"IF YOUR'E GOING TO PUT YOUR FAMILY IN A NURSING HOME... YOU BETTER VISIT THEM AT LEAST EVERY TWO DAYS, YOU BETTER LIVE NEAR THEM, YOU BETTER BRING THEM LUNCH, YOU BETTER SIT THERE AND WATCH TV WITH THEM, YOU BETTER SIT THERE AND RUB THERE FEET AND LOVE YOUR PARENTS (voice raises in anger) THAT WIPED YOUR BUTT, THAT TOOK CARE OF YOU, YOU SCUMBAG YUPPIES!!!"
-Alex Jones speaking to yuppies (and all Americans for that matter)
"What a bunch of garbage, liberal, Democratic, conservative, Republican, it's all there to control you, two sides of the same coin! Two management teams, bidding for control of the CEO job of Slavery Incorporated!"
--Alex Jones
We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.
Author: David Rockefeller, Source: Trilateral Commission meeting, June, 1991
The Hills actor tells The Alex Jones Show why the implantable microchip represents the “mark of the beast”
Left: Interview in four segments
Star of MTV’s The Hills Heidi Montag appeared on The Alex Jones Show today with her fellow co-star husband Spencer Pratt to discuss how some nightclubs are introducing implantable identification microchips to allow customers to access VIP areas. Montag told Jones, “You would have to kill me before I get a chip.”
Montag said that as a Christian she had always been aware of “the mark of the beast” and the content of the book of Revelations but over the last month she and her husband had arrived at a “new awakening” concerning what is going on in the world after one of her music producers showed them Alex Jones’ latest documentary The Obama Deception.
“You would have to kill me before I get a chip, that would never happen,” said Montag, referring to implantable microchips.
“The fact that people are even already OK with this is sickening, I could throw up right now,” she added, “A chip? are we dogs? Not even dogs deserve chips.”
“It says in the bible that it’s the mark of the beast and that is a sign of worshipping the devil - so over my dead body would I ever get a chip in my body,” said Montag, adding, “My body belongs to Jesus Christ, to God alone, and no one will ever put anything in me, I will not worship the devil, I will not be conformed to this world, that will not happen.”
The subject of implantable microchips has vehemently left the realm of paranoia and is now a major concern as governments around the world prepare to roll out national ID cards which many fear could be replaced by mandatory implantable chips in the not too distant future.
Media interest surrounding the issue spiked in 2002 when the Jacobs family of Boca Raton, Florida, were all implanted with a Verichip containing their personal information for health and security reasons, as well as because the son Derek fantasized “about merging humans and machines”. NBC News’ Today Show even broadcast live footage of the family being surgically implanted with their chips.
In 2004, MSNBC reported that the Mexican attorney general and his staff of 160 people had “been implanted with microchips that get them access to secure areas of their headquarters.”
In August 2007, the Department of Defense announced that they were pursuing a “brain-implantable “biochip” that will measure/relay a soldier’s vitals on the battlefield,” a project said to be five years from completion.
As we have previously highlighted, the promotion of microchips not just from a safety or military aspect but in the context of popular culture is starting to gain serious momentum.
The most recent example comes from Yahoo Tech, which this week rehashed a 5 year old story about an implantable microchip being required to access the VIP area of a cool nightclub in Barcelona, as well as being used in place of a credit card to pay for drinks.
The story emphasizes how taking the chip is used to “free customers of the burdens of having to carry their purses or wallets” and “makes sense”.
Now that Montag, who is apparently an actor on MTV, is encouraging people to sign up for Infowars and Prison Planet twitter alerts (see screenshot) at http://twitter.com/PrisonPl.... She is also linking directly to our articles.
Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to remain stationed at dozens of U.S. military bases throughout the country
The corporate media is getting all giddy and affording blanket coverage to the story of Iraqis who are “regaining their sovereignty” as U.S. troops are pulled out from Iraqi cities. This is of course lurid and baseless propaganda - hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq stationed at the dozens of military bases that have been built across the country.
“As of now, there are approximately 130,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. Most of the U.S. soldiers that had been deployed in Iraqi cities are being returned to garrison elsewhere in country. The United States Air Force controls Iraq’s airspace. The United States Navy controls Iraq’s territorial waters,” points out the Cryptogon blog.
“Sovereignty: No. Propaganda: Yes.”
After the “official” full withdrawal date of 2011, which Admiral Mike Mullen has indicated isn’t even guaranteed, “Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a “residual force” of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down foreign terrorist cells and guard American institutions,” reported the New York Times back in February.
“Residual force” is a euphemism for “occupying army,” since only the most stupidly naive could ever believe that Iraq is now nothing more than a subservient client state of the new world order empire.
A senior military officer spelled it out more plainly to the Los Angeles Times, “When President Obama said we were going to get out within 16 months, some people heard, ‘get out,’ and everyone’s gone. But that is not going to happen,” the officer said.
Furthermore, U.S. troops aren’t even leaving the cities altogether. Reports confirm that U.S. tanks will continue to patrol the areas outside of the “green zone” and the airport in Baghdad. The streets of major cities will still be patrolled by U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers manning checkpoints everywhere harassing people for ID. In addition, if the Iraqis “request help” from U.S. troops to undertake security procedures, they’ll be right back on the streets just as before.
Iraqis themselves are not fooled by the charade. As the New York Times admits, the “celebrations” today “seemed contrived”, “Police cars were festooned with plastic flowers, and signs celebrating “independence day” were tied to blast walls and fences around the city. On Monday, night a festive evening celebration in Zahra Park with singers and entertainers drew primarily young men, many of them off-duty police officers,” according to the report.
“There is no doubt this is not national sovereignty because the Americans will stay inside Iraq in military bases,” said Najim Salim, 40, a teacher in Basra. “But the government wants to convince the citizens that there is a withdrawal of foreign troops, although the government could not protect citizens in some cities in Iraq even with the presence of U.S. forces.”
According to Websters dictionary, “sovereignty” is defined as “freedom from external control”.
Anyone who believes that Iraq is a sovereign country and has “freedom from external control,” or will ever achieve it while hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops are stationed at dozens of bases throughout the country, probably still believes that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
Some people seem to have forgotten what seasons are
In what amounts to little more than a three paragraph rant, a well known British climate change alarmist has announced that the onset of a glorious spell of Summer weather has uniformly silenced climate change “deniers”.
His central, and indeed his only point seems to be that because it is hot at the moment in the South East of England, this can be used to counter those who question the “consensus” on climate change because they cite the fact that temperatures around the world are actually decreasing.
Once again using the inane and extremely derogatory term of “denier” for anyone who raises questions over the theory of man made global warming, Monbiot fires his way through an immature explosion of words that may as well read “TOLD YOU SO, TOLD YOU SO, NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH.”
The fact that it is the height of Summer and this is the first time in three years that this country has seen any kind of agreeable weather, seems to be a secondary point to those like Monbiot, who would have us believe that we’re all going to keel over and die unless we start paying vast amounts of taxes to politicians and carbon trading businessmen.
As several comments to Monbiot’s blog point out, the so called “heatwave” is confined primarily to London and the South East of England and is scheduled to last just a couple of days. After this, temperatures are due to return to the average 18 or 19 degrees celsius.
Still, this hasn’t stopped the usual suspects from crawling out of their global warming survival bunkers to grace us with their ill informed opinions and ravings:
“Well said George, climate change deniers are gutless human filth.” one commenter posts.
“Down here in Australia, we had a murderous heatwave which killed over 400 people. A few deniers piped up saying ‘well there was a hotter day in 1939 so this means nothing’. A few weeks later we had a 47 degree day, 2 degrees higher than ever before, in 150 years of records.” the comment continues.
“After the murderous heat, this finally silence the climate denying morons (who of course, now had blood on their hands) but since then they’ve managed to slither back again with their typical lies.”
Perhaps we should go over some of those “typical lies” again, in an attempt to bring some kind of sanity to a person who believes that 400 isolated deaths over the course of one Summer constitutes a global heatwave that is killing the planet.
Those who act as shills for the climate change hoax may believe that anyone who dares challenge the orthodoxy of the church of global warming is automatically a heretic and that no evidence whatsoever needs to even be presented to counter their sacrilege, but here in the real world we prefer to stick to the facts.
Empirical satellite data shows that mean global temperatures are the same that they were 30 years agoand that global sea ice is also at similar levels. Following a spike in global temperatures at the end of the last century that coincided with the sun undergoing its most active period in recent times, the planet has now cooled to 1979 levels. At the end of summer last year, despite hysterical predictions that the North Pole would be free of ice for the first time in history,Arctic sea ice had actually expanded by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany.
Coinciding with expanding ice sheets, there has been no rise in sea levels for the past three years. Tropical storms and extreme weather events attributed to global warming like hurricanes and typhoonsare at a record low.
The United Nations’s IPCC, the heavily politicized organization that is often erroneously cited as an independent scientific body by climate change promoters,was last year caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception.
“This was startling,” reported the London Telegraph. “Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”
It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures for October.
As David Deming points out in his excellent article today, temperature data collected by weather stations is being artificially impacted by measuring systems placed nearby to sources of heat. This is why claims that global temperatures are still rising are completely contradicted by real world evidence of falling temperatures and whatsome scientists are warning is the beginning of a new ice age.
“Why do people think the planet is warming?,” writes Deming. “One reason is that the temperature data from weather stations appear to be hopelessly contaminated by urban heat effects. A survey of the 1221 temperature stations in the US by meteorologist Anthony Watts and his colleagues is now more than 80 percent complete. The magnitude of putative global warming over the last 150 years is about 0.7 C. But only 9 percent of meteorological stations in the US are likely to have temperature errors lower than 1 C. More than two-thirds of temperature sensors used to estimate global warming are located near artificial heating sources such as air conditioning vents, asphalt paving, or buildings. These sources are likely to introduce artifacts greater than 2 C into the temperature record.”
“Every year in the US, more than forty thousand people are killed in traffic accidents. But not one single person has ever been killed by global warming. The number of species that have gone extinct from global warming is exactly zero. Both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets are stable. The polar bear population is increasing. There has been no increase in infectious disease that can be attributed to climate change. We are not currently experiencing more floods, droughts, or forest fires,” he concludes.
As we have attempted to warn, the major beneficiaries of the climate bill will be the elitists who own the carbon trading systems that will be used to handle the ‘cap and trade’ program, namely Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.
Gores investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).
While Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.
Full frontal assault on every aspect of freedom kicks into high gear as the elite twist the knife into the rotting carcass of the United States
The wholesale looting of America and the transfer of wealth and power over to a private banking elite who are setting up a world government, along with the complete obliteration of any remaining freedom to protest, resist, or even speak out against this agenda, is now entering its final phase as numerous different pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place and portray a clear picture of tyranny.
We are about to sound the death knell for the United States if every one of the following attacks on our liberty, free speech, sovereignty, and right to not be ruled over by an unelected banking dictatorship is not fiercely opposed and crushed.
RED ALERT 1
The passage of the “Climate Bill” by the House and its likely approval by the Senate represents the entrée for the complete and total subjugation of any freedoms we had left and the beginning of nightmare regulation and suffocating control over every aspect of our personal lives by millions of green stasi tasked with enforcing impossible to attain goals of 80% carbon dioxide reduction - all based on the manufactured threat of global warming.
This bill will also sink the economy and create a new great depression, effectively obliterating America’s first world status. It represents a transfer of power and wealth from both the U.S. government and the American taxpayer over to the system of world government and global regulation now being erected by means of the climate change hoax.
This is far worse than just a “new tax” as Republicans are complaining - this is the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests through the carbon trading system.
As we have attempted to warn, the major beneficiaries of the climate bill will be the elitists who own the carbon trading systems that will be used to handle the ‘cap and trade’ program, namely Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.
We must rally now to lobby members of Congress who voted for the legislation and demand they change their vote before July 2nd. Failing that, we must demand that the Senate does not rubber stamp this nightmare legislation. Failing that, we must support and organize to craft more legislation based on the example of Arizona, who recently passed state Senate legislation refusing to comply with insane climate laws coming from the federal level.
RED ALERT 2
The seemingly endless economic “bailouts” represent the wholesale looting of the American taxpayer and the grand theft of trillions of dollars by private banking interests who refuse to even disclose where the money went.
Not satisfied with stealing tens of trillions, under the Obama administration’s new regulatory reform plan, the Federal Reserve is now trying to enrich itself with dictator powers that will give it complete control over the U.S. economy, handing them the authority to “regulate” and shut down any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets.
We must rally now and lobby more members of Congress to support Ron Paul’s H.R. 1207 bill to audit the Federal Reserve and highlight the fact that Bernanke is spewing financial terrorism when he threatens an economic collapse should the Fed be opened up to scrutiny.
RED ALERT 3
Federal hate crimes legislation, which in reality would criminalize “thought crimes,” has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act).
S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:
“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)”
In other words, if a talk show host engages in “hostile” speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term.
The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been “harmful” to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.
If both bills are not opposed and thrown out then the First Amendment will become nothing more than a relic of a bygone age.
RED ALERT 4
The Senate bill S.787, otherwise known as the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA), would replace language in the regulatory act currently using “navigable waters” with “waters of the United States.”
What this means is that “the government would essentially be able to regulate everything from standing water in floodplains to creeks that run behind business and residences,” according to an Environmental Leader report.
This represents a complete takeover of private land and waterways by the federal government, a total assault on private property rights and a complete federalization of America’s land and water.
“In a letter to Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer and ranking member James Inhofe, the American Farm Bureau Federation said that the proposed law would “extend to all water — anywhere from farm ponds, to storm water retention basins, to roadside ditches, to desert washes, to streets and gutters, even to a puddle of rainwater,” stated the letter. “For the first time in the 36-year history of the act, activities that have no impact on actual rivers and lakes would be subject to full federal regulation.”
If this bill becomes law, it will empower the federal government to seize private property on a whim, using similar powers that Communist China employed during Chairman Mao’s “great leap forward,” where landowners had their property violently confiscated and stolen by the government.
If this bill passes the Senate, private property rights in the United States are effectively null and void and the federal government would legally have the power to bulldoze families from their homes as routinely happens in Communist China.
RED ALERT 5
Amongst the myriad of assaults on the Second Amendment rights of American citizens undertaken by the Obama administration during the course of its first year in office, the one that stands out as the most alarming is the attempt to ban people who appear on the terrorist watch list from buying guns.
But isn’t stopping terrorists from buying guns surely a sensible measure to take? The problem is that the terrorist watch list, sometimes called the no fly list, is not a list of likely terrorists, it is a sprawling database of of innocent people that contains the names of over one million Americans. This is a rise of 32% since 2007 alone.
Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes, reverends, the former assistant attorney general, toddlers and children, the ACLU administrator, people with difficult names and all American names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become caught in the vast tentacle of this list, documents the ACLU.
Moreover, once a person is included on the terrorist watch list it is virtually impossible to get off it.
The terrorist watch list is an ever-expanding tool with which to deny Americans basic rights as well as to strip them completely of the Fourth Amendment.
This represents a new end run around the Second Amendment and a concerted effort on behalf of the federal government to classify millions of innocent Americans as potential terrorists, thus stripping them of their Constitutional right to own firearms.
RED ALERT 6
Our right to protest against any of the egregious assaults on the Constitution that are listed above is itself being removed by new law enforcement and Pentagon training manuals and guidelines that define protesting as domestic terrorism.
Over the last few years we have documented countless examples of security assessment reports from the likes of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as police training manuals, which state that anti-war protesters, gun owners, veterans, Ron Paul supporters and those who merely cite the Constitution should be equated with extremists and domestic terrorists.
The fact that the government is now treating people who merely criticize its conduct as domestic terrorists is the clearest signal possible that the United States has entered a period in history similar to Germany in the early 1930’s and that it can only be a matter of time before the right “emergency” provides the justification for dissidents to be targeted for round-ups and mass imprisonment.
No one can claim now that this is merely a paranoid delusion - the government itself is training its law enforcement and military arms that protesters and people who use their First Amendment rights are domestic terrorists. The last time this happened was under King George shortly before the American Revolution.
ONE MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT
If we don’t stand up in unison and exercise our right to protest and free speech now more than ever before, while pointing out that the real terrorists are those who would seek to destroy the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, then we may find ourselves doing our protesting behind the barbed wires and the concrete blocks of an internment camp.
The hour is late, the clock stands at one minute to midnight, and the federal government, through all the examples documented above, is on the verge of implementing nothing less than a total environmental, financial and societal dictatorship and killing what once was the United States of America.
Almost identical programs of total enslavement are also being pushed through in almost every other major western country at the same time.
If we don’t stop obsessing about the minutia of life and actually concentrate on the imminent destruction of the very principles of our livelihoods, the bedrock freedoms that allow us to operate in relative comfort on a daily basis and be reasonably secure in our own homes, being able to pay our bills, put food on the table, earn money, and air our grievances when government threatens to impinge on those basic freedoms, then there will be nothing left but a rotten hollow carcass and a memory of what America once strived to be - land of the free, home of the brave - not land of the thief, home of the slave.
SACRAMENTO (Bloomberg News) — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California said he would order some 200,000 state workers to take a third furlough day every month if lawmakers could not agree on how to close a $24 billion deficit.
Mr. Schwarzenegger wants lawmakers to send him a package of spending cuts by Tuesday.
California is set to run out of money in July unless lawmakers can find a way to close the gap. Mr. Schwarzenegger and his fellow Republicans want large-scale spending reductions. Democrats are seeking to limit those cuts and, instead, raise taxes. The state controller, John Chiang, said he would start paying bills with i.o.u.’s as early as Thursday unless an agreement was reached.
“I cannot force the Legislature to act,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said in a statement on Friday, “so I must do what is in my power as governor to conserve cash.”
Mr. Schwarzenegger in December ordered state workers to take off two unpaid days a month.
During an appearance on MSNBC, political commentator Pat Buchanan correctly defined the “Climate Bill” for what it really is, not just a new tax on the American people, but a complete transfer of power and wealth to a global government that is using the manufactured fear of global warming to grease the skids for total domination.
Referring to the passage of the climate bill and global warming in general, Buchanan said that the legislation was passed through the use of fear and that, “More and more scientists are coming forward to say this is a hoax and a scam which is designed to transfer wealth and power from the private sector to the government sector and from the government of the United States to a world government. Which is what we’re going to get in Copenhagen when we get this Kyoto two agreement.”
Buchanan labeled the legislation a “tax bill” that would raise the prices of utilities for every American, hammer the middle class and working class, “for a danger that we don’t even know is really there”.
The former senior advisor to three U.S. presidents accused the Obama administration of hyping the apocalyptic myth that the oceans will rise and that cities will be underwater in order to ram through the legislation.
Establishment left-wing blogs like Crooks and Liars and Media Matters are carrying the video of Buchanan’s remarks with little or no accompanying commentary, as if Buchanan’s comments alone are enough to discredit his position.
Those who act as shills for the climate change hoax may believe that anyone who dares challenge the authodoxy of the church of global warming is automatically a heretic and that no evidence whatsoever needs to even be presented to counter their sacrilege, but here in the real world we prefer to stick to the facts.
Empirical satellite data shows that mean global temperatures are the same that they were 30 years ago and that global sea ice is also at similar levels. Following a spike in global temperatures at the end of the last century that coincided with the sun undergoing its most active period in recent times, the planet has now cooled to 1979 levels. At the end of summer last year, despite hysterical predictions that the North Pole would be free of ice for the first time in history, Arctic sea ice had actually expanded by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany.
Coinciding with expanding ice sheets, there has been no rise in sea levels for the past three years. Tropical storms and extreme weather events attributed to global warming like hurricanes and typhoons are at a record low.
The United Nations’s IPCC, the heavily politicized organization that is often erroneously cited as an independent scientific body by climate change promoters, was last year caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception.
“This was startling,” reported the London Telegraph. “Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”
It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures for October.
As David Deming points out in his excellent article today, temperature data collected by weather stations is being artificially impacted by measuring systems placed nearby to sources of heat. This is why claims that global temperatures are still rising are completely contradicted by real world evidence of falling temperatures and what some scientists are warning is the beginning of a new ice age.
“Why do people think the planet is warming?,” writes Deming. “One reason is that the temperature data from weather stations appear to be hopelessly contaminated by urban heat effects. A survey of the 1221 temperature stations in the US by meteorologist Anthony Watts and his colleagues is now more than 80 percent complete. The magnitude of putative global warming over the last 150 years is about 0.7 °C. But only 9 percent of meteorological stations in the US are likely to have temperature errors lower than 1 °C. More than two-thirds of temperature sensors used to estimate global warming are located near artificial heating sources such as air conditioning vents, asphalt paving, or buildings. These sources are likely to introduce artifacts greater than 2 °C into the temperature record.”
“Every year in the US, more than forty thousand people are killed in traffic accidents. But not one single person has ever been killed by global warming. The number of species that have gone extinct from global warming is exactly zero. Both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets are stable. The polar bear population is increasing. There has been no increase in infectious disease that can be attributed to climate change. We are not currently experiencing more floods, droughts, or forest fires,” he concludes.
As we have attempted to warn, the major beneficiaries of the climate bill will be the elitists who own the carbon trading systems that will be used to handle the ‘cap and trade’ program, namely Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.
Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).
While Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.
The American media’s one-sided and propagandistic coverage of the Iranian election has made an American hero out of the defeated candidate, Mousavi.
This leaves one wondering if anyone anywhere in the US media or US government knows that Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who served as prime minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran from 1981 to 1989, the decade following the overthrow of the American puppet government by Khomeini, has been fingered as the Butcher of Beirut, responsible for the bloody attacks on the US embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut during the Reagan administration that blew to pieces 241 US Marines, Sailors, and Army troops.
According to Jeff Stein writing in the June 22, 2009, CQ Politics, Mousavi "personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur," who presided over the terror cell responsible for the attacks.
The National Security Agency had a tap on the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, according to Admiral James Lyons who was deputy chief of Naval Operations at the time.Admiral Lyons told Jeff Stein that "the Iranian ambassador received instructions from the foreign minister to have various groups target US personnel in Lebanon, but in particular to carry out a ‘spectacular action’ against the Marines."
Stein reports that Lyons "also fingered Mousavi for the 1988 truck bombing of the US Navy’s Fleet Center in Naples, Italy."
Bob Baer, a CIA Middle East field officer at the time, says that Mousavi "dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah," the person responsible for both attacks.
All of these facts have gone into the Memory Hole.The US media and government have turned Musavi, the bloody butcher of US servicemen, into the would-be liberator of Iran from theocracy.
Only in America and in George Orwell’s fictional population in his predictive book, 1984, can we find such citizen ignorance.
Every day in America, a.k.a. Oceania, we see the growing power of Big Brother’s three slogans:WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
From ignorance comes the strength to create a hero out of America’s terrorist enemy, Mousavi.
From freedom comes the protection provided by being constantly spied upon, no longer endangered by privacy which might keep Big Brother from discovering a terrorist plot.This freedom from terrorists morphs into the slavery of being held in indefinite detention without evidence or charges. Habeas corpus has become the opposite of freedom as it prevents our protection from terrorists.
On June 23, 2009, Big Brother Obama, following in the tradition of Big Brothers Bush and Cheney, declared that Oceania and the "entire world" are "appalled and outraged" by Iran’s violent efforts to crush protests organized by Oceania’s interference in Iran’s election. Meanwhile, Oceania continued its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, crushing people right and left while gearing up to bring peace to Iran. No one is outraged at the violence.War is Peace.Those who don’t fight wars can’t bring peace.Peace results when Big Brother’s hegemony extends over those regions that do not understand that War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.
"The face of Big Brother seemed to persist for several seconds on the screen, as though the impact that it had made on everyone’s eyeballs were too vivid to wear off immediately. The little sandy-haired woman had flung herself forward over the back of the chair in front of her. With a tremulous murmur that sounded like ‘My Savior!’ she extended her arms toward the screen.
"At this moment the entire group of people broke into a deep, slow, rhythmical chant of ‘Big Brother, Big Brother, Big Brother!’ over and over again, very slowly, with a long pause between the first ‘B’ and the second--a heavy, murmurous sound, somehow curiously savage, in the background of which one seemed to hear the stamp of naked feet and the throbbing of tom-toms. For perhaps as much as thirty seconds they kept it up. It was a refrain that was often heard in moments of overwhelming emotion. Partly it was a sort of hymn to the wisdom and Majesty of Big Brother, but still more it was an act of self-hypnosis, a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise."[1984]
The drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise sums up well enough the performance of Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.
How long do Americans have before doubting Big Brother and the Ministry of Truth is a Thoughtcrime?
"Whether he wrote ‘Down With Big Brother,’ or whether he whether he refrained from writing it, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed the essential crime that contained all others in itself.Thoughtcrime, they called it."
The neoconservatives have set up in America Thoughtcrime watch committees over professors.Academics who depart from or challenge the neocon line are reported and are subjected to vilification campaigns. Sami Al-Arian, a computer science professor at a Florida University, was destroyed by the US Department of Justice (sic) because he gave the Palestinian side of the story.
The neocon academic spy operation has been given a boost by Dennis C. Blair, Director of National Intelligence.Writing in CounterPunch (June 23), David Price reports that Blair has announced plans for a program to train intelligence officers, whose identities and activities would not be known to professors or administrators, to conduct covert missions in university classrooms.
This is as Orwellian is it comes. Thinking independently is rapidly becoming a serious Thoughtcrime.Winston Smith was the only one among Big Brother’s subjects capable of independent thought.His ability to think independently was discovered and terminated.
Already we see that the US media is incapable of independent thought.Independent thought in the universities, where careers are dependent on government grants, is already half dead. Independent thought does not exist in think tanks, which serve the interests of donors.In America independent thought is rapidly becoming an anti-American act, which is itself morphing into a terrorist act.
Newspeak handles effortlessly the morphing and transforming of meaning. New generations born into the new system know no difference and, thus, do not need to be silenced.Once the older generations are brought to heel, truth is whatever Big Brother says.
Some years or decades ago I researched and reported on the Sullivan Act, one of America’s first gun control laws.
New York state senator Timothy Sullivan, a corrupt Tammany Hall politician, represented New York’s Red Hook district. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. In order to protect themselves and their property, travelers armed themselves. This raised the risk of, and reduced the profit from, robbery. Sullivan’s outlaw constituents demanded that Sullivan introduce a law that would prohibit concealed carry of pistols, blackjacks, and daggers, thus reducing the risk to robbers from armed victims.
The criminals, of course, were already breaking the law and had no intention of being deterred by the Sullivan Act from their business activity of armed robbery. Thus, the effect of the Sullivan Act was precisely what the criminals intended. It made their life of crime easier.
As the first successful gun control advocates were criminals, I have often wondered what agenda lies behind the well-organized and propagandistic gun control organizations and their donors and sponsors in the US today. The propaganda issued by these organizations consists of transparent lies.
Consider the propagandistic term, "gun violence," popularized by gun control advocates. This is a form of reification by which inanimate objects are imbued with the ability to act and to commit violence. Guns, of course, cannot be violent in themselves. Violence comes from people who use guns and a variety of other weapons, including fists, to commit violence.
Nevertheless, we hear incessantly the Orwellian Newspeak term, "gun violence."
Very few children are killed by firearm accidents compared to other causes of child deaths. Yet, gun control advocates have created the false impression that there is a national epidemic in accidental firearm deaths of children. In fact, the National MCH Center for Child Death Review, an organization that monitors causes of child deaths, reports that seven times more children die from drowning and five times more from suffocation than from firearm accidents. Yet we don’t hear of "drowning violence," "swimming pool violence,""bathtub violence," or "suffocation violence."
The National MCH Center for Child Death Review reports that 174 children eighteen years old and under died from firearm accidents in 2000. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control reports that 125 children eighteen years old and under died from firearm accidents in 2006. In 2006 there were 77,845,285 youths in that age bracket.
In 2006 violence-related firearm deaths of eighteen year olds and under totaled 2,191. A large percentage of these deaths appear to be teenagers fighting over drug turf.
According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, drugs are "one of the main factors leading to the total number of all homicides. . . . murders related to narcotics still rank as the fourth most documented murder circumstance out of 24 possible categories."
According to the National Drug Control Policy, trafficking in illicit drugs is associated with the commission of violent crimes for the following reasons: "competition for drug markets and customers, disputes and rip-offs among individuals involved in the illegal drug market, [and] the tendency toward violence of individuals who participate in drug trafficking." Another dimension of drug-related crime is "committing an offense to obtain money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use."
Obviously, decriminalizing drugs would be the greatest single factor in reducing incarceration rates, the crime rate, and the homicide rate. Yet, gun control advocates do not support this obvious solution to "gun violence."
Those who want to outlaw guns have not explained why it would be any more effective than outlawing drugs, alcohol, robbery, rape, and murder. All the crimes for which guns are used are already illegal, and they keep on occurring, just as they did before guns existed.
So what is the real agenda? Why do gun control advocates want to override the Second Amendment. Why do they not acknowledge that if the Second Amendment can be over-ridden, so can every other protection of civil liberty?
There are careful studies that conclude that armed citizens prevent one to two million crimes every year. Other studies show that in-home robberies, rapes, and assaults occur more frequently in jurisdictions that suffer from gun control ordinances. Other studies show that most states with right-to-carry laws have experienced a drop in crimes against persons.
Why do gun control advocates want to increase the crime rate in the US?
Why is the gun control agenda a propagandistic one draped in lies?
The NRA is the largest and best known organization among the defenders of the Second Amendment. Yet, a case might be made that manufacturers’ gun advertisements in the NRA’s magazines stoke the hysteria of gun control advocates.
Full page ads offering civilian versions of weapons used by "America’s elite warriors" in US Special Operations Command, SWAT, and by covert agents "who work in a dark world most of us can’t even understand," are likely to scare the pants off people who are afraid of guns.
Many of the modern weapons are ugly as sin. Their appearance is threatening, unlike the beautiful lines of a Winchester lever action or single shot rifle, or a Colt single action revolver, or the WW II 45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, guns that do not have menacing appearances. Everyone knows that they are guns, but they are also works of art.
A little advertising discretion might go a long way in quieting fears that are manipulated by gun control advocates.
The same goes for hunters. Recent news reports of "hunters" slaughtering wolves from airplanes in Alaska and of a hunter, indeed, a poacher, who shot a protected rare wolf in the US Southwest and left the dead animal in the road, enrage people who have empathy with animals and wildlife. Many Americans have had such bad experiences with their fellow citizens that they regard their dogs and cats, and wildlife, as more intelligent and noble life forms than humans. Wild animals can be dangerous, but they are not evil.
Americans with empathy for animals are horrified by the television program that depicts hunters killing beautiful animals and the joy hunters experience in "harvesting" their prey. Many believe that a person who enjoys killing a deer because he has a marvelous rack of antlers might enjoy killing a person.
This is not a screed against hunters. There are many families with the tradition of bringing in the venison once or twice a year. With the near extermination by man of deer predators, deer are so abundant in many localities as to have become a nuisance and a danger to motorists. Nevertheless, the defense of gun rights has little to gain from TV programs depicting the fun of killing Bambi’s mother.
In the US, shooting is a hand-eye coordination sport. It is likely that 99% of all ammunition is fired at paper targets, metal silhouettes, or clay and plastic discs. It is a sport for amateur physicists who are interested in ballistics and who experiment with different combinations of powder and bullet seeking the most accurate for their rifle or pistol. Few of these shooters hunt as their interest in shooting is unrelated to killing.
Shooting is a sport that offers comradeship and competition in which even old people can participate, people who do not or cannot play golf or tennis or bowl. There is a vast variety of events from black powder muskets to antique military and frontier weapons to distance shooting.
Sports shooters punching holes in paper targets comprise the vast majority of active gun owners. They are a threat to no one. Accidents are extremely rare at gun clubs. A large network of small businesses provide the parts and supplies necessary for shooting. There is no reason to strip gun owners of their hobby and possessions and family businesses of their livelihood, as has been done in Great Britain and as the gun control lobby intends to do in the US.
The NRA is correct to insist that "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." We have known this since the Sullivan Act.
Derivatives Regulation Fight Lurks in US Climate Bill (June 26, 2009)
“The fight over regulating the $592 TRILLION over-the-counter derivatives market spilled over into climate-change legislation being debated in the U.S. House of Representatives today.
A derivatives provision tucked inside the 1,201-page measure to limit greenhouse gases is intended to spur Congress to enact new laws reining in a largely unregulated swath of U.S. financial markets, according to Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan. He added to the bill a measure that would regulate over-the-counter derivatives, accepting a stipulation sought by other Democrats that those rules would be repealed if Congress adopts broader market regulations.”
Obama implores Senate to pass climate bill (June 27, 2009)
In this, you’ll notice the recycled terms that were used in the “need” to pass the ‘Stimulus’ bill.
“My call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this,” he said. “We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don’t believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth.” That is a huge contradiciton! Gov’ts don’t create jobs. Business creates jobs.
Obama said the bill would create jobs (just like ’stimulus’ did?), make renewable energy profitable and decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil (borrowing from Bush speeches now?).
“It will spur the development of low-carbon sources of energy — everything from wind, solar and geothermal power to safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal (no such thing),” he said.
Wind, solar and geothermal are already available! They don’t need to be developed! They need to be utilized! Iceland has been using geothermal for years and it powers and warms the entire city of Reykjavik.
“In California alone, Obama said, 3,000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1,000 permanent jobs.”
Whoppee-do. That means 2,000 people will be out of work - again, after it’s built. California is already at a record 11.5% unemplyment rate. Owe-bama thinks that passing and collecting cap and trade taxes from you to pay for a 1,000 jobs will make a dent in that percentage? I wonder how people in other states feel about their unemployment while O goes on about California’s and wants them to pay for it?
“The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong.
For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.
Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”
Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.”
Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress (March 25, 2009)
In 2000 and 2001, while Barack Obama served as a board member for a Chicago-based charitable foundation, he helped to fund a pioneering carbon trading exchange that is likely to fill a critical role in the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme that President Obama is now trying to push rapidly through Congress.
During those two years, the Joyce Foundation gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”
One of those gases is carbon dioxide, the most ubiquitous greenhouse gas and the focus of the most far-reaching — and contentious — efforts to combat “climate change.” On Monday, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency declared carbon dioxide a public health threat.
Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills (December 6, 2007)
“These measures would set a limit, or cap, on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. The effect of such a cap would be to impose rationing of coal, oil, and natural gas on the American economy. Each covered utility, oil company, and manufacturing facility would be given allowances based on past emissions or some other formula. Those companies that emit less carbon dioxide than permitted by their allowances could sell the excess to those that do not; this is the trade part of cap and trade. Over time, the cap would be ratcheted down, requiring greater cuts in emissions.
—
Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. And S. 2191, with its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.”
The following republicans voted FOR the largest tax bill ever passed by a session of Congress.
Any good work they have done has been for naught. Unless they change their votes by the deadline, Wed, July 2nd, they will forever be a member of the Cap and Tr8tors.
HR 2454 RECORDED VOTE 26-Jun-2009 7:17 PM
BILL TITLE: American Clean Energy and Security Act
#capandtr8tors is the Twitter tag to use on this topic.
_______
1) Click on their link.
2) Select the ‘Contact’ tab.
Contact their local office as they are not in DC and home on vacation.
Mary Bono Mack R (CA)
Mike Castle R (DW)
Mark Steven Eirk R (IL)
Leonard Lance R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)
John McHugh R (NY)
Dave Reichert R (WA)
Chris Smith R (NJ)
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
A motion to reconsider is a parliamentary practice that gives the House (or Senate) one opportunity to review its action on a motion, amendment, or measure.
Motions to reconsider are routinely laid on the table — or killed. If a motion to reconsider is adopted, it requires a vote be held again on whatever the House has voted to reconsider. Only Members who voted on the winning side may move to reconsider a vote. Members have been known to change their votes at the last minute in order to be eligible to offer the motion.
If the original vote on a question is close, enough members might be persuaded to change their position, or absent members could come to the floor, vote to reconsider, then reverse the outcome of the original vote.
Typically, however, after announcing the result of a vote, the Speaker states that, “without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.” This uses up the one opportunity to reconsider, and makes the result of the vote final.
LAY ON THE TABLE
A motion to lay on the table a bill, resolution, amendment, point of order, appeal or another motion disposes of the question immediately and finally and adversely — it kills it without a direct vote on the substance of the question. A motion to table is not debatable and is adopted by unanimous consent — without objection — or by majority vote. It is a “highly privileged motion” — that is, in the order in which motions are given priority in the House, only a motion to adjourn has higher precedence than a motion to table a measure. http://thomas.loc.gov/hom&h...
President helped fund profiteers of carbon tax program he is now seeking to implement
A combination of interesting mainstream and alternative media reports reveal compelling links between president Obama and a privately owned carbon trading group, which also has direct ties with elitist groups such as the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission.
Judi McLeod’s excellent article for Canada Free Press, which she expanded from a Fox News piece, highlights how years before he became president, Obama helped directly fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the proposed cap-and-trade carbon reduction program.
The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”
Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to steer through Congress.
McLeod also notes that The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.
Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.
While Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.
While McLeod’s article highlights the cronyism and corporate dealings behind this set up, we should also add the fact that both Gore and Strong come from a stable of elite groups that have long sought to use the environmental movement to advance their agendas.
Strong, who was groomed by David Rockefeller to eventually serve as Director of the Rockefeller Foundation, is also a member of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Club of Rome.
Gore too comes from the Club of Rome clique.
Lets take a look at the connections these groups have to the environmental movement.
In 1990, writes veteran reporter Jim Tucker, the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. “Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.”
The following year, the Club of Rome think tank published The First Global Revolution, a book suggesting a draconian neo-Malthusianism approach will solve the world’s “problems”, in fact a problem the global elite has with humanity.
“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,” the book states. “All these dangers are caused by human intervention,” and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, expanded on this topic in his article, State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era. According to Haass, a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming and terrorism, both invented as the Club of Rome suggested.
“Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change,” writes Haass. “The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”
In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called Limits to growth. The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.
As we reported two years ago, During the secretive Trilateral Commission group meeting in March 2007, elitists gathered to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.
Why is this so concerning? Because groups such as the Club of Rome are contracted out by our own governments and the UN to prepare ‘Policy Guidance Documents’ which they use in formulating their policies and programs. How come the Club of Rome gets the gig? Simply because many high ranking UN and government officials are also CoR members, or have direct corporate ties to members. The same goes for the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.
A recently unearthed documentary that sought to expose this agenda at its inception is George Hunt’s excellent research piece on the environmental movement.
Considering the information unearthed concerning Obama’s links to all of this, it is not surprising that he is now pushing the “cap-and-trade” carbon tax program, which in reality represents a war on the middle and working classes.
Prior to the election, Obama called for drastically reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status.
The 80 per cent figure is a huge leap towards the ultimate goal, expressed by the Carnegie Institute last year and afforded sober credibility by the corporate media - a complete reduction down to zero carbon emissions.
As we have previously noted, such a move would lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.
HR 1966 has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act). The bill is expected to sail through the Senate as it did in the House. It will provide federal assistance to the states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for “other purposes.” It creates special protective status based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.
Above: Kansas Rep. Todd Tiahrt compared the bill to Orwell’s Animal Farm and said it would damage free speech.
S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)
In other words, if a talk show host engages in “hostile” speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term.
According to Alan Potash, director of the Anti-Defamation League for the Plains States, “freedom of speech does not extend to racist groups.”
The ADL played an instrumental role in passing the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. “ADL has long been in the forefront of national and state efforts to deter and counteract hate-motivated criminal activity. Hate crime statutes are necessary because the failure to recognize and effectively address this unique type of crime could cause an isolated incident to explode into widespread community tension,” the ADL website states.
In the wake of a series of crimes the corporate media and the ADL have linked to “white supremacists” (the killing of police officers in Pittsburgh and the attack by James von Brunn on the Holocaust museum in Washington), the ADL and its partners on the so-called left have engaged in an orchestrated campaign to demonize groups and individuals that are not racist or separatist.
The Department of Homeland Security drafted a template for this persecution with its report on “rightwing extremism.” The DHS and police agencies around the country have linked pro-life, states’ rights and anti-illegal immigration activism and support for the Second Amendment to racist thought crime as defined by the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
During a speech delivered at the Anti-Defamation League National Leadership Conference in Washington, DHS secretary Janet Napolitano admitted the agency enjoys a special relationship with the ADL. Napolitano said the ADL and DHS “have had some good partnerships” and said the agency has placed its employees in the ADL’s “advanced training school to educate us on the tactics used by extremists and terrorists.”
After the white supremacist Richard Poplawski allegedly killed three police officers in Pittsburgh, the ADL attempted to link radio talk show host Alex Jones to the crime. “One of Poplawski’s favorite places for such conspiracy theories was the Web site of the right-wing conspiracy radio talk show host Alex Jones. Poplawski visited the site, Infowars, frequently, shared links to it with others, and sometimes even posted to it,” the ADL wrote in an article on Poplawski.
California Democrat Rep. Linda Sánchez introduced the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act in April, a bill so egregious it earned the title the “Censorship Act of 2009.” On May 6, Sánchez wrote for the Huffington Post: “The Supreme Court recognizes that in some instances words can be harmful. For example, you cannot falsely yell ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater. If you say it even once you can be held liable. Yet, you can repeatedly emotionally abuse someone with words, pictures, and false impressions online and get away scot-free.”
Sánchez’s bill contains the following language:
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both…
As law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh noted on April 30, the bill will allow the government to go after bloggers and internet journalists engaged in speech that may result in “emotional distress.”
The ADL is also involved in making sure the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act is passed and used against its enemies. “Whether cyberbullying is related to identity-based group membership, however, or more universal characteristics such as appearance or social status, online social cruelty can produce devastating consequences for the targets and may be a precursor to more destructive behavior, including involvement in hate groups and bias-related violence,” the ADL writes on its website.
HR 1966, S.909, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act and other such legislation will be used to shut down, prosecute, imprison, and thus silence the opposition. HR 1966 covers television and radio, while the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act addresses the internet.
The DHS — at the behest of the ADL — has accomplished its essential work of demonizing constitutionalists and patriot groups and individuals as domestic terrorists. Corporate media propaganda continues to deliver the message that opposition to illegal immigration, abortion, and support for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is “extremism” that will result in the murder of late term abortion doctors, police officers, and security guards.
The U.S. House of Representatives are nothing more than prostitutes for the international banking cartel. Brothels in Washington D.C. were packed Friday afternoon with eager congressman who sold Americans out 219-212 in favor of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). Also dubbed “Waxman- Markey” the bill will implement the infamous cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions, signaling the NWO’s final moves towards total financial bondage.
Under the guise of philanthropic style environmentalism, the New World Order is blasting forward with draconian legislation every week it seems. Using thuggish tactics such as switching bill numbers & phone numbers to DC representatives and of course, good old fashion disinofo bombs got the job done. Cap and trade sets a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases that a factory, business, utility, or other energy producer is allowed to emit The goal of the Waxman- Markey bill is to cut CO2 emissions by 17 percent by 2020.
Most energy producers and manufactures will be severely affected by these caps, bu the increase cost will be passed onto their customers through higher prices. Companies will purchase permits that will allow them to exceed the “cap” These permits will be issued by our gangster government, and then be auctioned off to the same companies participating in the cap-and trade system. The theory is to create a free market for carbon permits where the price is set by those being forced to participate in the new system.
Consumers will be affected the most by this these new caps on energy. Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Commission Budget Office testified before the Committee on Finance in May. He says a cap-and trade system would be devastating to the working poor. According to Elmendorf, the cost to for an average American household would be $1,600 a year, with low-income households carrying a heavier burden because they spend more of their income on energy than higher-income households.
Remaining scraps from revenue created by the auctioning off of carbon permits will go to the families with lower incomes such as a whopping $161 per year tax credit for single persons and $359 for 5-person families. Here’s the rub. According to Elmendorf, “such price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program because they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and households were encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2.”
The federal government will have an annual allowance of almost a trillion dollars worth of grants/ bribe money to use as they seem fit.. Much like the mafia acting as a middleman between people and businesses, the EPA will create a list of companies who are “trade sensitive” or rely on imports.
With General Electric’s smart grid technology in place, energy companies along with their customers will have no other choice but to convert to the communist style system of rationing vital utilities. What smart grid visionaries foresee are home thermostats and appliances that adjust automatically depending on the cost of power.
The availability of $4.5 billion in federal economic recovery money for smart grid technology gives incentives for companies to convert over to the new digitalized grid.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu says, “If you want to create mischief one very good way to create a great deal of mischief is to actually bring down a smart grid system. This system has to be incredibly secure.”
“Is the average consumer willing to pay the upfront costs of a new system and then respond appropriately to price signals? Or will people view a utility’s ability to reach inside a home to turn down a thermostat as Orwellian?” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said at a recent hearing on smart grid.
Lastly, there is the option for companies to avoid a cap on their CO2 emissions by offsetting them. Al Gore, part owner of carbon offset company Generation Investment Management testified in front of a congressional committee that a cap-and trade system along with a direct carbon tax would be ideal.
Limiting the amount of CO2 will do nothing to help make the planet less warm, make us energy independent or create millions of jobs. It will on the other hand destroy whatever is left of our industry here in the North American Union by leaving companies no choice but to move offshore. Some of the biggest oil reserves in the world are here in North America, yet we rely on foreign oil. The elites indirectly control every facet our life.
Citizens will never be energy independent until every home is off the grid. Green jobs will include heavily fluoridated drones enforcing new EPA laws/codes. Besides, the amount of jobs that will be lost due to companies either moving offshore orgoing bankrupt will certainly be higher than the millions created by our fuhrer. With the hookers in Washington granting dictatorial powers to the Federal Reserve last week, it seems as though HR 2998 is part a two prong attack. The New World Order is moving fast, and there is really only two more obstacles in their way: our right to speak freely and our right to protect ourselves.
2) “Smart grid” — power lines move into digital age By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer Sat Jun 6, 6:04 pm ET
Panelists warn of the revival of eugenics under Obama’s modern healthcare through the denial of care to millions who would be judged ‘not fit to live’, just as in Nazi Germany.
Historian Anton Chaitkin also alleges that Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, in working with Obama, has also called for the Hippocratic oath to be ‘junked.’
The elite agenda for global population control is not a “conspiracy theory,” it is on the record and documented
There are still large numbers of people amongst the general public, in academia, and especially those who work for the corporate media, who are still in denial about the on-the-record stated agenda for global population reduction, as well as the consequences of this program that we already see unfolding.
We have compiled a compendium of evidence to prove that the elite have been obsessed with eugenics and its modern day incarnation, population control, for well over 100 days and that goal of global population reduction is still in full force to this day.
The World’s Elite Are Discussing Population Reduction
As was reported only last month by the London Times, a “secret billionaire club” meeting in early May which took place in New York and was attended by David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Bill Gates and others was focused around “how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population”.
We questioned establishment media spin which portrayed the attendees as kind-hearted and concerned philanthropists by pointing out that Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west. In China, the one child policy is enforced by means of taxes on each subsequent child, allied to an intimidation program which includes secret police and “family planning” authorities kidnapping pregnant women from their homes and performing forced abortions.
Of course, Turner completely fails to follow his own rules on how everyone else should live their lives, having five children and owning no less than 2 million acres of land.
The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the world’s population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west. Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in “slowing the growth of world population” by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about “culling” the surplus population via draconian methods.
David Rockefeller’s legacy is not derived from a well-meaning “philanthropic” urge to improve health in third world countries, it is born out of a Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor and those deemed racially inferior, using the justification of social Darwinism.
As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in the post-war world.
As Dr. Len Horowitz writes, “In the 1950s, the Rockefellers reorganized the U.S. eugenics movement in their own family offices, with spinoff population-control and abortion groups. The Eugenics Society changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology, its current name.”
“The Rockefeller Foundation had long financed the eugenics movement in England, apparently repaying Britain for the fact that British capital and an Englishman-partner had started old John D. Rockefeller out in his Oil Trust. In the 1960s, the Eugenics Society of England adopted what they called Crypto-eugenics, stating in their official reports that they would do eugenics through means and instruments not labeled as eugenics.”
“With support from the Rockefellers, the Eugenics Society (England) set up a sub-committee called the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which for 12 years had no other address than the Eugenics Society. This, then, is the private, international apparatus which has set the world up for a global holocaust, under the UN flag.”
In the latter half of the 20th century, eugenics merely changed its face to become known as “population control”. This was crystallized in National Security Study Memorandum 200, a 1974 geopolitical strategy document prepared by Rockefeller’s intimate friend and fellow Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger, which targeted thirteen countries for massive population reduction by means of creating food scarcity, sterilization and war.
Henry Kissinger: In the now declassified 1974 document, National Security Memorandum 200, Kissinger outlines the plan to use food scarcity as a weapon in order to achieve population reduction in lesser-developed countries.
The document, declassified in 1989, identified 13 countries that were of special interest to U.S. geopolitical objectives and outlined why population growth, and particularly that of young people who were seen as a revolutionary threat to U.S. corporations, was a potential roadblock to achieving these objectives. The countries named were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.
The study outlined how civil disturbances affecting the “smooth flow of needed materials” would be less likely to occur “under conditions of slow or zero population growth.”
“Development of a worldwide political and popular commitment to population stabilization is fundamental to any effective strategy. This requires the support and commitment of key LDC leaders. This will only take place if they clearly see the negative impact of unrestricted population growth and believe it is possible to deal with this question through governmental action,” states the document.
The document called for integrating “family planning” (otherwise known as abortion) with routine health services for the purposes of “curbing the numbers of LDC people,” (lesser-developed countries).
The report shockingly outlines how withholding food could be used as a means of punishment for lesser-developed countries who do not act to reduce their population, essentially using food as a weapon for a political agenda by creating mass starvation in under-developed countries.
“The allocation of scarce PL480 (food) resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production,” states the document.
Later in the document, the idea of enforcing “mandatory programs” by using food as “an instrument of national power” is presented.
The document states that the program will be administered through the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), thereby “avoiding the danger that some LDC leaders will see developed-country pressures for family planning as a form of economic or racial imperialism; this could well create a serious backlash.”
As Jean Guilfoyle writes, “NSSM 200 was a statement composed after the fact. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. had worked diligently behind the scenes to advance the population-control agenda at the United Nations, contributing the initial funding of $1 million.
A Department of State telegram, dated July 1969, reported the support of John D. Rockefeller III, among others, for the appointment of Rafael Salas of the Philippines as senior officer to co-ordinate and administer the UN population program. The administrator of the UN Development Program reported confidentially that he preferred someone such as Salas who had the “advantage of color, religion (Catholic) and conviction.”
A comprehensive outline of what is contained in the National Security Memorandum document can be read at http://www.theinterim.com/j...
Evidence of the actual consequences of this program can be found with the link between vaccines and sterilization, as well as other diseases such as cancer, in both the west and the third world.
In the following video clip, after an introduction by Alex Jones, women of the Akha tribe who live predominately in Thailand, describe how they miscarried shortly after taking vaccines when they were eight months pregnant. The videos below highlight the efforts of supporters of the Akha tribe to get answers from the University of Oregon and the United Nations, who provided funding for the vaccination and sterilization programs.
Further evidence of the link between vaccinations, birth control, cancer and other diseases can be researched here.
In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes once again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and the notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high standard of living is destroying the planet through global warming, creating the pretext for further regulation and control over every facet of our lives.
As we have tirelessly documented, the elite’s drive for population control is not based around a benign philanthropic urge to improve living standards, it is firmly routed in eugenics, racial hygiene and fascist thinking.
The London Times reports that the secret billionaire cabal, with its interest in population reduction, has been dubbed ‘The Good Club’ by insiders. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Anyone who takes the time to properly research the origins of the “population control” movement will come to understand that the Rockefeller-Turner-Gates agenda for drastic population reduction, which is now clearly manifesting itself through real environmental crises like chemtrails, genetically modified food, tainted vaccines and other skyrocketing diseases such as cancer, has its origins in the age-old malevolent elitist agenda to cull the human “chattel” as one would do to rodents or any other species deemed a nuisance by the central planning authorities.
Sterilization And Eugenics Returns In Popular Culture
We are now seeing the return of last century’s eugenicist movement through the popular promotion of sterilization as a method of birth control.
A popular women’s magazine in the UK recently featured an article entitled, Young, Single and Sterilized, in which women in their 20’s discussed why they had undergone an operation to prevent them from ever having children. The article is little more than PR for a “women’s charity” called Marie Stopes International, an organization that carries out abortions and sterilizations and was founded by a Nazi eugenicist who advocated compulsory sterilization of non-whites and “those of bad character”.
In the article, sterilization is lauded as an “excellent method of birth control” by Dr. Patricia Lohr of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.
The article includes an advertisement that encourages women to seek “more information about sterilization” by contacting Marie Stopes International. We read that, “Over the past year, a quarter of the women who booked a sterilisation consultation with women’s charity Marie Stopes were aged 30 or under.”
Marie Stopes was a feminist who opened the first birth control clinic in Britain in 1921 as well as being Nazi sympathizer and a eugenicist who advocated that non-whites and the poor be sterilized.
Stopes, a racist and an anti-Semite, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
Marie Stopes, the Nazi and pioneering eugenicist who sent love letters to Hitler, honored recently by the Royal Mail.
Ominously, The Galton Institute website promotes its support and funding initiative for “the practical delivery of family planning facilities, especially in developing countries.” In other words, the same organization that once advocated sterilizing black people to achieve racial purity in the same vein as the Nazis is now bankrolling abortions of black babies in the third world.
While the issue of abortion is an entirely different argument, most would agree that no matter how extreme it sounds, a woman has the right to sterilize herself if she so chooses, just as a man has the right to a vasectomy.
But when a magazine aimed primarily at young women all but encourages girls as young as 20 to have their fallopian tubes tied in order to prevent the “irritation” of children entering their lives and then advertises an organization founded by a Nazi eugenicist that can perform the operation, something has to be amiss.
Even more shocking than this is the fact that the majority of people in the UK routinely express their support for society’s “undesirables” to be forcibly sterilized by the state, harking back to a time when such a thing was commonplace right up to the 1970’s in some areas of America and Europe.
As we highlighted at the time, respondents to a Daily Mail article about Royal Mail honoring Marie Stopes by using her image on a commemorative stamp were not disgusted at Royal Mail for paying homage to a racist Nazi eugenicist, but were merely keen to express their full agreement that those deemed not to be of pure genetic stock or of the approved character should be forcibly sterilized and prevented from having children.
“A lot of people should be sterilized, IMO. It’s still true today,” wrote one.
“Just imagine what a stable, well-ordered society we’d have if compulsory sterilisation had been adopted years ago for the socially undesirable,” states another respondent, calling for a “satellite-carried sterilisation ray” to be installed in space to zap the undesirables.
Shockingly, another compares sterilization and genocide of those deemed inferior to the breeding and culling of farmyard animals, and says that such a move is necessary to fight overpopulation and global warming. Here is the comment in full from “Karen” in Wales;
We breed farm animals to produce the best possible stock and kill them when they have fulfilled their purpose. We inter-breed pedigree animals to produce extremes that leave them open to ill-health and early death. It is only religion that says humans are not animals. The reality is that we are simply intelligent, mammalian primates.
The world population of humans has increased from 2 billion to 6.5 billion in the last 50 years. This planet can support 2 billion humans comfortably. 6.5 billion humans use too many resources and leads to global warming, climate change and a very uncertain future for all of us - humans and all other life sharing this planet with us.
Marie Stopes believed in population control and in breeding the best possible humans. So did Hitler. Neither of the aims are bad in themselves. It is how they are achieved that is the problem. The fact that we still remember Marie Stopes is an achievement in itself.
The nature of these comments is so fundamentally sick and twisted that one is tempted to dismiss them as a joke - but these people are deadly serious. Presumably they would also agree with China’s one child policy, which is routinely enforced by intimidation as young pregnant women are grabbed off the streets by state goons and taken to hospitals where forced abortions are carried out.
Now with popular women’s magazines advising women in their 20’s where they can go to be sterilized and ensure a lifetime of partying and carefree sex, it’s no surprise that experts predict that by 2010 one in four western women will be child free for life.
The yearning to have children is the most beautiful, natural and innate emotion either a man or a woman can possibly experience. That is not to say that it’s always wrong for some people not to have children - extreme circumstances can justify such a decision. But to have yourself sterilized because you find children to be an “irritant” and want to live a life free of responsibility or consequences is an awful message to send to young women, especially in the sex-saturated entertainment culture that we are now forced to endure.
Furthermore, the outright promotion of Marie Stopes International as ‘the place to go’ to get sterilized if you’re under 30 is stomach-churning considering the fact that the origins of this organization can be found in Nazi ideology, racist and backward early 20th century eugenics and a long-standing agenda to cull the population of undesirables, an abhorrent belief still held by elites across the planet today.
Genocidal Population Reduction Programs Embraced By Academia
One such individual who embraces the notion that humans are a virus that should be wiped out en masse for the good of mother earth is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin.
Dr Erik Pianka, the American biologist who advocated the mass genocide of 90% of the human race and was applauded by his peers.
During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion - they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.
Pianka’s speech was ordered to be kept off the record before it began as cameras were turned away and hundreds of students, scientists and professors sat in attendance.
Saying the public was not ready to hear the information presented, Pianka began by exclaiming, “We’re no better than bacteria!”, as he jumped into a doomsday malthusian rant about overpopulation destroying the earth.
Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.
Pianka then cited the Peak Oil fraud as another reason to initiate global genocide. “And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.”
Later, the scientist welcomed the potential devastation of the avian flu virus and spoke glowingly of China’s enforced one child policy, before zestfully commenting, “We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth.”
At the end of Pianka’s speech the audience erupted not to a chorus of boos and hisses but to a raucous reception of applause and cheers as audience members clambered to get close to the scientist to ask him follow up questions. Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.
Indeed, the notion that the earth’s population needs to be drastically reduced is a belief shared almost unanimously by academics across the western hemisphere.
In 2002, The Melbourne Age reported on newly uncovered documents detailing Nobel Peace Prize winning microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet’s plan to help the Australian government develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other “overpopulated” countries of South-East Asia.
From the article;
Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases. His key advisory role on biological warfare was uncovered by Canberra historian Philip Dorling in the National Archives in 1998.
“Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions,” Sir Macfarlane said.
The Victorian-born immunologist, who headed the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, won the Nobel prize for medicine in 1960. He died in 1985 but his theories on immunity and “clonal selection” provided the basis for modern biotechnology and genetic engineering.
Controversy surrounding the comments of another darling of scientific academia, geneticist James Watson, who told a Sunday Times newspaper interviewer that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites, should come as no surprise to those who are aware of Watson’s role in pushing the dark pseudo-science of eugenics.
Watson told the interviewer that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really”.
Watson was the Head of the Human Genome Project until 1992 and is best known for his contribution to the discovery of DNA, an achievement that won him the Nobel Peace prize in 1962.
But what most people are unaware of is the fact that Watson has played an integral role in advancing the legitimacy of the eugenics/population reduction movement for decades.
Watson is a strong proponent of genetic screening, a test to determine whether a couple is at increased risk of having a baby with a hereditary genetic disorder.
Since such screening obviously increases the rate of abortions of babies considered “imperfect,” many have slammed its introduction as nothing more than a camouflage for eugenics or “voluntary eugenics” as British philosophy professor Philip Kitcher labeled it.
Watson’s advocacy of genetic engineering stretched to his call for the “really stupid” bottom 10% of people to be “cured”.
Watson even urged woman to be given carte blanche to abort babies should tests determine that they are likely to be homosexual, despite the vast body of evidence indicating homosexuality is a result of environment rather than genetic code.
The geneticist has gone so far as to promote the idea of creating a kind of Nazi super-race, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions.
“People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great,” said Watson.
Dr. Erik Pianka’s doomsday warning of the population bomb, for which he presented no evidence whatsoever, is complete pseudo-science. Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and aside from this, world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. Conservation International’s own study revealed that 46% of the earth’s surface was an untouched wilderness, that is land areas not including sea.
Think about the magnitude of Pianka’s statements. He wants to kill nine out of every ten members of your family and he wants to kill them in one of the most painful and agonizing ways imaginable.
If Pianka, or ‘The Lizard Man’ as he likes to be called, is so vehement in embracing the necessity of culling the human population will he step forward to be the first one in line? Will he sacrifice his children for the so-called greater good of the planet? We somehow doubt it.
Will the students and other top academics who so enthusiastically greeted his ideas go home and kill themselves for the cause if it is so righteous?
It was noted how Pianka presented his argument with the kind of glee that you would see in a demented serial killer before dispatching his victim. This is an attitude we have encountered again and again. To discuss killing 90% of the world’s population via a horrific plague is sick enough within itself but you would at least expect its advocates to be serious and sober in their approach to the subject. The opposite seems to be the case, where the subject is aired in a context of lighthearted lip-smacking and hand-rubbing as if the individual was about to sink his teeth into a T-bone steak.
This window gives us a clear view of exactly why these deranged bastards encompass this ideology. They love death and their lives are motivated by dark influences very different to you or I.
Throughout history, elites have invented justifications for barbaric practices as a cover for their true agenda of absolute power and control over populations.
More Examples Of Population Reduction & Eugenics
From 1932 until 1972, the Tuskegee Study Group (pictured below) deliberately infected poor black communities in Alabama with syphilis without their consent and withheld treatment as the diseased rampaged through the town killing families.
In 1951 the Israeli government used US government provided technology to irradiate 100,000 Jewish children in a mass atomic experiment with an entire generation of Sephardi youths used as guinea pigs. 6,000 died immediately after the experiments and the rest suffered for the rest of their lives with debilitating illnesses and cancer.
As we have documented, members of the elite are quite open in their feverish lust to commit mass murder and ethnic cleansing. In the foreword to his biography If I Were An Animal, Prince Philip, another closet Nazi, wrote, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
This is just one of many on the record statements where Prince Philip has advocated his desire to “cull” the surplus human population. In another speech, he even lambasted the fact that lives were saved in Sri Lanka through Malaria treatments because it meant there were three times as many mouths to feed.
One of the most chilling admissions of the elitists’ deadly intent to forcibly commit genocide to reduce global population came from the lips of the late Jacques Cousteau, the sainted environmental icon. In an interview with the UNESCO Courier for November 1991 the famed oceanographer said:
“The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics — it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer….”
“This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
It is important to stress that this essay merely scratches the surface of both the stated goals of global population reduction from elitists and insiders, along with concrete examples of these programs being carried out. We could not possibly list them all in one article because this would take a book the length of an encyclopedia.
Further information is covered in Alex Jones’s Endgame, a pertinent segment from which can be viewed below.
This is far worse than just a “new tax” as Republicans are complaining - this is the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests through the carbon trading system.
It is also the entrée for the complete and total subjegation of any freedoms we had left and the beginning of nightmare regulation and suffocating control over every aspect of our personal lives by millions of green stasi tasked with enforcing impossible to attain goals of 80% carbon dioxide reduction - all based on the manufactured threat of global warming.
This bill will also sink the economy and create a new great depression, effectively obliterating America’s first world status.
Read our previous articles to truly understand the depth of tyranny that has been rubber stamped by the House this evening. This information is essential and only scratches the surface of what this nightmare bill has set in motion.
The House of Representatives passed a sweeping climate-change bill Friday – a major victory for President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that left Republicans fuming about a “national energy tax” they said would exacerbate the nation’s economic woes.
The vote was extremely close – 219-212, with eight Republicans voting yes and 44 Democrats voting no. And the debate leading up to it was intense.
In the hours before passage, Rep. Geoff Davis, a Republican from Kentucky, said the cap-and-trade bill represented the “economic colonization of the heartland” by New York and California. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) called the bill a “scam” that would do nothing but satisfy “the twisted desires of radical environmentalists.” Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) called it a “massive transfer of wealth” from the United States to foreign countries.
Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that, without the bill, the United States would remain energy-dependent on people who want to “fly planes into our buildings.”
Republicans accused the Democrats of ramming the bill through the House. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), managing the debate for his party, asked repeatedly if there was even a copy of the current version of the bill anywhere in the House chamber. Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher – sitting in the speaker’s chair although she’s already been confirmed as Obama’s undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security — repeatedly dodged the question.......
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) slowed Democrats’ attempt to pass a sweeping climate-change legislation Friday evening, reading page-by-page through a 300-page Democratic amendment before allowing a roll call vote.
It was a House version of a Senate filibuster – and a way to protest the addition of the 300-page managers’ amendment at 3 a.m. Friday.
Republicans say Democrats are ramming their climate-change legislation through the House without enough time for members to read the bill — let alone to understand it — all in violation of their promises about creating a more transparent legislative process.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), running the debate for his party, asked repeatedly Friday afternoon if there was even a copy of the current version of the bill anywhere in the House chamber. Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher – sitting in the speaker’s chair although she’s already been confirmed as Obama’s undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security — repeatedly dodged the question.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), one of the bill’s sponsors, interrupted Boehner’s filibuster with a parliamentary inquiry as to whether there was any limit to how long the Ohio Republican could speak – and suggested that he was hoping to talk so long that member might leave before the vote.
“It’s the custom of the House to hear the leader’s remarks,” replied Tauscher, who looking apologetic as Republicans applauded.
“Reclaiming my time,” Boehner said, “the gentleman’s had his 30 years to put this bill together. And the House is going to spend a whopping five hours debating the most profound piece of legislation to come to this floor in 100 years. And the chairman has the audacity to drop a 300-plus page amendment in the hopper at 3:09 a.m. this morning. And so I would ask my colleagues, don’t you think the American people expect us to understand what’s in this bill before we vote on it?”
“And so to get to page 34,” he continued.
Rep. Geoff Davis, a Republican from Kentucky, said earlier in the day that the cap-and-trade bill represented the “economic colonization of the heartland” by New York and California. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) called the bill a “scam” that would do nothing but satisfy “the twisted desires of radical environmentalists.” Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) called it a “massive transfer of wealth” from the United States to foreign countries.......
There are four reasons that the mainstream media is worthless.
1. Self-Censorship by Journalists
Initially, there is tremendous self-censorship by journalists.
For example, several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather
told the BBC that American reporters were practicing "a form of self-censorship":
"there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples' necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.... And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.
"What we are talking about here - whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not - is a form of self-censorship."
Keith Olbermann agreed that there is self-censorship in the American media, and that:
"You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble .... You cannot say: By the way, there's something wrong with our .... system".
As former Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote in 2006:
Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do. . . .
There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s baloney-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.
If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling baloney more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers.
I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate baloney-calling than a well-informed beat reporter - whatever their beat. We just need to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of the way.
And Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski wrote:
I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American.
(page 26).
2.Censorship by Higher-Ups
If journalists do want to speak out about an issue, they also are subject to tremendous pressure by their editors or producers to kill the story.
The Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh,
"All of the institutions we thought would protect us -- particularly the press, but also the military, the bureaucracy, the Congress -- they have failed. The courts . . . the jury's not in yet on the courts. So all the things that we expect would normally carry us through didn't. The biggest failure, I would argue, is the press, because that's the most glaring....
Q: What can be done to fix the (media) situation?
[Long pause] You'd have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and executives. You'd actually have to start promoting people from the newsrooms to be editors who you didn't think you could control. And they're not going to do that."
In addition, the government has allowed tremendous consolidation in ownership of the airwaves during the past decade. The large media players stand to gain billions of dollars in profits if the Obama administration continues to allow monopoly ownership of the airwaves by a handful of players. The media giants know who butters their bread. So there is a spoken or tacit agreement: if the media cover the administration in a favorable light, the MSM will continue to be the receiver of the government's goodies.
3. Drumming Up Support for War
In addition, the owners of American media companies have long actively played a part in drumming up support for war.
It is painfully obvious that the large news outlets studiously avoided any real criticism of the government's claims in the run up to the Iraq war. It is painfully obvious that the large American media companies acted as lapdogs and stenographers for the government's war agenda.
Veteran reporter Bill Moyers criticized the corporate media for parroting the obviously false link between 9/11 and Iraq (and the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs) which the administration made in the run up to the Iraq war, and concluded that the false information was not challenged because:
"the [mainstream] media had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked."
And as NBC News' David Gregory (later promoted to host Meet the Press) said:
"I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up [in the run-up to the war] and say 'this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this,' that we didn't do our job. I respectfully disagree. It's not our role"
But this is nothing new. In fact, the large media companies have drummed up support for all previous wars.
The mainstream media also may have played footsie with the U.S. government right before Pearl Harbor. Specifically, a http://www.pearlharbor41.co...>highly-praised historian (Bob Stineet) argues that the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers and magazines of the impending Pearl Harbor attack BEFORE IT OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the media honored (page 361) .
And the military-media alliance has continued without a break (as a highly-respected journalist
says , "viewers may be taken aback to see the grotesque extent to which US presidents and American news media have jointly shouldered key propaganda chores for war launches during the last five decades.")
There is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it. The sheer ease with which this machinery has been able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now afflicts the production of our news.
The article in the Independent discusses the use of "black propaganda" by the U.S. government, which is then parroted by the media without analysis; for example, the government forged.
So why has the American press has consistenly served the elites in disseminating their false justifications for war?
One of of the reasons is because the large media companies are owned by those who support the militarist agenda or even directly profit from war and terror (for example, NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors in the world -- which directly profits from war, terrorism and chaos).
Another seems to be an unspoken rule that the media will not criticize the government's imperial war agenda.
And the media support isn't just for war: it is also for various other shenanigans by the powerful. For example, a BBC documentarysdocuments:
There was "a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression."
Have you ever heard of this scheme before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers
then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?
4. Censorship by the Government
Finally, as if the media's own interest in promoting war is not strong enough, the government has exerted tremendous pressure on the media to report things a certain way. Indeed, at times the government has thrown media owners and reporters in jail if they've been too critical. The media companies have felt great pressure from the government to kill any real questioning of the endless wars.
For example, Dan Rather said, regarding American media, "What you have is a miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states".
Tom Brokaw said "all wars are based on propaganda.
Indeed, former military analyst and famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11:
Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today's American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which Ellsberg calls "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers"].
As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who "sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome."
"There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" he told us.
* * *
"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told 'don't touch this . . . .'"
Indeed, in the final analysis, the main reason today that the media giants will not cover the real stories or question the government's actions or policies in any meaningful way is that we live in a country that is not all that free
(see point number 6). Mussolini said that fascism is the blending of the government and corporate interests, and the American government and mainstream media have in fact been blended together to an unprecedented degree.
See this book and the following 5-part interview for further information on 9/11 and the media: Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch
We cannot just leave governance to our "leaders", as "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Jefferson). Similarly, we cannot leave news to the corporate media. We need to "be the media" ourselves.
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"Powerlessness and silence go together. We...should use our privileged positions not as a shelter from the world's reality, but as a platform from which to speak. A voice is a gift. It should be cherished and used." – Margaret Atwood
"There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that [nothing] cannot suppress." - Howard Zinn (historian)
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent" - Thomas Jefferson
The new “patriotism” - Phony conservatives throw their support behind Butcher of Beirut who directed bloody terror campaign against U.S.
The horrible irony to arise out of the riots and protests in Iran is that many Neo-Cons and phony conservatives, in their unified effort to enthusiastically embrace the Anglo-American establishment’s agenda for regime change, are cheerleading for a brutal thug who directed a terrorist campaign that killed hundreds of U.S. Marines in the 1980’s.
This once again proves that slack-jawed Neo-Con twits, ditto-heads for phony conservative media whores like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, have no loyalty whatsoever to America, but only to the corrupt power structure which they like to believe they are a part of.
Apparently, the new form of ‘patriotism’, the new incarnation of ’support the troops’ - is to support someone who helped massacre hundreds of U.S. troops just two decades ago.
We are referring of course to Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the former Prime Minister of Iran who directed the bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983. Sold by the media and hailed by Neo-Cons as the avatar of Iranian democracy, Mousavi was also “fingered Mousavi for the 1988 truck bombing of the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Center in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons, including the first Navy woman to die in a terrorist attack,” reports CQ Politics.
Regarding the Beirut bombings, which killed 220 U.S. Marines, CIA Middle East field officer Bob Baer wrote in TIME Magazine that Mousavi, “Dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah,” who ran the Beirut terrorist campaign and was “the man largely held responsible for both attacks.”
As Paul Craig Roberts writes, “The American media’s one-sided and propagandistic coverage of the Iranian election has made an American hero out of the defeated candidate, Mousavi.”
This charade has been vigorously amplified by phony right-wingers. As Raw Story notes, Neo-Cons have sided with the opposition against the boogeyman Ahmedinajed, to the point of grunting with delight at scenes broadcast by Fox News of police being beaten to a pulp by rioters. This makes for an odd contrast to their usual sentiment, towards anti-war protesters in the U.S. for example, for whom their newly found concern about police brutality towards demonstrators goes out of the window.
Similar feigned concern for demonstrators is being played out by TV talking heads across the networks. Take this former CIA agent for example, who informs Wolf Blitzer of his worries about how the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are treating protesters, warning that dissidents will be “disappeared”.
Oh the irony! For it was the CIA that trained the brutal Savak security force, copying techniques used by the Nazis to train the Gestapo, following the CIA’s overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddeq government in 1953. Savak engaged in the systematic torture, disappearance, and execution of thousands of the new puppet regime’s opponents before the 1979 revolution, all with the blessing of the United States government.
Neo-Cons and establishment media figures have also seized upon the tragic death of “Neda” as another reason why regime change is needed, aghast at shocking scenes of an innocent women dying. This new found emotion at the sight of Middle Easterners bleeding to death on the streets was strangely absent during “shock and awe” and the eight year combined occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, during which hundreds of thousands have died in similar circumstances.
In a Free Republic thread about possible CIA involvement in Iran - which is a proven fact and not even up for debate - “Freepers” express their desire to see a little more meddling by way of CIA support for the opposition and the demonstrators - presumably by way of more money for Al-Qaeda offshoot terrorist groups like Jundullah and Mujahedeen-e Khalq to carry out more bombings and kill more people as part of the CIA’s now public destabilization program in Iran.
Of course, the talking heads, the establishment media whores, and the Neo-Con morons don’t really give a snap! about the protesters or the opposition in Iran and indeed probably want them to be beaten and suppressed so that their real cause can be advanced - the demonization of the current Iranian government in the eyes of the world and a greasing of the skids for military invasion on behalf of the U.S., Britain and Israel.
Kurt Sonnenfeld : Exclusive interview 9/11 FEMA videographer at Ground Zero goes public
As official videographer for the U.S. government, Kurt Sonnenfeld was detailed to Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, where he spent one month filming 29 tapes: "What I saw at certain moments and in certain places ... is very disturbing!" He never handed them over to the authorities and has been persecuted ever since. Kurt Sonnenfeld lives in exile in Argentina, where he wrote "El Perseguido" (the persecuted). His recently-published book tells the story of his unending nightmare and drives another nail into the coffin of the government’s account of the 9/11 events. Below is an exclusive interview by The Voltaire Network.
Kurt Sonnenfeld and unidentified search and rescue specialist in subterranean void beneath Ground Zero.
Introduction
Kurt Sonnenfeld graduated from the University of Colorado (USA) with studies in International Affairs and Economics, as well as in Literature and Philosophy. He worked for the United States government as official videographer and served as Director of Broadcast Operations for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s National Emergency Response Team. Additionally, Kurt Sonnenfeld was contracted by several other governmental agencies and programs for classified and “sensitive” operations at military and scientific installations throughout the United States.
On September 11, 2001, the area known as “Ground Zero” was sealed from the public eye. Sonnenfeld, however, was given unrestricted access enabling him to document for the investigation (that never took place) and provide some “sanitized” pool video to virtually every news network in the world. The tapes that reveal some of the anomalies which he discovered at Ground Zero are still in his possession.
Accused of a crime that did not occur in a manifest frame-up scenario, especially in light of ensuing events [1], Kurt Sonnenfeld has been persecuted across continents. After several years of fear, injustice and isolation, he has decided to take a public stand against the Government’s official story and is prepared to submit his material to the close scrutiny of reliable experts.
Kurt Sonnenfeld
Interview
Voltaire Network: Your autobiographical book titled "El Perseguido" (the persecuted) was recently published in Argentina where you live in exile since 2003. Tell us who is persecuting you.
Kurt Sonnenfeld: Although it is autobiographical, it is not my life story. Rather it is a history of the extraordinary events that have happened to me and my family at the hands of U.S. authorities over the course of more than seven years, spanning two hemispheres, after my tour of duty at Ground Zero and becoming an inconvenient witness.
Voltaire Network: You explained that your request for refugee status within the terms of the Geneva 1951 Convention is still being considered by the Argentinean Senate, while in 2005 you were granted political asylum, albeit, on a provisional basis. That probably makes you the first U.S. citizen in that situation! And no doubt the first U.S. Government official with direct exposure to the events surrounding September 11, 2001 who has “blown the whistle”. Is this what drove you into exile?
With wife Paula, testifying before Senate
Kurt Sonnenfeld: A refugee is a person who has been forced to leave (or stay away from) his or her country for reasons of persecution. It’s undeniable that many people have been persecuted unfairly as a result of the quasi-fascist laws and policies brought about by the shock of September 11, 2001, and they deserve refugee status. But the fact is, requesting refugee status is a risky and dangerous step to take. America is the world’s only remaining “superpower”, and dissent has been effectively repressed. Any person who requests refugee status on political grounds is by nature making an extreme statement of dissent. And if your request is denied, what do you do? Once you make the request, there can be no going back.
Personally, I wasn’t forced to leave the United States, and I certainly did not “flee”. At the time I was still fairly oblivious to what was actually brewing against me. I hadn’t connected the dots yet; so that when I left in early 2003 I had every intention of returning. I came to Argentina for a short respite; to try to recuperate after all that had happened to me. I travelled here freely, with my own passport, using my own credit cards. But because of an incredible series of events, I have since been forced into exile, and I haven’t been back.
Voltaire Network: What type of events are you referring to?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: I’ve suffered false accusations for “crimes” that demonstrably did not happen, abusive imprisonment and torture as a result of those accusations, as well as outrageous calumnies against my reputation, death threats, kidnap attempts and several other violations of civil and human rights as denounced by numerous international accords. My return to the United States would not only be a continuation of those violations, but would be aggregated by the separation - perhaps permanent - from my wife and three-year old twin daughters, the only thing remaining that I have to live for. And then, after the impossibility of receiving a fair trial for a crime that did not happen, I could be subject to the death penalty.
Voltaire Network: In 2005, the U.S. Government lodged a request to have you extradited, which was turned down by a Federal Judge. Then, in 2007, the Argentinean Supreme Court – in a show of integrity and independence - turned down the U.S. appeal, but your Government persisted. Can you shed some light on the situation ?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: In 2008, the US government appealed again, this time with absolutely no legal foundation, to the Supreme Court, which will surely uphold the two already unassailable rulings made by the Federal Judge.
In one of those rulings, it was also noted that there were too many “sombras”, or shadows, surrounding my case. There were many, many obvious fabrications in the extradition order sent here by US authorities, and, thankfully, we were able prove that. The fact that there were so many fabrications has actually served to support my request for asylum. We were also able to show that we had been subject to a prolonged campaign of harassment and intimidation from US intelligence services. As a result, since my family has been assigned round-the-clock police protection. As one senator has noted about my case: “It is their behavior that belies their true motivations”.
Sonnenfeld and his family are frequently harassed, followed, and photographed, as shown in this photo.
Voltaire Network: They want you pretty badly for a “crime that did not happen”! How do you account for such doggedness? As a FEMA official, you must have been trusted by your government. At what point did the situation capsize?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: In hindsight, I realize now that the situation had capsized some time before I actually became aware that it had capsized. Initially, the false accusation against me was completely irrational, and I was totally destroyed by it. It is incredibly difficult to have suffered the loss of someone you love to suicide, but to then be accused of it is too much to bear. The case was dismissed based on a mountain of evidence that overwhelmingly absolved me (Nancy, my wife, had left behind a suicide note and a journal of suicidal writings ; she had a family history of suicide ; etc.). The prosecution was 100% sure of my innocence before requesting the dismissal of charge.
But the sustained incarceration even AFTER it was indicated that I was to be freed was what proved to me that something was happening under the surface. I was held in jail for FOUR MONTHS after my lawyers were informed that the case was to be dismissed and was finally released in June 2002. During that time, an amazing series of strange events began to occur. While still being held, I had a telephone conversation with FEMA officials in an effort to resolve the issue, but I realized that I was considered “compromised”. I was told it had been agreed that “the agency had to be protected”, especially in light of the upheaval that was threatening with the implementation of the “Patriot Act” and the expected usurpation that would come with the new Department of Homeland Security. After all the dangers I had risked, all hardship and difficulties I had endured for them for almost 10 years, I felt betrayed. It left a void in my soul.
Because of their abandonment, I told them I didn’t have the tapes, that I gave them to “some bureaucrat” in New York, and that they would have to wait until I was released to retrieve any other documents in my possession. Soon after that conversation, my house was “seized”, the locks were changed, and men were observed by neighbors entering my house, though there is no record in the court of their entry, as would be required. When I was finally released, I discovered that my office had been ransacked, my computer was missing, and that my tape library in my basement had been dug through and several were missing. Men were constantly parked on the street near my house, my security system was “hacked” more than once, outdoor security lights were unscrewed, etc., to the point that I went to stay with some friends at their condo in the mountains, which was then ALSO broken into.
Anyone who looks for the truth recognizes that there has been an amazing series of irregularities in this case and that an appalling injustice is being carried out on me and my loved ones. This intense campaign to return me to American soil is a false pretext for other darker motives.
Voltaire Network: You have suggested that you observed things at Ground Zero that did not tally with the official account. Did you do or say anything to arouse suspicion in this respect?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: In that same telephone call I said that I would “go public”, not only with my suspicions about the events surrounding September 11, 2001, but about several contracts I had worked on in the past.
Sonnenfeld at Ground Zero, investigating a “void” beneath fallen steel beams.
Voltaire Network: What are your suspicions based on?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: There were many things, in hindsight, that were disturbing at Ground Zero. It was odd to me that I was dispatched to go to New York even before the second plane hit the South Tower, while the media was still reporting only that a “small plane” had collided with the North Tower — far too small of a catastrophe at that point to involve FEMA . FEMA was mobilized within minutes, whereas it took ten days for it to deploy to New Orleans to respond to Hurricane Katrina, even with abundant advance warning! It was odd to me that all cameras were so fiercely prohibited within the secured perimeter of Ground Zero, that the entire area was declared a crime scene and yet the “evidence” within that crime scene was so rapidly removed and destroyed. And then it was very odd to me when I learned that FEMA and several other federal agencies had already moved into position at their command center at Pier 92 on September 10th, one day before the attacks!
Rubber landing-gear tyres visible in evidence container marked “FBI Plane Parts Only.”
We are asked to believe that all four of the “indestructible” black boxes of the two jets that struck the twin towers were never found because they were completely vaporized, yet I have footage of the rubber wheels of the landing gear nearly undamaged, as well as the seats, parts of the fuselage and a jet turbine that were absolutely not vaporized. This being said, I do find it rather odd that such objects could have survived fairly intact the type of destruction that turned most of the Twin Towers into thin dust. And I definitely harbor some doubts about the authenticity of the “jet” turbine, far too small to have come from one of the Boeings!
“Boeing” jet turbine at Fresh Kills island landfill.
What happened with Building 7 is incredibly suspicious. I have video that shows how curiously small the rubble pile was, and how the buildings to either side were untouched by Building Seven when it collapsed. It had not been hit by an airplane; it had suffered only minor injuries when the Twin Towers collapsed, and there were only small fires on a couple of floors. There’s no way that building could have imploded the way it did without controlled demolition. Yet the collapse of Building 7 was hardly mentioned by the mainstream media and suspiciously ignored by the 911 Commission.
Voltaire Network: Reportedly, the underground levels of WTC7 contained sensitive and undoubtedly compromising archival material. Did you come across any of it?
There was no underground parking level at Seven World Trade Center. And there was no underground vault. Instead, the federal agencies at Building Seven stored their vehicles, documents and evidence in the building of their associates across the street. Beneath the plaza level of US Customs House (Building 6) was a large underground garage, separated off from the rest of the complex’s underground area and guarded under tight security. This was where the various government services parked their bomb-proofed cars and armored limousines, counterfeit taxi cabs and telephone company trucks used for undercover surveillance and covert operations, specialized vans and other vehicles. Also within that secured parking area was access to the sub-level vault of Building 6.
Approaching the entrance to the sub-level areas of Building 6
When the North Tower fell, the US Customs House (Building 6) was crushed and totally incinerated. Much of the underground levels beneath it were also destroyed. But there were voids. And it was into one of those voids, recently uncovered, that I descended with a special Task Force to investigate. It was there we found the security antechamber to the vault, badly damaged. At the far end of the security office was the wide steel door to the vault, a combination code keypad in the cinderblock wall beside it. But the wall was cracked and partially crumbled, and the door was sprung partially open. So we checked inside with our flashlights. Except for several rows of empty shelves, there was nothing in the vault but dust and debris. It had been emptied. Why was it empty? And when could it have been emptied?
Voltaire Network: Is this what set alarm bells ringing for you?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: Yes, but not immediately. With so much chaos, it was difficult to think. It was only after digesting everything that the “alarm bells” went off.
Building Six was evacuated within twelve minutes after the first airplane struck the North Tower. The streets were immediately clogged with fire trucks, police cars and blocked traffic, and the vault was large enough, 15 meters by 15 meters by my estimate, to necessitate at least a big truck to carry out its contents. And after the towers fell and destroyed most of the parking level, a mission to recover the contents of the vault would have been impossible. The vault had to have been emptied before the attack.
I’ve described all of this extensively in my book, and it’s apparent that things of importance were taken out of harm’s way before the attacks. For example, the CIA didn’t seem too concerned about their losses. After the existence of their clandestine office in Building Seven was discovered, an agency spokesman told the newspapers that a special team had been dispatched to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports, though there were millions, if not billions of pages floating in the streets. Nevertheless, the spokesman was confident. “There shouldn’t be too much paper around,” he said.
The bizarre hollowed-out vestiges of The US Customs House (Building Six)
And Customs at first claimed that everything was destroyed. That the heat was so intense that everything in the evidence safe had been baked to ash. But some months later, they announced that they had broken up a huge Colombian narco-trafficking and money-laundering ring after miraculously recovering crucial evidence from the safe, including surveillance photos and heat-sensitive cassette tapes of monitored calls. And when they moved in to their new building at 1 Penn Plaza in Manhattan, they proudly hung on the lobby wall their Commissioner’s Citation Plaque and their big round US Customs Service ensign, also miraculously recovered, in pristine condition, from their crushed and cremated former office building at the World Trade Center.
Voltaire Network: You weren’t alone on the Ground Zero assignment. Did the others notice the same anomalies? Do you know whether they have they also been harassed?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: Actually there were a few people on two different excursions that I know about. Some of us even discussed it afterwards. They know who they are and I hope that they will come forward, but I’m sure they have strong apprehensions as to what will happen to them if they do. I will leave it to them to decide, but there is strength in numbers.
Voltaire Network: With the publication of your book, you have become a "whistleblower" – yet another step on which there is no going back! There must be many people with inside knowledge about what really happened or did not happen on that fateful day. Yet, hardly any have stepped up to the plate and certainly no one who was directly involved in an official capacity. This is what makes your case so compelling. Judging from your ordeal, it is not difficult to imagine what is holding such people back.
Kurt Sonnenfeld: Actually, there are several other very smart and credible people blowing whistles, too. And they are being discredited and ignored. Some are being harassed and persecuted, as I am.
People are gripped by fear. Everybody knows that if you question US authority you will have problems in some way or another. At minimum you will be discredited and dehumanized. Most likely you’ll find yourself indicted for something completely unrelated, like tax evasion — or something even worse, as in my case. Look at what happened to Secret Service whistle-blower Abraham Bolden, for example, or to chess master Bobby Fischer after he showed his disdain for the US. There are countless other examples. In the past I asked friends and associates to speak out for me to counter all the lies being planted in the media, and all of them were terrified as to the ramifications to themselves and their families.
Voltaire Network: To what degree would your discoveries at Ground Zero expose the government’s involvement in those events? Are you familiar with the investigations that have been carried out by numerous scientists and qualified professionals which not only corroborate your own findings but, in some instances, far exceed them? Do you regard such people as "conspiracy nuts"?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: At the highest levels in Washington, DC, someone knew what was going to happen. They wanted a war so badly that they at least let it happen and most likely even helped it happen.
Sometimes it seems to me that the “nuts” are those who hold to what they’ve been told with an almost religious fervor despite all of the evidence to the contrary — the ones who won’t even consider that there was a conspiracy. There are so many anomalies to the “official” investigation that you can’t blame it on oversight or incompetence. I am familiar with the scientists and qualified professionals to whom you refer, and their findings are convincing, credible, and presented according to scientific protocol — in stark contrast to the findings of the “official” investigation. In addition, numerous intelligence agents and government officials have now come forward with their very informed opinions that the 911 Commission was a farce at best or a cover-up at worst. My experience at Ground Zero is but one more piece of the puzzle.
Voltaire Network: Those events are nearly 8 years behind us. Do you consider that uncovering the truth about 9/11 continues to be an important objective? Why?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: It is of absolute importance. And it will be equally as important in 10 years, or even 50 years if the truth still has not been exposed. It is an important objective because, at this point in history, many people are too credulous to whatever “authority” tells them and too willing to follow. People in a state of shock seek guidance. People who are afraid are manipulable. And being able to manipulate the masses results in unimaginable benefits to a lot of very rich and very powerful people. War is incredibly expensive, but the money has to go somewhere. War is very profitable for the very few. And somehow their sons always end up in Washington DC, making the decisions and writing the budgets, while the sons of the poor and the poorly-connected always end up on the enemy lines, taking their orders and fighting their battles. The enormous black-budget of the US Department of Defense represents an unlimited money machine for the military-industrial complex, figuring in the multi-trillions of dollars, and it will continue to be so until the masses wake up, recuperate their skepticism and demand accountability. Wars (and false pretexts for war) will not cease until the people realize the true motive of war and stop believing “official” explanations.
Voltaire Network: What is referred to as the 9/11 Truth Movement, has been asking for a new, independent investigation into those events. Do you think that the Obama Administration holds out some hope in this respect?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: I really hope so, but I’m skeptical. Why would the leadership of any established government willingly undertake any action that would result in a serious compromise to their authority? They will prefer to maintain the status quo and leave the things the way they are. The conductor of the train has been changed, but has the train changed its course? I doubt it. The push has to come from the public, not only domestically, but internationally, like your group is doing.
Voltaire Network: A number of human rights and activist groups are supporting your plight, not least Peace Nobel Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. How have the Argentinean people in general responded to your situation?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: With an incredible outpouring of support. The military dictatorship is still fresh in the collective memory of most of the people here, along with the knowledge that the dictatorship (along with the other South American dictatorships at the time) was backed by the CIA, directed at the time by George Bush Senior. They remember well the torture centers, the secret prisons, the thousands of people “disappeared” for their opinions, the living in daily fear. They know that the United States today will do the same thing if they consider it beneficial, that they will invade a country to achieve their political and economic interests and then manipulate the media with fabricated “causus belli” to justify their conquests.
Voltaire Network: As we said, deciding to write this book and to go public was a huge step. What pushed you to do it?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: To save my family. And to let the world know that things are not what they seem.
Voltaire Network: Last but not least: what will you do with your tapes?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: I am convinced that my tapes reveal many more anomalies than I am capable of recognizing given my limited qualifications. I will therefore cooperate in any way that I can with serious and reliable experts in a common endeavour to expose the truth.
Despite the fact that the U.S. government publicly approved a CIA destabilization campaign in Iran two years ago
President Barack Obama was forced to address accusations that the CIA was involved in fomenting the post-election riots in Iran during his White House press conference yesterday, claiming the allegations were “patently false,” despite the fact that the U.S. government publicly gave the CIA approval to undertake a destabilization campaign in Iran more than two years ago.
“There are reports suggesting that the CIA is behind all this - all of which is patently false but it gives you a sense of the narrative that the Iranian government would love to play into,” said Obama.
CIA involvement in Iran is not a “narrative” manufactured by the Iranian government, as Obama well knows.
As we highlighted in our report earlier this week, evidence of U.S. intelligence meddling in Iran is widespread, which is no surprise considering the fact that the U.S. all but announced they would pursue a destabilization campaign in Iran years ago.
In May 2007, the London Telegraph and others revealed that President George W. Bush had “Given the CIA approval to launch covert “black” operations to achieve regime change in Iran.”
The plan set in motion CIA propaganda and disinformation campaigns “intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs”.
It also released funds to bankroll the militant Jundullah organization, an Al-Qaeda offshoot formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad’s government.
It is widely suspected that the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq, once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, is now also working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations and carrying out bombings in Iran. A large number of Mujahedeen-e Khalq members were arrested following riots last week, according to a Press TV report. The article claims that the men were “extensively trained in Iraq’s camp Ashraf to create post-election mayhem in the country”.
As part of CIA destabilization efforts in Iran, former Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beig last week claimed that the Agency had distributed 400 million dollars inside Iran to evoke a revolution. Beig cited documents that prove “the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful-hollow revolution following the election.”
The CIA program approved by Bush also included funding opposition groups and providing them with communications equipment that would bypass Internet censorship and allow demonstrators to communicate.
Twitter and other social networking websites have played a key role in the demonstrations. The U.S. State Department, which routinely demonizes the Internet as a tool of extremists and terrorists when it is used to criticize U.S. foreign policy, took the unprecedented step last week of requesting that Twitter.com “delay planned maintenance work so that Iranian protesters can continue to use it to post images and reports of unrest,” according to a London Times report.
According to several different reports, the CIA and Mossad has been creating fake Twitter feeds and flooding Iranians with SMS messages inspiring them to riot.
According to author Thierry Meyssan, Iranians received messages before the election votes had even been counted telling them that the Iranian Guardian Council had declared Mir-Hossein Mousavi to be the winner. When the official announcement of Ahmadinejad’s victory was later broadcast, the sentiment that fraud had took place was therefore amplified.
Meyssan also charges that the CIA and Mossad used Twitter feeds to put out fake reports of gun fights and deaths that were never confirmed, rousing Iranians to riot in the belief that their fellow countrymen were being brutally suppressed by the authorities.
Another website clearly documents the fact that the main Twitter accounts used to send out hundreds of alerts during the protests were only recently created and had not send out any alerts whatsoever before the protests began.
Top Neo-Cons with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex like John Bolton and Henry Kissinger have been calling for the CIA to fund a ‘color revolution’ in Iran for years as a gateway to regime change.
Lest we forget that it was a violent CIA coup that led to the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 under Operation Ajax. The ousting was achieved by means of staged bombings and shootings which were blamed on the Iranian government in order to antagonize the population and enable the coup. During the coup, the CIA also bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets.
Given this history, allied with the U.S. government’s own public program to instigate a destabilization campaign in Iran through the CIA, Obama’s claim that CIA involvement is “patently false” is clearly contradicted by the facts. The only thing that’s “patently false” is Obama’s statement itself.
"Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality."
— Michael Ellner
It is sincerely creepy to watch master globalist criminal Henry Kissinger call for an invasion of Iran in this BBC new clip. Kissinger says that if the color revolution fails — and it is now obvious the protests in Iran are orchestrated by the CIA and the usual “democracy” NGO suspects — an outside alternative will have to be used in the name of “regime change,” in other words shock and awe à la Baghdad.
It is significant Kissinger went on television and said this — it means flattening Iranian cities and killing babies is more than likely the position of the globalists if the “green revolution” currently underway fails. Kissinger is a big muckamuck Bilderberger and David Rockefeller minion.
Attacking Iran, as the neocons have long called for, will prove to be disastrous. The Iranians will shut down the Strait of Hormuz where around 60% of the world’s oil passes if they are attacked by the United States. This will take down the world economy overnight.
But then the globalists and banksters want to take down the world economy so they can impose their globalist banking and control structure. Attacking Iran and killing thousands will kill two birds with one stone.
A report posted on the Kentucky Justice & Public Safety Cabinet website mentions the Kentucky chapter of the Constitution Party. The 2006 report, entitled “Hate Crime and Hate Incidents in the Commonwealth,” characterizes the paleoconservative political party as a patriot group and associates it with the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist organizations.
Click on the above image to view the document in PDF format.
The report cites “hate crime” statistics produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, organizations that have made a cottage industry out of conflating the patriot movement and racist groups.
“What remains of the Patriot scene today is generally harder core, with an increasing number of groups influenced by the racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology favored by some American neo-Nazi groups. Many others have embraced another radical theology, Christian Reconstructionism,” the SPLC claimed in 2001. Patriots entertain “outlandish conspiracy theories and childish fascination with guns, as a collection of nuts, people lacking basic reasoning skills whose arguments were naïve at best.”
On February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri issued the “MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement.” It specifically mentions former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin as potentially dangerous “militia members.” MIAC profiled people opposing abortion, illegal immigration, the New World Order, the North American Union, income taxes, the United Nations, and other issues of concern to paleoconservatives and libertarians as possible terrorists.
The report was sent anonymously to Alex Jones and subsequently received national attention. In response to negative publicity, Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder called on Governor Jay Nixon to place Department of Public Safety Director John Britt on administrative leave pending an investigation into the report.
The ADL and SPLC were instrumental in both the MIAC report and the Department of Homeland Security’s report on “rightwing extremism.” In April, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano delivered a keynote speech at an ADL conference in Washington. She admitted the agency has received “training” on “hate” groups from the ADL.
The Kentucky report lists the Constitution Party in a table along with Take Back Kentucky, Ranch Rescue, and the Kentucky State Militia. “Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the ‘New World Order’ or advocate or adhere to extreme anti-government or conspiratorial doctrines,” a caveat below the table states. “Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist. This list was compiled from field reports, Patriot publications, the Internet, law enforcement officials and news reports. Source: Southern Poverty Law Center.”
If patriot groups are not racist, why are they included in a report that concentrates on “hate crimes” and the Ku Klux Klan?
As previously noted on Infowars and Prison Planet, the SPLC and the ADL are in the business of demonizing the patriot and larger paleoconservative and libertarian movement as dangerous terrorists on the radical and “extremist” fringe of the American political landscape. Including the Constitution Party — now considered a mainstream political party — in a report dwelling on the Imperial Klans of America and the neo-Nazi American National Socialist Workers’ Party is part of a concerted effort to delegitimize and stigmatize the patriot movement.
In this KTVI Fox news piece (Above), the ADL characterizes the Constitution Party as a “fringe right-wing political party” with “extremist roots.”
The Kentucky Justice & Public Safety Cabinet needs to remove this obvious and defamatory propaganda from its website immediately (or at minimum remove mention of patriot groups from this SPLC-ADL produced report). The Kentucky Justice & Public Safety Cabinet’s office secretary may be reached at (502) 564-7554.
President Obama called on the Iranian government to allow protesters to control the streets in Tehran. Would Obama or any US president allow protesters to control the streets in Washington, D.C.?
There was more objective evidence that George W. Bush stole his two elections than there is at this time of election theft in Iran. But there was no orchestrated media campaign to discredit the US government.
On May 16, 2007, the London Daily Telegraph reported that Bush regime official John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would "be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed."
We are now witnessing in Tehran US "attempts to foment a popular revolution" in the guise of another CIA-orchestrated "color revolution".
It is possible that splits among the mullahs themselves brought about by their rival ambitions will aid and abet what the Telegraph (May 27, 2007) reported were "CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs." It is certainly a fact that the secularized youth of Tehran have played into the CIA’s hands.
The Mousavi protests have set up Iran either for a US puppet government or for a military strike. The mullahs are in a lose-lose situation. Even if the mullahs hold together and suppress the protests, the legitimacy of the Iranian government in the eyes of the outside world has been damaged. Obama’s diplomatic approach is over before it started. The neocons and Israel have won.
The US intervention and the orchestrated disinformation pumped out by the western media are so transparent that it is impossible to believe than any informed person or government is taken in. One cannot avoid the conclusion that the West wants the 1978 Iranian Revolution overthrown and intends to use deception or violence to achieve that goal.
It has become increasingly difficult to believe that facts and truth motivate the western news media. For the record, I would like to point out a few of the most obvious oversights, to use a euphemism, in the Iran reporting.
According to a wide variety of news sources (for example, London Telegraph, Yahoo News, The Globe and Mail, Asbarez.com, Politico), "Before the polling closed Mr. Mousavi declared himself ‘definitely the winner’ based on ‘all indications from all over Iran.’ He alleged widespread voting irregularities without giving specifics and hinted he was ready to challenge the final results."
Other news sources, which might not have been aware that the polls were kept open several hours beyond normal closing time in order to accommodate the turnout, reported that Mousavi made his victory claim the minute polls closed.
Mousavi’s premature claim of victory before polling was over or votes counted is clearly a preemptive move, the purpose of which is to discredit any other outcome. There is no other reason to make such a claim.
In Iran’s system, election fraud has no purpose, because a small select group of ruling mullahs select the candidates who are put on the ballot. If they don’t like an aspiring candidate, they simply don’t put him on the ballot.
When the liberal reformer Khatami ran for president, he won with 70% of the vote and served from 1997-2005. If the mullahs didn’t defraud Khatami of his win, it seems unlikely they would defraud an establishment figure like Mousavi, who was foreign minister in the most conservative government, and is backed by another establishment figure, Rafsanjani.
As Mousavi was seen as Rafsanjani’s man, why is it "unbelievable" that Ahmadinejad defeated Mousavi by the same margin that he defeated Rafsanjani in the previous election?
Neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman let the cat out of the bag that there was an orchestrated "color revolution" in the works. Before the election, Timmerman wrote: "there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran." Why would protests be organized prior to a vote and announcement of the outcome? Organized protests waiting in the wings are not spontaneous responses to a stolen election.
Timmerman’s organization, Foundation for Democracy, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) for the explicit purpose of promoting democracy in Iran. According to Timmerman, NED money was funneled to "pro-Mousavi groups who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds."
The US media has studiously ignored all of these highly suggestive facts. The media is not reporting or providing objective analysis. It is engaged in a propagandistic onslaught against the Iranian government.
We know that the US funds terrorist organizations inside Iran that are responsible for bombings and other violent acts. It is likely that these terrorist organizations are responsible for the burning buses and other acts of violence that have occurred during the demonstrations in Tehran.
A writer on pakalert.wordpress.com says that he was intrigued by the sudden appearance of tens of thousands of Twitter allegations that Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian election. He investigated, he says, and he reports that each of the new highly active accounts were created on Saturday, June 13th. "IranElection" is their most popular keyword. He narrowed the spammers to the most persistent: @StopAhmadi @IranRiggedElect @Change_For_Iran. He researched further and found that on June 14 the Jerusalem Post already had an article on the new Twitter.
He concludes that the new Twitter sites are propaganda operations.
One wonders why the youth of the world, who do not protest stolen elections elsewhere, are so obsessed with Iran.
The unexamined question is Mousavi and his motives. Why would Mousavi unleash demonstrations that are obviously being used by a hostile West to discredit the government of the Iranian Revolution that overthrew the US puppet government? Are these the actions of a "moderate"? Or are these the actions of a disgruntled man who kept his disaffection from his colleagues in order to gain the opportunity to discredit the regime with street protests? Is Mousavi being manipulated by organizations funded with US government money?
John Bolton laid out the US strategy. First we try to destabilize the regime. Failing that, we strike them militarily.
As this strategy unfolds, Iranians will pay in lost independence or in blood for the naiveness of its secularized youth and for the mistake the mullahs made in trusting Mousavi.
Current events and historical precedents highlight covert operations
The following summary, with extensive links, highlights the major evidence that suggests western intelligence agencies are aiding in stirring up unrest inside Iran as part of a “color revolution” to foment regime change.
Corporate-controlled media mouthpieces had already declared Mousavi the winner even before the people of Iran had had an opportunity to cast their vote. When the result turned out to be contrary to their perceived wisdom, it was immediately denounced as “rigged”. It seems even Mousavi had fallen for this propaganda because as soon as the polls closed, he told a press conference in Tehran that he had “won”. How he could make such a claim when no results had come in?
The news of alleged election fraud has spread through Tehran like wildfire, pitching ayatollah Rafsanjani’s supporters against ayatollah Khamenei’s in street confrontations. This chaotic situation is secretly stirred by the CIA which has been spreading confusion by flooding Iranians with contradicting SMS messages and Twitter feeds. The temporary loss of the mobile phone network in Iran during the announcement of the election results, was blamed on the government.
Sites belonging to Iranian news agencies, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were knocked off-line with tools designed to barrage these websites with traffic. The media blamed activists opposed to the Iranian government. The temporary loss of access to websites such as Facebook and Youtube and Iranian news websites, during announcement of the election results was blamed on the government.
The Western media supported the opposition’s claims by focusing the news on opposition rallies and demonstrations against Ahmadinejad, while ignoring the pro-Ahmadinejad rallies which were on some occasions much bigger. The BBC was so desperate to push the pro-Mousavi cause, it claimed that pictures of a massive pro-Ahmadinejad rally were of a pro-Mousavi rally. A retraction followed after we pointed out the grossly misleading claim.Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hassan Qashqavi, said Monday that some European countries and the US have played a major role in provoking the post-election violence that killed scores of people in the past few days.
Former Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beig claims the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has distributed 400 million dollars inside Iran to evoke a revolution.
It is sincerely creepy to watch master globalist criminal Henry Kissinger call for an invasion of Iran in this BBC new clip. Herr Kissinger says that if the color revolution fails — and it is now obvious the protests in Iran are orchestrated by the CIA and the usual “democracy” NGO suspects — an outside alternative will have to be used in the name of “regime change,” in other words shock and awe à la Baghdad.
Military, intelligence, and congressional sources say a secret war is being vamped to bring down the current Iranian leadership. This involves funding anti-government terrorist groups inside Iran, such as Jundullah and the MEK/MKO.
On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.”
Recently, Congress voted $120 million for anti-regime media broadcasts into Iran and $60-75 million in funding for opposition, violent underground Marxists and restive ethnic groups such as Azeris, Kurds and Arabs under the “Iran Democracy Program.”
A report based on declassified documents suggests that the Nixon and Ford administrations, angry with the shah for his support for raising oil prices, worked to curb his ambitions.
Recently admitted to by Obama, in 1953 the CIA and MI6 carried out Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX), a covert operation by the United Kingdom and the United States to remove the democratically elected nationalist cabinet of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh from power, to support the Pahlavi dynasty and consolidate the power of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in order to preserve the Western control of Iran’s hugely lucrative oil infrastructure.
The ousting was achieved by means of staged bombings and shootings which were blamed on the Iranian government in order to antagonize the population and enable the coup.
During the coup, the CIA also bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets.
After installing the Shah Globalists like Henry Kissinger opened the door for Iran to develop sophisticated nuclear energy programs which laid the foundation for today’s crisis. Twenty three reactors were built with the help of American corporations like General Electric and Westinghouse.
Prominent Iranian political science professor, Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, has emphasized that Iran and the US signed an agreement in 1978 which allowed Tehran to seek nuclear technology in order to meet its future energy demands but no one now talks about the agreement. He has also asserted that Zionists in Israel in co-operation with neoconservatives in the US have intentionally been trying to divide Iran for decades.
Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh reveals how the neocons convened around Dick Cheney and brainstormed ways to kick off World War IV, as they fondly call their pet project to take out the Muslims and foment a contrived “clash of civilizations.”
The New Yorker magazine reported that Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University, had a conversation with a member of a top neoconservative institution in Washington, who told him that “instructions” had been passed on from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day.
U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups are routinely deployed to the Gulf in order to send a clear signal to Iran that they will be crushed if they continue to defy the wishes of the US government by enriching uranium.
A respected American Journalist accused a Pentagon spokesman of falsifying events surrounding the encounter between Iranian patrol boats and a US navy vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, which was eventually labeled a “provocation” by the White House.
The fallout of Praying Mantis also resulted in the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian civilian commercial airliner.
Since the June 12 Iranian presidential elections, Iran "experts” have mushroomed like bacteria in a Petri dish. So here is a quiz for all those instant experts. Which major country has elected more presidents than any in the world since 1980? Further, which nation is the only one that held ten presidential elections within thirty years of its revolution?
The answer to both questions, of course, is Iran. Since 1980, it has elected six presidents, while the U.S. is a close second with five, and France at three. In addition, the U.S. held four presidential elections within three decades of its revolution to Iran’s ten.
The Iranian elections have unified the left and the right in the West and unleashed harsh criticisms and attacks from the “outraged” politicians to the “indignant” mainstream media. Even the blogosphere has joined this battle with near uniformity, on the side of Iran’s opposition, which is quite rare in cyberspace.
Much of the allegations of election fraud have been just that: unsubstantiated accusations. No one has yet been able to provide a solid shred of evidence of wide scale fraud that would have garnered eleven million votes for one candidate over his opponent.
So let’s analyze much of the evidence that is available to date.
More than thirty pre-election polls were conducted in Iran since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main opponent, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, announced their candidacies in early March 2009. The polls varied widely between the two opponents, but if one were to average their results, Ahmadinejad would still come out on top. However, some of the organizations sponsoring these polls, such as Iranian Labor News Agency and Tabnak, admit openly that they have been allies of Mousavi, the opposition, or the so-called reform movement. Their numbers were clearly tilted towards Mousavi and gave him an unrealistic advantage of over 30 per cent in some polls. If such biased polls were excluded, Ahmadinejad’s average over Mousavi would widen to about 21 points.
On the other hand, there was only one poll carried out by a western news organization. It was jointly commissioned by the BBC and ABC News, and conducted by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion (CPO) of the New America Foundation. The CPO has a reputation of conducting accurate opinion polls, not only in Iran, but across the Muslim world since 2005. The poll, conducted a few weeks before the elections, predicted an 89 percent turnout rate. Further, it showed that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide advantage of two to one over Mousavi.
How did this survey compare to the actual results? And what are the possibilities of wide scale election fraud?
According to official results, there were 46.2 million registered voters in Iran. The turnout was massive, as predicted by the CPO. Almost 39.2 million Iranians participated in the elections for a turn out rate of 85 percent, in which about 38.8 million ballots were deemed valid (about 400,000 ballots were left blank). Officially, President Ahmadinejad received 24.5 million votes to Mousavi’s 13.2 million votes, or 62.6 per cent to 33.8 per cent of the total votes, respectively. In fact, this result mirrored the 2005 elections when Ahmadinejad received 61.7 per cent to former President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s 35.9 per cent in the runoff elections. Two other minor candidates, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezaee, received the rest of the votes in this election.
Shortly after the official results were announced Mousavi’s supporters and Western political pundits cried foul and accused the government of election fraud. The accusations centered around four themes. First, although voting had been extended several hours due to the heavy turnout, it was alleged that the elections were called too quickly from the time the polls were closed, with more than 39 million ballots to count.
Second, these critics insinuated that election monitors were biased or that, in some instances, the opposition did not have its own monitors present during the count. Third, they pointed out that it was absurd to think that Mousavi, who descended from the Azerbaijan region in northwest Iran, was defeated handily in his own hometown. Fourth, the Mousavi camp charged that in some polling stations, ballots ran out and people were turned away without voting.
The next day, Mosuavi and the two other defeated candidates lodged 646 complaints to the Guardian Council, the entity charged with overseeing the integrity of the elections. The Council promised to conduct full investigations of all the complaints. By the following morning, a copy of a letter by a low-level employee in the Interior Ministry sent to Supreme Guide Ali Khamanei, was widely circulating around the world. (Western politicians and media outlets like to call him “Supreme Leader” but no such title exists in Iran.)
The letter stated that Mousavi had won the elections, and that Ahmadinejad had actually come in third. It also promised that the elections were being fixed in favor of Ahmadinejad per Khamanei’s orders. It is safe to assume that the letter was a forgery since an unidentified low-level employee would not be the one addressing Ayatollah Khamanaei. Robert Fisk of The Independent reached the same conclusion by casting grave doubts that Ahmadinejad would score third – garnering less than 6 million votes in such an important election- as alleged in the forged letter.
There were a total of 45,713 ballot boxes that were set up in cities, towns and villages across Iran. With 39.2 million ballots cast, there were less than 860 ballots per box. Unlike other countries where voters can cast their ballots on several candidates and issues in a single election, Iranian voters had only one choice to consider: their presidential candidate. Why would it take more than an hour or two to count 860 ballots per poll? After the count, the results were then reported electronically to the Ministry of the Interior in Tehran.
Since 1980, Iran has suffered an eight-year deadly war with Iraq, a punishing boycott and embargo, and a campaign of assassination of dozens of its lawmakers, an elected president and a prime minister from the group Mujahideen Khalq Organization. (MKO is a deadly domestic violent organization, with headquarters in France, which seeks to topple the government by force.) Despite all these challenges, the Islamic Republic of Iran has never missed an election during its three decades. It has conducted over thirty elections nationwide. Indeed, a tradition of election orderliness has been established, much like election precincts in the U.S. or boroughs in the U.K. The elections in Iran are organized, monitored and counted by teachers and professionals including civil servants and retirees (again much like the U.S.)
There has not been a tradition of election fraud in Iran. Say what you will about the system of the Islamic Republic, but its elected legislators have impeached ministers and “borked” nominees of several Presidents, including Ahmadinejad. Rubberstamps, they are not. In fact, former President Mohammad Khatami, considered one of the leading reformists in Iran, was elected president by the people, when the interior ministry was run by archconservatives. He won with over 70 percent of the vote, not once, but twice.
When it comes to elections, the real problem in Iran is not fraud but candidates’ access to the ballots (a problem not unique to the country, just ask Ralph Nader or any other third party candidate in the U.S.) It is highly unlikely that there was a huge conspiracy involving tens of thousands of teachers, professionals and civil servants that somehow remained totally hidden and unexposed.
Moreover, while Ahmadinejad belongs to an active political party that has already won several elections since 2003, Mousavi is an independent candidate who emerged on the political scene just three months ago, after a 20-year hiatus. It was clear during the campaign that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide campaign operation. He made over sixty campaign trips throughout Iran in less than twelve weeks, while his opponent campaigned only in the major cities, and lacked a sophisticated campaign apparatus.
It is true that Mousavi has an Azeri background. But the CPO poll mentioned above, and published before the elections, noted that “its survey indicated that only 16 per cent of Azeri Iranians will vote for Mr. Mousavi. By contrast, 31 per cent of the Azeris claim they will vote for Mr. Ahmadinejad.” In the end, according to official results, the election in that region was much closer than the overall result. In fact, Mousavi won narrowly in the West Azerbaijan province but lost the region to Ahmadinejad by a 45 to 52 per cent margin (or 1.5 to 1.8 million votes).
However, the double standard applied by Western news agencies is striking. Richard Nixon trounced George McGovern in his native state of South Dakota in the 1972 elections. Had Al Gore won his home state of Tennessee in 2000, no one would have cared about a Florida recount, nor would there have been a Supreme Court case called Bush v. Gore. If Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards had won the states he was born and raised in (South and North Carolina), President John Kerry would now be serving his second term. But somehow, in Western newsrooms Middle Eastern people choose their candidates not on merit, but on the basis of their “tribe.”
The fact that minor candidates such as Karroubi would garner fewer votes than expected, even in their home regions as critics charge, is not out of the ordinary. Many voters reach the conclusion that they do not want to waste their votes when the contest is perceived to be between two major candidates. Karroubi indeed received far fewer votes this time around than he did in 2005, including in his hometown. Likewise, Ross Perot lost his home state of Texas to Bob Dole of Kansas in 1996, while in 2004, Ralph Nader received one eighth of the votes he had four years earlier.
Some observers note that when the official results were being announced, the margin between the candidates held steady throughout the count. In fact, this is no mystery. Experts say that generally when 3-5 per cent of the votes from a given region are actually counted, there is a 95 per cent confidence level that such result will hold firm. As for the charge that ballots ran out and some people were turned away, it is worth mentioning that voting hours were extended four times in order to allow as many people as possible the opportunity to vote. But even if all the people who did not vote, had actually voted for Mousavi (a virtual impossibility), that would be 6.93 million additional votes, much less than the 11 million vote difference between the top two candidates.
Ahmadinejad is certainly not a sympathetic figure. He is an ideologue, provocative, and sometimes behaving imprudently. But to characterize the struggle in Iran as a battle between democratic forces and a “dictator,” is to exhibit total ignorance of Iran’s internal dynamics, or to deliberately distort them. There is no doubt that there is a significant segment of Iranian society, concentrated around major metropolitan areas, and comprising many young people, that passionately yearns for social freedoms. They are understandably angry because their candidate came up short. But it would be a huge mistake to read this domestic disagreement as an “uprising” against the Islamic Republic, or as a call to embark on a foreign policy that would accommodate the West at the expense of Iran’s nuclear program or its vital interests.
Nations display respect to other nations only when they respect their sovereignty. If any nation, for instance, were to dictate the United States’ economic, foreign or social policies, Americans would be indignant. When France, under President Chirac opposed the American adventure in Iraq in 2003, some U.S. Congressmen renamed a favorite fast food from French Fries to “Freedom Fries.” They made it known that the French were unwelcome in the U.S.
The U.S. has a legacy of interference in Iran’s internal affairs, notably when it toppled the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. This act, of which most Americans are unaware, is ingrained in every Iranian from childhood. It is the main cause of much of their perpetual anger at the U.S. It took 56 years for an American president to acknowledge this illegal act, when Obama did so earlier this month in Cairo.
Therefore, it would be a colossal mistake to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs yet again. President Obama is wise to leave this matter to be resolved by the Iranians themselves. Political expediency by the Republicans or pro-Israel Democrats will be extremely dangerous and will yield serious repercussions. Such reckless conduct by many in the political class and the media appears to be a blatant attempt to demonize Iran and its current leadership, in order to justify any future military attack by Israel if Iran does not give up its nuclear ambition.
President Obama’s declarations in Cairo are now being aptly recalled. Regarding Iran, he said, “I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.”
But the first sign of respect is to let the Iranians sort out their differences without any overt –or covert –interference.
Central bankers in Japan are mulling the abolition of cash. Richard Jerram, a senior economist with Macquarie bank, told investors that “the proposal has become practical with the broad penetration of electronic money and credit cards in Japan,” reports the Times Online. Bankers claim the scheme will rescue the economy from another deflationary spiral.
In fact, bankers love inflation and that is why they are inventing schemes to combat deflation. “This new law [the Federal Reserve Act] will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation,” warned congressman Charles Lindbergh in 1913 on the eve of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.
The trusts, or the criminal association of bankers, have consistently — and scientifically, as Lindbergh noted — imposed inflation since the Federal Reserve Act breezed through Congress in the dead of the night during Christmas recess in 1913.
Government loves inflation because it depends on it to finance its operations. Government requires an ever increasing amount of money to pay back an ever increasing amount of debt owed to the bankers. Fed mob boss Bernanke promised to keep the process going back in 2002 when he delivered a speech on combating deflation. After the speech, he received the moniker “Helicopter Ben” because he said the Federal Reserve had printing presses and could drop money from helicopters.
Japan will become the “testing ground” for the “outré” migration from physical fiat paper money to cashless digits, according to one Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi strategist. The plan is “in the realms of economic science fiction,” he said.
In addition of fine-tuning and tweaking the bankster control of monetary policy, the move toward a cashless society will allow the elite to control the masses to an extent previously only speculated upon in science fiction novels. The cashless society prophesized by our rulers fits right in with the choreographed move toward satellite and cellphone tracking, ubiquitous RFID chips, DARPA and NSA surveillance, the orchestrated end of Posse Comitatus and the federalization of local police and governments now well underway.
Move to hand privately-owned Federal Reserve complete regulatory power over entire U.S. economy heralds new form of government
President Obama’s plan to give the privately-owned and unaccountable Federal Reserve complete regulatory oversight across the entire U.S. economy, which is likely to be enacted before the end of the year, will officially herald the beginning of a new form of government in the United States - an ultra-powerful banking dictatorship controlled by a small gaggle of shadowy and corrupt elitists.
The new rules would see the Fed given the authority to “regulate” any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets.
This goes a step further than the centrally planned economies of the Soviet Union or Communist China, in that the Federal Reserve is not even accountable to the U.S. government, it is a private entity that according to former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan,is accountable to nobody but the banking families that own it.
Obama’s regulatory “reform” plan is nothing less than a green light for the complete and total takeover of the United States by a private banking cartel that will usurp the power of existing regulatory bodies, who are now being blamed for the financial crisis in order that their status can be abolished and their roles handed over to the all-powerful Fed.
According to an Associated Press report today, Democratic leaders have committed to enacting the plan before the end of the year and Republicans in both the House and Senate have indicated that they won’t stand in the way of the overhaul.
“The final plan….is expected to sidestep most jurisdictional disputes and simply impose across the board standards to be applied by all financial regulators, according to administration and industry sources, ” reports the Washington Times.
In other words, the Fed, which is already totally unaccountable to Congress, is to be placed in complete control of the entirety of the U.S. financial system, to do as it wishes without repercussion.
As the LA Times reports, the government, in conjunction with the private Federal Reserve, would effectively have the clout to simply seize and take over any company it desires.
In order to appease those opposed to the plan, such as Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Obama administration has agreed to create a “watchdog” council of regulators to “advise the Fed”.
However, as former chairman Alan Greenspan has most recently pointed out, given that the Fed is an independent entity, and therefore accountable to no one, it will have the power to simply reject and overrule any advice it is offered.
Pointing out the flagrant conflict of interest in empowering the Federal Reserve to essentially regulate itself, Professor of public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin Robert Auerbach writes, “The Federal Reserve has massive conflicts of interest that make it ill suited for its present regulatory functions and certainly for an expanded regulatory reach. The officials leading the Fed today preside over an organization that is run in substantial part by the bankers they regulate. Bank regulation begins at its 12 district Federal Reserve Banks, each governed by a nine-member board of directors, two-thirds of whom are elected by the bankers in the district.”
As economic author Nomi Prins highlights, Obama’s plan does nothing whatsoever to fix the excesses of financial institutions blamed for the financial collapse, it only ensures their continued operation and an expansion of the practices that contributed to the economic crisis in the first place.
“The ’sweeping overhaul’ of the financial system detailed by Geithner on behalf of the Obama administration does not overhaul the system at all,” writes Prins, “giving the Fed a bigger role, creating a ‘council of regulators’ to oversee the existing oversight bodies and allowing the biggest Wall Street players to maintain their status, leaves the system intact.”
“The Federal Reserve is not a fully public entity. It has amassed a set of $7.87 trillion worth of facilities and other entities through which it has lavished cheap loans in return for questionable collateral from the banking system. It has kept the true nature of these transactions a secret despite numerous FOIA requests. And, it has actively promoted the creation of bigger institutions in a chaotic environment, rather than putting the brakes on the creation of these giants,” concludes Prins.
Proof that the agenda of implementing overt financial dictatorship is being carefully coordinated can be seen in the fact that an almost identical scheme is also being set up in the United Kingdom, where “The governor of the Bank of England has called for greater powers to allow it to fulfil its new role of promoting financial stability,” according to a BBC report.
Just as in the U.S., King is calling for traditional independent regulatory bodies to be all but abolished and replaced by the Bank of England itself, which just like the Federal Reserve is a private outfit with no accountability to the government whatsoever.
The mainstream media, for the most part, has reported the oversight plan as a much needed regulatory crackdown on those responsible for the financial crisis. However, the details of the plan constitute almost exactly what lobbyists for leading bankers have been pushing for over the past few weeks.
“All derivatives contracts will be subject to regulation and all derivatives dealers subject to supervision,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said at a Time Warner Economic Summit in New York on Monday, also noting “When you have too many people involved, there’s an accountability problem.”
As we reported earlier this month, heads of nine of the biggest banks in the derivatives market, including JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America, secretly lobbied to keep derivatives under Federal Reserve “oversight” and away from real scrutiny.
As reported by The New York Times, they all met secretly to discuss how to use the lax regulation and institutional secrecy of the NY Fed to shield their credit-default swaps business from prying eyes and attempts at regulation.
The banks formed a lobby– the CDS Dealers Consortium– only weeks after accepting TARP funds in October 2008 to protect its interests. Heading this effort was Edward Rosen, who previously helped fend off derivatives regulation. Rosen wrote and circulated a “confidential memo” to the Treasury Department and leaders on Capital Hill, making their agenda clear, the Times reported.
Rosen and his backers propose that derivatives be “traded in privately managed clearinghouses, with less disclosure,” according to the Times. The clearinghouse of choice for the big banks in Rosen’s CDS Consortium is ICE U.S. Trust, which is in turned regulated only by the Federal Reserve system.
So the upshot of all this is that the bankers get what they want, are allowed to carry on as they were, while at the same time the fractional reserve banking system and the federal government are both greatly expanded and empowered, and the compliant corporate media ludicrously tells us that a strict crackdown is underway.
This kind of activity is exactly what some leading representatives have warned of in recent weeks.
A fortnight ago, the Democratic Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson, announced to the press that “The banks run the place,” in reference to the US Congress.
While Peterson is also pushing for legislation to regulate derivatives trading, his proposed bill would limit derivatives trading to public exchanges, rather than private clearinghouses, which are managed by banks.
Peterson’s warning mirrors that of Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who just a few weeks before uttered the same rarely acknowledged truth.
“And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place,” Durbin said.
How simultaneously dangerous and ridiculous it is that the Federal Reserve is given more authority to oversee the economy. This is the same privately run entity that refused to comply with congressional demands for transparency and disclose the destination of trillions dollars in bailout funds. It is the same privately owned entity that has withheld internal memos, in spite of freedom of information act requests. It is the same private entity, run for the most part by European banking elites, that has arrogantly refused to tell Senators and Congressmen which banks were in receipt of government loans.
The government is ready to hand over everything to a monolithic private corporation and a gaggle of bastard banker offspring, that have gobbled up an amount close to the entire GDP of the country in taxpayers’ money and figuratively stuck the middle finger up regarding questions over where that money has gone.
It can be no more apparent than at this time that legislation to audit, repeal and eventually end the Federal Reserve, must be supported by Americans if they want to see their children and their grandchildren grow up without indentured debt and entrenched servitude to a fascistic marriage of private banks and hugely inflated government.
Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson Prison Planet.com
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Nationwide vaccination programs expected to be instituted this fall following WHO declaration of swine flu pandemic status
The government is telling schools across the country to prepare to be used as clinics for mass vaccination programs set to be instituted later this year, according to an Associated Press report.
Schoolchildren are being targeted as the first recipients of a swine flu vaccine currently being developed, despite the fact that swine flu has proven far less lethal than originally feared, killing just 160 people worldwide, a figure dwarfed by the number of people who die annually from the regular flu virus.
The World Health Organization increased the hysteria surrounding swine flu last week, raising their alert status to level 6, indicating a global pandemic was underway.
“Schoolchildren could be first in line for swine flu vaccine this fall — and schools are being put on notice that they might even be turned into shot clinics,” states the report.
“Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Tuesday she is urging school superintendents around the country to spend the summer preparing for that possibility, if the government goes ahead with mass vaccinations.”
The last such mass vaccination program to combat swine flu in 1976 resulted in dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries, after the Ford administration attempted to use the infection of soldiers at Fort Dix as a pretext for a mass vaccination of the entire country.
Americans have been psychologically conditioned by the mass media to accept the inevitability of enforced mass vaccination campaigns for years. The latest such example appeared in Time Magazine six weeks ago, where it was mooted that officials would be forced to “institute draconian measures to combat the disease,” measures which would include mandatory mass vaccination programs.
Some schools are already working with the government to run mass vaccination drills.
James von Brunn, the accused Holocaust museum shooter, has predictably become the poster child for attacking the First Amendment and conducting a purge of free speech on the internet.
Christopher Wolf, chair of the Anti-Defamation League’s Internet Task Force and Immediate Past Chair of the International Network Against Cyber-Hate, writes that Web 2.0 technology has transformed “the way the Internet is being used. Any hater and propagandist can reach a mass audience, even an audience that didn’t think itself receptive to such hateful ideas. With the users of Web 2.0 comprised largely of younger people, the impact of the information posted there may persist for generations to come.”
Web 2.0 is characterized as facilitating communication, information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the web. Examples include social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, and blogs.
“Blogging and social media sites are changing the way people communicate their reactions to events in the news and interact with each other. Those who harbor anti-Semitic beliefs are comfortable expressing themselves in cyberspace, where they can provoke a reaction from others or find like-minded individuals to affirm their beliefs,” writes Wolf.
Infowars and other truth and patriot movement web sites, according to the ADL, facilitate hatemongers such as Richard Poplawski, the accused Pittsburgh cop killer. “One of Poplawski’s favorite places for such conspiracy theories was the Web site of the right-wing conspiracy radio talk show host Alex Jones. Poplawski visited the site, Infowars, frequently, shared links to it with others, and sometimes even posted to it,” the ADL wrote April 8, 2009. Infowars utilizes Web 2.0 technology in the form of interactive commenting on news articles.
On April 13, Infowars reported on the Department of Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremism” document. The DHS conflated white supremacists with activists opposed to gun control, abortion, and illegal immigration. An earlier report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center specifically denoted Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr supporters as potentially dangerous terrorists. The MIAC report also concentrated on white supremacists and militia groups.
Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin said after Alex Jones broke the MIAC story and the DHS report surfaced “that the source of all of these reports is either Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) or the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), or both.”
On April 22, DHS Secretary Napolitano appeared before the Anti-Defamation League National Leadership Conference in Washington. In a speech, she said that “the ADL and DHS have had some good partnerships. In recent years, the Department has placed our employees in your advanced training school to educate us on the tactics used by extremists and terrorists.”
“We felt the DHS report was pretty right on,” said Deborah Lauter of the Anti-Defamation League after Von Brunn’s attack. “Clearly the election of Obama, the current financial crisis, and the discussion of immigration reform — those things have certainly fueled the right wing extremist movement in this country… There are clear indications that the rhetoric is manifesting.”
Obama’s Justice Department is now urging Congress to pass “a tougher U.S. hate crimes law” in response to James von Brunn’s attack on the Holocaust museum in Washington.
“Over the last several weeks, we have witnessed brazen acts of violence, committed in places that many would have considered unthinkable,” AG Eric Holder told the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, an organization funded in part by the Ford Foundation. Holder cited attacks over a two-week period that killed a military recruiter, a late-term abortionist and a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
“The First Amendment protects essentially all hate speech, except that consisting of direct threats against specific people. But that does not mean we should throw up our hands and simply accept hate on the Internet as something that will always infect the Internet,” Wolf continues. In response to “hate” as defined by the ADL and the Department of Homeland Security, internet users, internet companies, and educators “should speak up” and “counter the vicious lies,” including 9/11 truth “conspiracy theories,” which “have become a core part of the belief system of anti-Semites and millions of others around the world,” according to ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman. (Note how Foxman links antisemitism and 9/11 truth.)
“Our country is now vulnerable,” declared the disinfo operative Glenn Beck after Von Brunn’s rampage. “Those people who would like to destroy us — our enemies like Al Qaeda. They’d like to destroy us, and they will work with anyone. There are also people like white supremacists or 9/11 truthers that would also like to destroy the country. They’ll work with anybody they can.”
Beck’s talking points are taken right from the DHS report and the ADL with a new twist — portraying the non-violent 9/11 truth movement as fellow travelers of racists and al-Qaeda (both, incidentally, with long track records of collaborating with the government).
“Those offering Internet services with terms of use that prohibit hate speech should enforce those terms and remove offending content,” Christopher Wolf concludes. “And it is time for Internet education as a requirement in all schools, to teach kids how to filter what they are seeing and to reject hate online. (The epidemic of cyberbullying alone should inspire such attention to kids using the Internet.)”
Merely “educating” kids (with ADL, SPLC and DHS propaganda) and snitching on websites will of course not be sufficient.
Others have suggested more draconian measures. For instance another CBS scribe, Bonnie Erbe, has demanded the state start “rounding up promoters of hate before they kill.”
National Academy of Sciences debates spraying aerosols into upper stratosphere to combat global warming
Debate surrounding the possibility of geoengineering the earth’s climate by lining the atmosphere with aerosol particles has moved from idle speculation to serious consideration, and was a core topic of discussion at a recent National Academy of Sciences workshop.
However, a top Rutgers University professor warned at the meeting that tampering with the planet’s delicate ecosystem could create famines and droughts, threatening the lives of no less than a third of the world’s population.
The plan to shoot aerosols - dust particles - into the earth’s upper stratosphere in an attempt to cool the planet and offset the purported effects of global warming, should be considered as an “emergency response” to a climate crisis, according to Harvard University’s Dan Schrag, who told the workshop that such a crisis was already underway.
“I think we should consider climate engineering only as an emergency response to a climate crisis, but I question whether we’re already experiencing a climate crisis — whether we’ve already crossed that threshold,” Schrag said.
According to an NPR report on the meeting, University of Calgary’s David Keith urged the introduction of geoengineering experiments on a global scale and that they should be conducted “sooner rather than later”.
But Rutgers University professor Alan Robock warned that such experiments “could create disasters,” damaging the ozone layer and potentially altering the stratosphere by eliminating weather patterns such as the annual Asian monsoon rain season, which 2 billion people rely upon to water their crops and feed the population.
“Imagine if we triggered a drought and famine while trying to cool the planet,” Robock said.
As we have previously highlighted, discussions regarding the possibility of “geo-engineering” the earth’s climate to counter global warming by “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays” has stoked fresh concerns that similar programs are already underway, and that chemtrails are directly connected to such experimentation.
Chemtrails differ from ordinary contrails in that they hang in the sky for hours and are often observed to be emitted from planes that fly criss-cross routes, leading to the formation of ‘X’ and grid-like patterns in the sky. Chemtrails also directly effect localized weather by turning a clear blue sky into a hazy overcast.
Last year, a KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature. The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.”
KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system, which many speculate is the purpose of such man-made chemical trails.
As we covered in a previous in-depth report, numerous universities and government agencies have been conducting studies in the field of geoengineering for years.
In addition, the Obama administration’s interest in exploring “geo-engineering” mirrors recent publications penned by the elite Council On Foreign Relations.
In a document entitled Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering, the CFR proposes different methods of “reflecting sunlight back into space,” which include adding “small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere,” adding “more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere,” and placing “various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.”
The proposals in the CFR document match exactly the atmospheric effects observed in the aftermath of chemtrail spraying.
The global financial crisis has reduced the differences between nations and created the opportunity to form a new world order, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Wednesday.
Speaking after a meeting with Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev in the Kazakh capital Astana, Lula called on the global community to seize on the crisis to create a fairer world for developing nations.
"I want to say that before the crisis, there were many countries which had greater significance than others, and some countries which had no significance at all," he said through a translator.
"After the crisis, everyone has become similar. We have the possibility to create a new world order and together we should improve our relations."
Lula arrived in Kazakhstan Wednesday following the first-ever summit between fellow developing economic powerhouses Russia, India and China -- together with Brazil dubbed the BRIC nations -- in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg.
Nazarbayev, head of Central Asia's largest economy, is keen to secure a larger role for his government in world affairs.
Following up on Lula's call, the pair said in a statement following their meeting that the United Nations should open up the UN Security Council to developing nations in an effort to bolster global security.
They said that opening the organisation, which only has five permanent members, to wider membership was the only way to make the often-criticised body "more legitimate and effective."
How much attention do elections in Japan, India, Argentina, or any other country, get from the U.S. media? How many Americans and American journalists even know who is in political office in other countries besides England, France, and Germany? Who can name the political leaders of Switzerland, Holland, Brazil, Japan, or even China?
Yet, many know of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. The reason is obvious. He is daily demonized in the U.S. media.
The U.S. media’s demonization of Ahmadinejad itself demonstrates American ignorance. The President of Iran is not the ruler. He is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He cannot set policies outside the boundaries set by Iran’s rulers, the ayatollahs who are not willing for the Iranian Revolution to be overturned by American money in some color-coded “revolution.”
Iranians have a bitter experience with the United States government. Their first democratic election, after emerging from occupied and colonized status in the 1950s, was overturned by the U.S. government. The U.S. government installed in place of the elected candidate a dictator who tortured and murdered dissidents who thought Iran should be an independent country and not ruled by an American puppet.
The U.S. “superpower” has never forgiven the Iranian Islamic ayatollahs for the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, which overthrew the U.S. puppet government and held hostage U.S. embassy personnel, regarded as “a den of spies,” while Iranian students pieced together shredded embassy documents that proved America’s complicity in the destruction of Iranian democracy.
The government-controlled U.S. corporate media, a Ministry of Propaganda, has responded to the re-election of Ahmadinejad with non-stop reports of violent Iranians protests to a stolen election. A stolen election is presented as a fact, even thought there is no evidence for it whatsoever. The U.S. media’s response to the documented stolen elections during the George W. Bush/Karl Rove era was to ignore the evidence of real stolen elections.
Leaders of the puppet states of Great Britain and Germany have fallen in line with the American psychological warfare operation. The discredited British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, expressed his “serioU.S. doubt” about Ahmadinejad’s victory to a meeting of European Union ministers in Luxembourg. Miliband, of course, has no source of independent information. He is simply following Washington’s instructions and relying on unsupported claims by the defeated candidate preferred by the U.S. Government.
Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, had her arm twisted, too. She called in the Iranian ambassador to demand “more transparency” on the elections.
Even the American left-wing has endorsed the U.S. government’s propaganda. Writing in The Nation, Robert Dreyfus’s presents the hysterical views of one Iranian dissident as if they are the definitive truth about “the illegitimate election,” terming it “a coup d’etat.”
What is the source of the information for the U.S. media and the American puppet states?
Nothing but the assertions of the defeated candidate, the one America prefers.
However, there is hard evidence to the contrary. An independent, objective poll was conducted in Iran by American pollsters prior to the election. The pollsters, Ken Ballen of the nonprofit Center for Public Opinion and Patrick Doherty of the nonprofit New America Foundation, describe their poll results in the June 15 Washington Post. The polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was conducted in Farsi “by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award.”*
The poll results, the only real information we have at this time, indicate that the election results reflect the will of the Iranian voters. Among the extremely interesting information revealed by the poll is the following:
“Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin — greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday’s election.
“While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad’s principal opponent, Mir Hossein Moussavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
“The breadth of Ahmadinejad’s support was apparent in our pre-election survey. During the campaign, for instance, Moussavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over MoU.S.avi.
“Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
“The only demographic groups in which our survey found Moussavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.”
There have been numerous news reports that the U.S. government has implemented a program to destabilize Iran. There have been reports that the U.S. government has financed bombings and assassinations within Iran. The U.S. media treats these reports in a braggadocio manner as illustrations of the American Superpower’s ability to bring dissenting countries to heel, while some foreign media see these reports as evidence of the U.S. government’s inherent immorality.
Pakistan’s former military chief, General Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on Monday, June 15, that undisputed intelligence proves the U.S. interfered in the Iranian election. “The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election.”
The success of the U.S. government in financing color revolutions in former Soviet Georgia and Ukraine and in other parts of the former Soviet empire have been widely reported and discussed, with the U.S. media treating it as an indication of U.S. omnipotence and natural right and some foreign media as a sign of U.S. interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that Mir Hossein Moussavi is a bought and paid for operative of the U.S. government.
We know for a fact that the U.S. government has psychological warfare operations that target both Americans and foreigners through the U.S. and foreign media. Many articles have been published on this subject.
Think about the Iranian election from a common sense standpoint. Neither myself nor the vast majority of readers are Iranian experts. But from a common sense standpoint, if your country was under constant threat of attack, even nuclear attack, from two countries with much more powerful military establishments, as is Iran from the U.S. and Israel, would you desert your country’s best defender and elect the preferred candidate of the U.S. and Israel?
Do you believe that the Iranian people would have voted to become an American puppet state?
Iran is an ancient and sophisticated society. Much of the intellectual class is secularized. A significant, but small, percentage of the youth has fallen in thrall to Western devotion to personal pleasure, and to self-absorption. These people are easily organized with American money to give their government and Islamic constraints on personal behavior the bird.
The U.S. government is taking advantage of these westernized Iranians to create a basis for discrediting the Iranian election and the Iranian government.
On June 14, the McClatchy Washington Bureau, which sometimes attempts to report the real news, acquiesced to Washington’s psychological warfare and declared: “Iran election result makes Obama’s outreach efforts harder.” What we see here is the raising of the ugly head of the excuse for “diplomatic failure,” leaving only a military solution.
As a person who has seen it all from inside the U.S. government, I believe that the purpose of the U.S. government’s manipulation of the American and puppet government media is to discredit the Iranian government by portraying the Iranian government as an oppressor of the Iranian people and a frustrater of the Iranian people’s will. This is how the U.S. government is setting up Iran for military attack.
With the help of Moussavi, the U.S. government is creating another “oppressed people,” like Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, who require American lives and money to liberate. Has Moussavi, the American candidate in the Iranian election who was roundly trounced, been chosen by Washington to become the American puppet ruler of Iran?
The great macho superpower is eager to restore its hegemony over the Iranian people, thus settling the score with the ayatollahs who overthrew American rule of Iran in 1978.
That is the script. You are watching it every minute on U.S. television.
There is no end of “experts” to support the script. For one example among hundreds, we have Gary Sick, who formerly served on the National Security Council and currently teaches at Columbia University:
“If they’d been a little more modest and said Ahmadinejad had won by 51 percent,” Sick said, Iranians might have been dubious but more accepting. But the government’s assertion that Ahmadinejad won with 62.6 percent of the vote, “is not credible.”
“I think,” continued Sick, “it does mark a real transition point in the Iranian Revolution, from a position of claiming to have its legitimacy based on the support of the population, to a position that has increasingly relied on repression. The voice of the people is ignored.”
The only hard information available is the poll referenced above. The poll found that Ahmadinejad was the favored candidate by a margin of two to one.
But as in everything else having to do with American hegemony over other peoples, facts and truth play no part. Lies and propaganda rule.
Consumed by its passion for hegemony, America is driven to prevail over others, morality and justice be damned. This world-threatening script will play until America bankrupts itself and has so alienated the rest of the world that it is isolated and universally despised.
RSS 2.0
