassified documents released Monday. Interrogators took the simulated drowning technique of waterboarding beyond what was authorized. Mock executions were held. Family members were threatened. There were hints of rape.

If it was a terrifying process for the detainees, it was a bureaucratic nightmare for the interrogators. Until 2003, the agency provided its interrogators with rules on a case-by-case basis, sometimes giving permission by e-mail or even orally from CIA headquarters.

Despite the lack of clarity, interrogators were required to sign documents saying they understood the rules and would comply with them. Yet they were given ample room to improvise and make decisions about how much humanity to show to terror detainees.

While former Vice President Dick Cheney said the interrogation program was run by “highly trained professionals who understand their obligations under the law,” the newly released documents suggest otherwise, at least in the early months.

The interrogators slapped prisoners, held a handgun to one’s head, used power drills to make threats and left men shackled and naked in frigid rooms until they cooperated.

“How cold is cold?” one officer said in the 2004 CIA inspector general’s report released Monday. “How cold is life threatening?”

The CIA’s Counterterrorism Center began training interrogators in November 2002, two months after suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah already had been repeatedly subjected to waterboarding.

But because the CIA had so little information about al-Qaida, CIA analysts could only speculate about what the detainees “should know,” hobbling the interrogators’ ability to ask meaningful questions and identify misleading or useful answers.

Some in the CIA correctly feared that the existence of the program would leak out someday. Others worried they’d be identified by name in news stories.

“One officer expressed concern that, one day, agency officers will wind up on some ‘wanted list’ to appear before the World Court for war crimes,” the inspector general wrote.

Another added, “Ten years from now we’re going to be sorry we’re doing this … (but) it has to be done.”

Even the Justice Department, which authorized the interrogation program, conceded in a 2004 memo that “at least in some instances and particularly early in the program,” the program appeared to have gone off track.

Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a prosecutor Monday to look into whether such incidents amounted to violation of federal law. He said nobody who operated within the framework of the Justice Department’s legal opinions will be charged.

But the program that the Bush administration’s Justice Department approved in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks began to short-circuit almost immediately.

In August 2002, government lawyers said interrogators were not supposed to use harsh tactics until all other methods had failed. But three months later, when officials captured the terrorism suspect Abd al-Nashiri, believed to be behind the bombing of the USS Cole, interrogators immediately launched into enhanced tactics.

And the method of waterboarding used by the CIA did not always resemble the clinical, closely supervised process that the Justice Department approved. One official, explaining why interrogators were pouring excessive amounts of water over a detainee’s cloth-covered mouth and nose, said, “It is for real.”

Another interrogator repeatedly choked off the carotid artery of a prisoner, causing the detainee to pass out, then shaking him awake again. The interrogator had only recently been trained in interrogation tactics and had previous experience only in debriefing, the practice of questioning people already willing to cooperate.

As late as September 2003, the CIA was still sending mixed signals to its interrogators.

“No formal mechanisms were in place to ensure that personnel going to the field were briefed on the existing legal and policy guidance,” the report said.

It was a debriefer, not a trained interrogator, who threatened alleged al-Nashiri with a power drill and an unloaded gun. Such threats violate U.S. anti-torture laws.

It’s not clear from CIA reports whether waterboarding or other aggressive tactics made America safer, as Cheney has long claimed. CIA officials credited the detention and interrogation program with thwarting several terrorist attacks. But investigators said it’s less certain that waterboarding or other coercive tactics directly contributed to that success.

In one case, CIA officials staged a mock execution to terrify a detainee into cooperating. Mock executions are prohibited under U.S. law. But authorities believed the detainee was withholding information, and they felt they needed to get creative. So they pretended to kill another detainee in a nearby room.

It was an elaborate setup, complete with a guard playing a dead detainee.

But the scheme apparently didn’t work. A senior officer later said the effort was so obviously a ruse, it yielded no benefit to interrogators.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/08/25/10601696-ap.html

The Continuing Militarization of Biological Sciences

August 25, 2009

460950a-i1.0

Malcolm Dando1

As researchers discover more agents that alter mental states, the Chemical Weapons Convention needs modification to help ensure that the life sciences are not used for hostile purposes, says Malcolm Dando.

In October 2002, Chechen rebel fighters held more than 750 people hostage at a Nord-Ost production in a theatre in Moscow. The siege was broken only after special military forces used what the Russian Health Minister, Yuri Shevchenko, later described as a mixture of substances derived from fentanyl — an opiate developed in the 1950s as an anaesthetic. Widespread relief that many of the hostages were saved was tempered by 124 of them being killed by the gas.

Chemicals with effects like those of fentanyl are often known as ‘incapacitating agents’. These substances affect biochemical processes and physiological systems to produce a disabling condition such as unconsciousness, and in higher concentrations can cause death. With effects that last from hours to days, they are distinct from standard riot-control agents such as CS gas, which cause sensory irritation that disappears shortly after termination of exposure.

That Russian special military forces resorted to using fentanyl in Moscow is a possible harbinger of the wider militarization of advances in the biological sciences.

Designer weapons

Attempts to exploit benignly intended research for hostile purposes are not new. After the Second World War, the international medical community began to discover compounds that alleviated symptoms of mental illnesses such as depression and mood swings. These findings weren’t accompanied by a good understanding of how the drugs worked. Nevertheless, they prompted nations to ramp up their efforts to find chemicals suited to military use. In fact, in 1959, the chairman of the UK government’s secret Chemistry Committee of the Advisory Council on Scientific Research and Technical Development told his colleagues that the committee was “looking for agents which would produce, not cure, psychoses”1.

Between the early 1950s and 1970s, researchers working in laboratories that eventually became the US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense studied chemical agents that affect the central nervous system. Indeed in 1961, the US military weaponized BZ — a drug that had originally been studied as a possible therapy for gastrointestinal diseases. BZ is one of a group of chemicals that act on the brain and can cause delirium; people exposed to it may fall into a stupor, struggle to speak, show poor coordination and have difficulty processing thoughts.

Despite the long-standing interest the defence industry has shown in drugs that alter people’s physiological and mental states, a lack of knowledge has hampered attempts to use them. For example, by 1966, the US military had stockpiled munitions capable of delivering BZ, but its mode and site of action were poorly understood, and its effects varied widely from person to person. This and other problems led to its abandonment. The United States destroyed its stocks by 1990, several years before the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) entered into force in 1997.

Current biochemical threats range from lethal chemical agents to traditional and genetically modified biological agents. In general, biological agents such as anthrax cause governments the most concern. Only a few pathogens are suitable for military use, however. For example, smallpox could prove useful as a weapon because it is highly contagious; anthrax because it has a life cycle that involves the production of long-lived spores. The limited range of possibilities means that there is a good chance of developing countermeasures such as vaccines or antibiotics against these agents. Even if efforts are made to modify them — for example by introducing genes that encode antibiotic resistance — the problem of designing countermeasures is potentially surmountable because the range of effective manipulations that can be made is also limited.

But recent scientific and technological advances could transform the biochemical-threat landscape. Indeed, in 2003, military analysts from the Counterproliferation and Technology Office of the Defense Intelligence Agency in Washington DC predicted that emerging biotechnologies were likely to lead to a “paradigm shift” in the development of biological warfare agents2. They warned that it would soon become possible to engineer agents to target specific human biological systems at the molecular level.

This idea of identifying crucial biochemical pathways, and then designing compounds to disrupt them is a leap from the traditional model of biological-agent development. It expands the options: there are likely to be thousands of potential molecular targets and numerous ways of disrupting each one.

Continue Article

Authorities Prepare To Seize Kids During Swine Flu Pandemic

August 25, 2009

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, August 24, 2009

Authorities are preparing to seize children from schools, set up quarantines and morgues, conduct mass vaccinations, and deal with riots and unrest, according to an international swine flu summit recently held in Washington DC which was attended by distinguished scientists, industry leaders and top health officials from all over the globe.

A conference first discussed by this website three weeks ago has now taken place, with health authorities meeting at the end of last week to finalize response plans to a swine flu pandemic that has been all but guaranteed to occur this coming fall.

According to a PDF information leaflet released before the meeting, attendees were briefed on how to “conduct morgue operations,” manage an interruption in food supplies and “manage panic caused by sudden disruption of services & interruptions in essential goods & services”.

During a swine flu pandemic, their duties would also include dealing with civil disturbances, controlling and diffusing social unrest and public disorder, carrying out mass vaccination programs and enforcing quarantines, according to the conference documentation.

One of the most shocking modules of the conference deals with “School/University Pandemic Planning” and strongly implies that authorities will usurp parental rights over children in the event of a swine flu pandemic.

Mexico Swine Flu

“Concurrent Breakout Session #10″ outlines plans to “train teachers to screen for symptoms & know what to do when students / teachers fall ill,” before then transporting ill students, which presumably means transporting them to quarantine zones with or without the consent of parents. The use of schools as “shelters” or quarantine centers is also mentioned.

As we have documented, authorities have been training to raid and remove children from schools during times of emergency for over a decade, mainly under the auspices of preparing for school shootings or during drug sweeps.

In October 2001, authorities swooped in to kidnap and remove 115 children from Heartland Christian Academy without a warrant. Children were forcibly loaded onto buses like criminals as they screamed for help in shocking scenes featured in Alex Jones’ Road To Tyranny documentary.

Earlier this month we reported on how a Maine high school was taken over by National Guard in a drill focused around riots during a mass vaccination program. In this scenario, the rioters were begging for the vaccine, but obviously the opposite is likely to be the case if a mandatory vaccination program is announced, if there are riots then they will consist of people refusing to take the shot.

A You Tube user posted the following video which covers some of the issues raised by the swine flu conference.

http://www.infowars.com/authorities-prepare-to-seize-kids-during-swine-flu-pandemic/

Obama Joker Posters Cited As “Hate Speech”

August 25, 2009

“Wow. People have really lost their fuckin minds. How that is hate speech is beyond me by a couple of light years. Man,  the government loves to use the race card when it suits them. This is a total non-issue. There is zero debate about this. Bush-Fuck would be getting same treatment, (probably much worse), doing the same absolutely horrible job Obama is doing. The image of Obama as the Joker & the word fascism has nothing to do with race. Period. End of story. Go smoke a joint and fuckin relax people. ”

-Fred Face 8/24/09

240809hate

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, August 24, 2009

Get involved and fight back against phony charges of hate speech — make a poster and enter The Poster Revolution contest.

A local Texas newspaper has cited the now iconic “Jokerbama” image as an example of hate speech after a military veteran reported the presence of the posters on light poles in his local area to City Hall officials.

The Hays Free Press carried the headline Freedom… of hate speech?on its front page late last week next to the Infowars version of the Jokerbama image, with the word “fascism” underneath.

The article notes that the appearance of the posters has been spearheaded by Alex Jones’ competition, but only cites negative feedback from a few local residents who they say have been taking the posters down:

“This is appalling,” [local resident] Lutrick said. “I served in the military. That’s my commander in chief.”

The article also quotes a City of Kyle spokesperson:

“Jerry Hendrix declined to comment about the nature of the fliers hung in the public right-of-way, but said they violate the city’s sign ordinance. If caught, the individual could be fined up to $2,000.”

“Whoever is doing it needs to stop,” Hendrix said. “It creates additional work for our code enforcement officer.”

Despite this threat of a fine, the article also notes that there are “no actual restrictions prohibiting” the placement of the posters.

Related Reading: Obama as Joker Explained

Meanwhile, ABC affiliate KBMT News reported on the appearance of the posters in Tyler, Texas, noting that “Tyler police took photos and collected some of the posters as evidence,” as if they are investigating a crime.

Watch Alex Jones’ breakdown of this story from yesterday’s syndicated Sunday show (begins 8 mins in):

The censorship of the image online also continues with Yahoo owned photograph website Flickr now closing down discussion forums on the image in addition to removing the image from their pages.

Firas Alkhateeb, the artist behind the picture has said he plans to file a counterclaim against Flickr censorship of his image.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-joker-posters-cited-as-hate-speech/

Stop Obamacare

August 25, 2009

CALL THE 10 SENATORS LISTED BELOW: Your PHONE CALLS to Kill Obamacare socialized medicine have been very effective and the tide is definitely turning our way! Talking points are 1) NO more socialism 2) NO government health co-ops 3) NO rationing 4) NO mandates 5) NO government bureaucrats making life and death health decisions 6) YES to keep private insurance. Tell them to KILL Obamacare before it kills you or family members with health care rationing. We just need to KEEP making PHONE CALLS!. Most of these are conservative Democrats in red states:

Sen. Jon Tester (MT) 202-224-2644
Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) 202-224-5344
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR) 202-224-4843
Sen. Mark Pryor (AR) 202-224-2353
Sen. Kent Conrad (ND) 202-224-2043
Sen.Byron Dorgan (ND)202-224-2551
Sen. Ben Nelson (NE) 202-224-6551
Sen. Bill Nelson (FL) 202-224-5274
Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA) 202-224-5834
Sen. Max Baucus (MT) 202-224-2651

Israelis restrict Palestinians’ water supply

August 25, 2009

Congressman Baird Gets an Earful During Town Hall on Obamacare

August 25, 2009

Israel In 3 Minutes

August 24, 2009

“I have many “practicing” Jewish-American friends, (I lived in NYC & Brooklyn for almost 10 years), I have absolutely nothing against Jewish people, (Obviously!!)… it’s their sick & twisted government, (much like our own who help support this activity). Although, it would be nice to see more Israeli citizens protesting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the hand of their own government.”

-Fred Face 8/23/09

Guardian investigation uncovers evidence of alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza

August 24, 2009

AFRICOM: Western Self-Serving Interests or African Security?

August 24, 2009

afr-logo

By Paul I. Adujie, New York

America’s establishment of the so-called African Command(AFRICOM), should be seen for what it is: America’s self-interested armada of protection for America, and her allies and not for Africa’s security. Africa has steadily and increasingly become more important by playing the role for Westerners as repository of energy resources which powers the engine-rooms of Western economies.

Additionally, America and her Western allies are in trepidations and stampede to stem China’s forays into Africa with plethora of real investments in solid infrastructures in many African nations.

The formation of this command was made official by former president of the United States, George W. Bush on February 6, 2007. It has been controversial since, particularly among
Africans.

There is as well a lively debate by Americans in the Department of Defense, the War College, US State Department, and various Policy Foundations by policy wonks, aside from the Africans.

A major component and a key element in these debates is the fear of China. China is buoyed by her recent economic progress. China has, for more than a decade, attained major economic expansion of more than nine percent annually.

China has become exceedingly confident on the world stage. America and her Western allies are therefore deeply troubled by this state of affairs. China is seen by Western governments as a nuisance, an irritant and a competitor worth her weight in gold.

The sheer size of China, her industrial and technological ascendancy, tripled with her ability to produce with low overhead costs, empowers China, like no other nation. China is as well a major financier of America’s public debt, in the trillions. Sino-phobia in Western countries can also be blamed for America’s sudden desire to establish military presence in Africa.

Continue Article

Related:

Cynthia McKinney – Oppose Africom

CLG Pandemic Action Alerts

August 24, 2009

http://www.legitgov.org/pandemic_action.html

22083152e6fa835053d47b4a4df6c3081

British MEP Daniel Hannan

August 24, 2009

Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP for the South East of England and author of The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain.