danO's fact file - info you need to kn(o)w

Is this REALLY proof that man can see into the future?

2007-12-05T15:11:00.000-08:00

Do some of us avoid tragedy by foreseeing it? Some scientists nowbelieve that the brain really CAN predict events before they happen

Professor Dick Bierman sits hunched over his computer in a darkened room. The gentle whirring of machinery can be heard faintly in the background.

He smiles and presses a grubby-looking red button.

In the next room, a patient slips slowly inside a hospital brain scanner. If it wasn't for the strange smiles and grimaces that flicker across the woman's face, you could be forgiven for thinking this was just a normal health check.

But this scanner is engaged in one of the most profound paranormal experiments of all time, one that may well prove whether or not it is possible to predict the future.

For the results - released exclusively to the Daily Mail - suggest that ordinary people really do have a sixth sense that can help them 'see' the future.

Such amazing studies - if verified - might help explain the predictive powers of mediums and a range of other psychic phenomena such Extra Sensory Perception, deja vu and clairvoyance. On a more mundane level, it may account for 'gut feelings' and instinct.

The man behind the experiments is certainly convinced. "We're satisfied that people can sense the future before it happens," says Professor Bierman, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam.

"We'd now like to move on and see what kind of person is particularly good at it."

And Bierman is not alone: his findings mirror the data gathered by other scientists and paranormal researchers both here and abroad.

Professor Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Cambridge University, says: "So far, the evidence seems compelling. What seems to be happening is that information is coming from the future.

"In fact, it's not clear in physics why you can't see the future. In physics, you certainly cannot completely rule out this effect."

Virtually all the great scientific formulae which explain how the world works allow information to flow backwards and forwards through time - they can work either way, regardless.

Shortly after 9/11, strange stories began circulating about the lucky few who had escaped the outrage.

It transpired that many of the survivors had changed their plans at the last minute after vague feelings of unease.

It was a subtle, gnawing feeling that 'something' was not right. Nobody vocalised it but shortly before the attacks, people started altering their plans out of an unspoken instinct.

One woman suffered crippling stomach pain while queuing for one of the ill-fated planes which flew into the World Trade Center.

She made her way to the lavatory only to recover spontaneously. She missed her flight but survived the day. Amid the collective outpouring of grief and horror it was easy to overlook such stories or write them off as coincidences.

But in fact, these kind of stories point to an interesting and deeper truth for those willing to look.

If, for example, fewer people decided to fly on aircraft that subsequently crashed, then that would suggest a subconscious ability to divine the future. Well, strange as it seems, that's just what happens.

The aircraft which flew into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were unusually empty. All the hijacked planes were carrying only half the usual number of passengers. Perhaps one unusually empty plane could be explained away, but all four?

And it wasn't just on 9/11 that people subconsciously seemed to avoid disaster. The scientist Ed Cox found that trains 'destined' to crash carried far fewer people than they did normally.

Dr Jessica Utts, a statistician at the University of California, found exactly the same bizarre effect.

If it was possible to divine the future, you might expect those at the sharp end, such as pilots, to have the most finely tuned instincts of all. And again, that's just what you see.

When the Air France Concorde crashed in 2000, it wasn't long before the colleagues of those killed in the crash spoke about a sense of foreboding that had gripped the crew and flight engineers before the accident.

Speaking anonymously to the French newspaper Le Parisien, one spoke of a 'morbid expectation of an accident'.

"I had this sense that we were going to bump into the scenery," he said.

"The atmosphere on the Concorde team for the last few months, if one has the guts to admit it, had been one of morbid expectation of an accident. It was as if I was waiting for something to happen."

All of these stories suggest that we can pick up premonitions of events that are yet to be.

Although these premonitions are not in glorious Technicolor, they are often emotionally powerful enough for us to act upon them.

In technical parlance it is known as 'presentiment' because emotional feelings are being received from the future, not hard facts or information.

The military has long been fascinated by such phenomena. For many years the US military (and latterly the CIA) funded a secretive programme known as Stargate, which set out to investigate premonitions and the ability of mediums to predict the future.

Dr Dean Radin worked on the Stargate programme and became fascinated by the ability of 'lucky' soldiers to forecast the future.

These are the ones who survived battles against seemingly impossible odds. Radin became convinced that thoughts and feelings - and occasionally-actual glimpses of the future - could flow backwards in time to guide soldiers.

It helped them make life-saving decisions, often on the basis of a hunch.

He devised an experiment to test these ideas. He hooked up volunteers to a modified lie detector, which measured an electrical current across the surface of the skin.

This current changes when a person reacts to an event such as seeing an extremely violent picture or video. It's the electrical equivalent of a wince.

Radin showed sexually explicit, violent or soothing images to volunteers in a random sequence determined by computer.

And he soon discovered that people began reacting to the pictures before they saw them. It was unmistakable. They began to 'wince' a few seconds before they actually saw the image.

And it happened time and time again, way beyond what chance alone would allow.

So impressive were Radin's results that Dr Kary Mullis, a Nobel Prizewinning chemist, took an interest. He was hooked up to Radin's machine and shown the emotionally charged images.

"It's spooky," he says "I could see about three seconds into the future. You shouldn't be able to do that."

Other researchers from around the world, from Edinburgh University to Cornell in the US, rushed to duplicate Radin's experiment and improve on it. And they got similar results.

It was soon discovered that gamblers began reacting subconsciously shortly before they won or lost. The same effect was seen in those terrified of animals, moments before they were shown the creatures.

The odds against all of these trials being wrong are literally millions to one against.

Professor Dick Bierman decided to take this work even further. He is a psychologist who has become convinced that time as we understand it is an illusion. He could see no reason why people could not see into the future just as easily as we dip into memories of our past.

He's in good company. Einstein described the distinction between the past, present and future as 'a stubbornly persistent illusion'.

To prove Einstein's point, Bierman looked inside the brains of volunteers using a hospital MRI scanner while he repeated Dr Radin's experiments.

These scanners show which parts of the brain are active when we do certain tasks or experience specific emotions.

Although extremely complex, and with each analysis taking weeks of computing time, he has run the experiments twice involving more than 20 volunteers.

And the results suggest quite clearly that seemingly ordinary people are capable of sensing the future on a fairly consistent basis. Bierman emphasises that people are receiving feelings from the future rather than specific 'visions'.

It's clear, though, that if ordinary people can receive feelings from the future then perhaps the especially gifted may receive visions of things yet to be.

It's also clear that many paranormal phenomena such as ESP and clairvoyance could have their roots in presentiment.

After all, if you can see a few seconds into the future, why not a few days or even years? And surely if you could look through time, why not across great distances?It's a concept that ties the mind in knots, unless you're a physicist.

"I believe that we can 'sense' the future," says the Nobel Prizewinning physicist Brian Josephson.

"We just haven't yet established the mechanism allowing it to happen.

"People have had so called 'paranormal' or 'transcendental' experiences along these lines. Bierman's work is another piece of the jigsaw. The fact that we don't understand something does not mean that it doesn't happen.'

If we are all regularly sensing the future or occasionally receiving glimpses of it, as some mediums claim to do, then doesn't that mean we can change the future and render the 'prediction' obsolete?

Or perhaps we were meant to receive the premonition and act upon it? Such paradoxes could go on for ever, providing a rich seam of material for films such as Minority Report - based on a short story of the same name - in which a special police department is able to foresee and prevent crimes before they have even taken place.

Could such science fiction have a grain of truth in it after all? The emerging view, Bierman explains, is that 'the future has implications for the past'.

"This phenomena allows you to make a decision on the basis of what will happen in the future. Does that restrain our free will? That's up to the philosophers. I'm far too shallow a person to worry about that."

The problem with presentiment is that it appears so nebulous that you can't rely on it to make reliable decisions. That may be the case, but there are plenty of instances where people wished they had listened to their premonitions or feelings of presentiment.

One of the saddest involves the Aberfan disaster. This occurred in 1966 when a coal tip collapsed and swept through a Welsh school killing 144 people, including 116 children. It turned out that 24 people had received premonitions of the tragedy.

One involved a little girl who was killed. She told her mother shortly before she was taken to school: "I dreamed I went to school and there was no school there. Something black had come down all over it."

So should we listen to our instincts, hunches and dreams? Some experts believe we may already be using them in our everyday lives to a surprising degree.

Dr Jessica Utts at the University of California, who has worked for the US military and CIA as an independent auditor of its paranormal research, believes we are constantly sampling the future and using the knowledge to help us make better decisions.

"I think we're doing it all the time," she says. "We've looked at the data and it does seem to happen."

So perhaps the Queen in Through The Looking Glass was right: "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23395112-details/Is+this+REALLY+proof+that+man+can+see+into+the+future/article.do

Interesting website

2007-12-05T15:07:00.000-08:00

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/presentations/whatisconsciousness.html

So we now admitt we are spraying things, but only to fight the WAR on drought....

2007-12-05T14:54:00.000-08:00

By Maria Sudekum Fisher, Associated Press Writer
LAKIN, Kan. — Water is prized in western Kansas, where aquifers are suffering and farms are miles wide and generations deep; a scant half inch of rain can mean the difference between a successful season and a failed one.

But when it comes in the form of fist-sized balls of ice known as hail, water's more than a menace. It can damage and even destroy crops.

That's where the Western Kansas Weather Modification Program and other cloud-seeding operations across the western U.S. come in. The WKWMP is among about 10 programs that tinker with the weather — either by trying to cut the size of hail or boost rainfall and snowpack. They do it largely by shooting up storm clouds with silver iodide or dry ice mixtures.

PHOTO GALLERY: Fly with a cloud seeding mission

Other countries also have used or considered using weather modification. The United Arab Emirates has investigated cloud seeding to help increase rainfall. China has announced plans to use cloud seeding to manage rainfall during the 2008 Olympics, and Indonesia has used it to try to fight fires.

Cloud seeding has a host of critics, from those who say there is no good science to support claims that it works to others who raise concerns about the possibility that it actually may cause less rain and harm the environment.

But as water supplies show signs of stress around the globe and insurance companies add up hail damage payouts, weather modification programs persist.

"What's beginning to happen is that worldwide, people are realizing that water, especially fresh water, is a very precious resource, and we need to do what we can to increase the availability of that resource," said Bruce Boe, director of meteorology for Weather Modification Inc., a Fargo, N.D.,-based company that has been seeding clouds since the 1960s. Weather Modification Inc. has contracts in the U.S., Africa, southeast Asia and Canada, where Weather Modification Inc. does business with insurance companies.

"They'll say, 'We paid out $500, $600 million in claims on hail damage, and the forecast is for more hail storms, so we want you to come in for a couple million dollars and take care of the hail,"' Boe said.

Cloud seeding was developed after World War II to try to increase rainfall. The theory is that the silver iodide, which has a structure that resembles ice, creates raindrops in the clouds, increasing precipitation and reducing moisture for hail formation.

In the U.S., weather modification programs are largely run by individual states and counties. But a measure before the U.S. Senate would allocate $10 million a year to establish the Weather Mitigation Advisory and Research Board, which would develop policy and research weather modification programs.

Kansas started its program in 1975. The Western Kansas Weather Modification Program now covers about 8,000 miles and is used about 85% of the time for hail reduction. The program, which receives state and local funding, was briefly extended into northwest Kansas in the late 1990s. But residents became concerned that cloud seeding may have been reducing their rainfall amounts and voted the program out.

The WKWMP operates from April through September with four planes. Program manager Walt Geiger monitors the weather from a radar station at the tiny Kearny County airport in Lakin. When he sees a storm developing, one with "lots of strong vertical action" that could be a hail producer, Geiger notifies the pilots, who then head into the storms in their single-engine planes, armed with nerves and bayonet-sized canisters of silver iodide.

A 1998-1999 study of the WKWMP found that while there was a statistically significant reduction in hail that year, there was no evidence to support the program's attempts to increase rainfall.

The science behind cloud seeding, while "excellent at the microscopic level," doesn't translate too well outside the lab, says Terry Kastens, professor of agriculture economy at Kansas State University, which conducted the study.

"The practicality of whether you can actually get enough of the iodide in the air is a really big question," says Kastens. "A lot of time we joke it's like shooting a pea shooter at the clouds."

David Brenn, WKWMP's director, discounts naysayers. He says he has seen the benefits of hail reduction efforts. He also says at least one insurance company has expressed interest in partnering with WKWMP.

But Mike Standley, whose family has farmed in southwest Kansas for about a century, says he's concerned that cloud seeding may be costing him some precious rain. It has been a long time since he has seen regular summer afternoon thunderstorms on his land, says Standley, 30.

"Now the day when we have one little storm popping up, they'll be flying up and around it, and it just seems to fizzle out," he says.

Standley says he would like to see solid proof that cloud seeding works. With 14 to 19 inches of precipitation a year, he just can't spare the moisture.

"I can raise crops with hail," he said. "But I can't raise crops with no moisture."

again, our money is created out of nothing

2007-12-05T14:49:00.001-08:00

April 19, 2005
Print this article
Canada: Class Action Accuses Banks of Illegal Creation of Money
Categories
Economy

John Ruiz Dempsey, criminologist and forensic litigation specialist filed a class action suit on behalf of the People of Canada alleging that financial institutions are engaged in illegal creation of money, reports Tom Kennedy, a Canadian activist for economic reform.

One of the best kept secrets is the mechanism of money creation in today's economic system. Although not really a secret at all, the fact that money is created not by and for the people who use it and not even by the government, but is issued by commercial banks when giving loans to private persons or government, is hidden by what could be described as thick clouds of smoke, put out by economists and government departments.

The complaint was filed Friday April 15, 2005 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia at New Westminster. It alleges that all financial institutions who are in the business of lending money have engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the borrowers by lending non-existent money which are illegally created by the financial institutions out of "thin air."

The legal action brings to the fore one of the major economic "drag factors" - the interest charged by banks for money that technically and legally is not theirs to lend, because even governments end up paying interest to banks lending money for public spending, and they in turn charge tax payers. A large part of every country's tax revenue goes first and foremost - before any "internal" spending - to payment of interest, largely because of the basic flaw in our way of creating money by the rich and for the rich.

Here is some more detail about the class action filed in Canada.

Class Action Suit Filed on Behalf of the People of Canada

forwarded by Tom Kennedy

New Westminster, B.C., April 15, 2005.

John Ruiz Dempsey BSCr, LL.B, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist filed a class action suit on behalf of the People of Canada alleging that financial institutions are engaged in illegal creation of money.

The complaint filed Friday April 15, 2005 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia at New Westminster, alleges that all financial institutions who are in the business of lending money have engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the borrowers by lending non-existent money which are illegally created by the financial institutions out of "thin air."

Dempsey claims that creation of money out of nothing is ultra vires these defendants' charter or granted corporate power and therefore void and all monies loaned under false pretence contravenes the Criminal Code.

The suit which is the first of its kind ever filed in Canada which could involve millions of Canadians alleges that the contracts entered into between the People ("the borrowers") and the financial institutions were void or voidable and have no force and effect due to anticipated breach and for non-disclosure of material facts.

Dempsey says the transactions constitute counterfeiting and money laundering in that the source of money, if money was indeed advanced by the defendants and deposited into the borrowers' accounts, could not be traced, nor could it be explained or accounted for.

The suit names Envision Credit Union ("Envision"), a credit union; Laurentian Bank of Canada ("Laurentian Bank"), Royal Bank of Canada ("Royal Bank"), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC"), Bank of Montreal ("BOM"), TD Canada Trust ("Canada Trust") and Canadian Payment Association ("CPA") as civil conspirators.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit is seeking recovery of money and property that was lost by way of confiscation through illegal "debt" collection and foreclosure. The Plaintiff is also seeking for the return of the equities which rightfully belong to the People of Canada, now being held by the defendant financial institutions as constructive trustees without color of right.

At all material times, these defendant banks and all of them have no legal standing to lend any money to borrowers, because:
1) these banks and credit unions did not have the money to lend, and therefore they did not have any capacity to enter into a binding contract;

2) the defendants did not have any cash reserve, they are not legally permitted to lend their depositor's or member's money without expressed written authorization form the depositors, and:

3) the defendants have no tangible assets of their own to lend and all their "assets" are "paper assets" which are mainly in the form of "receivables" created by them out of "thin air," derived out of loans whereas the monies loaned out were also created out of thin air.

Other than bookkeeping and computer entries, no money or substance of any value was loaned by the defendants to the Plaintiff. In all of the loan transactions entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the financial institutions did not bring any equity to any of the transaction.

All the equities were provided by the borrowers. The practices of the defendant financial institutions alleged in the complaint starkly contrast the practices of responsible and ethical money lenders who actually lend real, tangible, legal tender cash money.

The complaint alleges that the loan transactions are fraudulent because no value was ever imparted by the defendants to the Plaintiff; these defendants did not risk anything, nor lost anything and never would have lost anything under any circumstances and therefore no lien has been perfected according to law and equity against the Plaintiff.

The foreclosure proceedings which comes as a result of the borrower defaulting on such fraudulent loans were carried out in bad faith by the defendant banks and credit unions, and as such, these foreclosures were in every respect unlawful acts of conversion and unlawful seizure of property without due process of law which always results in the unjust enrichment of the defendants.

The suit alleges that the defendants utilize fraudulent banking practices whereby they deceive customers into believing that they are actually receiving "credit" or money when in fact no actual money is being loaned to their customers. However, the complaint describes a practice whereby there is realistically no money other than ledger or computer entries being loaned to the borrowers.

Rather than real money being received by the borrowers, "electronic" or "digitally created money", created out of nothing, at no cost to the financial institutions are entered as "loans" into their customers' accounts. The borrowers are then required to pay criminal interest rates for the money they never received. The suit alleges that the defendants effectively turn consumers into virtual debt slaves, forcing them to pay for something they never received, and then seizing their properties if they can no longer pay the banks with real money.

There is no law in Canada that could remotely suggest that the defendant financial institutions have the legal right to create money out of nothing. Dempsey says: "only God has the power to create anything out of nothing."

The class action suit, the first and the biggest of its kind in Canada is intended to give the justice system the opportunity to prove to itself and to the People of Canada who is really in control or whether they would continue to allow itself to be used by the banks as a tool in their unlawful and fraudulent banking practices which always ends in the enslavement of the people and confiscation of the people's properties.

Two other class action suits were filed by John Ruiz Dempsey against the banks. The first one was filed by Dempsey on behalf of Ian Dennis Gravlin of Calgary, Alberta and Pavel Darmantchev of Kelowna, B.C. versus the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. This matter is set for case management conference hearing on April 26, 2005. The Plaintiff expects a stiff opposition from the defendant's law firm. Madam Justice Garson is the case management judge assigned to the case.

A second class action suit was filed against MBNA CANADA BANK on behalf of Pavel Darmantchev of Kelowna, B.C., Ian Dennis Gravlin of Calgary, Alberta and Dena Alden of Vancouver, B.C.

A copy of the Dempsey legal action as filed can be found here to download as PDF.

- - -

February 2006:

John Dempsey says that the class action that is the subject of this article will be heard in court Feb 27, 28 and Mar 1st, 2006. See the link for more information.

Download file

And here a report of what happened in court:

"The People vs The Banks"

Vancouver, British Columbia, February 27, 2006

The People shut the court down after about twenty minutes into the hearing scheduled to be heard on February 27, 28 and March 1, 2006. After intensive questioning by the People represented by John-Ruiz: Dempsey, Pavel-N: Darmantchev, Pedro Liong and Otto Luinenburg, the presiding judge, Nicole Garson got out of the courtroom and left after she gave the Sheriff an order to clear the courtroom. Game over, the banks‚ motion to dismiss the People's claim will not be heard - at least for now.

The People came prepared, knowing they are being led to the slaughter by the banks' lawyers and the judge who prior to becoming a Supreme Court judge represented the banks lead counsel for one of the defendant banks - TD Canada Trust; obviously a clear conflict of interest which she refused to admit. Pavel said: "she had lots of chances to recuse herself in order to avoid confrontation but she failed miserably, presumably under the order of someone higher than herself."

John filed a Notice of Motion to be heard by the Chief Justice Donald Brenner. Judge Garson took it upon herself to "hear" the motion in clear violation of the Rules of Court which gave the moving party the sole right to set his own motion for hearing. John was never given the opportunity to file a Notice of Hearing; in fact it is not too clear how the motion came to be heard or what caused John's motion to be heard; the People suddenly received a "Reasons for Judgment" released by judge Garson on December 9, 2005. The People have no recollection of any hearings being set or heard regarding John's motion (see - Dempsey et al. v. Envision Credit Union et al., 2005 BCSC 1730). It appears like Garson J. decided to "hear" the motion and become the judge of her own cause - in violation of the legal maxim: nemo judex in sua causa.

Apprehension of bias has been clearly evident since justice Garson was appointed as case management judge. Her first biased act was to prevent John from representing others despite the fact that John had private power of attorney agreements with Pavel, Ian (Gravlin), Pedro and Otto to represent them in court. As attorney-in-fact, it is trite law, established by generations of jurisprudence, John can do all things that his principals can legally do. The law regarding power of attorney has existed long before any statute such as the Legal Profession Act came into existence. Yet, the same judge who is supposed to be our protector and public servant decided to violate and impaired the People's right of contract.

As humans, we have human rights and our rights are not subject to statutory control. It falls within the sovereign individual paradigm as reflected by the following US Supreme Court case:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Justice Garson has shown her true colors and where her allegiance lies by barring John to carry out his fiduciary duties to those who have agreed to be his lawful attorney based solely on "judicial discretion." Judicial discretion has no validity when there is positive law; judicial discretion cannot abrogate a living man or woman's natural rights; judicial discretion cannot overturn common law or statutory law. In the case of the said power of attorney contracts entered into between John and the people he represents, the contracts are even protected by the Power of Attorney Act of British Columbia. Garson J's blatant disregard for the law is recorded in her Reasons for Judgment in Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al, 2005 BCSC 839.

Justice Garson has shown her willingness and determination to bend over backwards to the whims and wishes of the banks by bulldozing all the bank class actions into one single action despite the objections of all the representative plaintiffs involved in these class actions including "The People vs. The Banks" class action. Although the class actions involve similar causes of actions, not all the defendants are the same. One thing is obvious however; the banks' lawyers are clearly attempting a judicial holocaust by herding all the class actions into one single gas chamber (or judge chamber) so that all the class actions can be slaughtered by one single judge/executioner in one fell swoop. John and his co-plaintiffs will not allow that to happen. They represent the People of Canada; they have the duty to ensure that such a planned massacre against the People does not happen. "The People are counting on us," John said, "this is not up to one single judge to decide on our class actions, it is the People who will ultimately decide on the People's fate, not judge Garson, this is the law of the land."

There are other reasons why John and his friends believe that they are being led to the slaughter such as: Garson J refused to strike the banks‚ statements of defence that really forms no reasonable defence. For example, all the banks‚ defence says that the class actions are frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and an abuse of process, a typical boiler plate defence that corrupt court courts always allowed corrupt defendant lawyers to get away with. Such a defence is no defence at all because it does not state why the class action suits are frivolous, vexatious, scandalous or an abuse of process. It is an insult to the People who know the truth.

Garson J has also allowed the banks to get away with serious violations of the Rules of Court and established legal procedures by allowing the banks' lawyers to refuse to produce documents, answer Interrogatories, and Notices to Admit. Based on our observation, it has been the normal practice of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, the highest courts in the province to apply the rules only when they see fit. Unrepresented litigants, particularly those who are not too familiar with the rules of court have lost their cases due to such unfair double standards. The People must follow the Rules of Court, but the lawyers and judges, particularly those who gets paid handsomely by the banking cartel need not be concerned about any rules. They make up their own rules as they go along, and they have judges that makes them right all the time.

As living men and women, we can only deal in truth. We can only deal with what is wrong and what is right. The admiralty courts like the supreme courts and appellate courts of the province only deal in arguments, in fictions, in make-believe laws created by them, the "just us" society. This is only one of the reasons why we have to shut them down. We have no time for their arguments. Either they deal with us in truth, or we will have nothing to do with their corruption. We are here to set the People free, by way of the truth, not by arguing in court. People lose in court because they argue. People are not allowed to argue in court, only the "officers" of their admiralty courts are allowed to make arguments in court. We play our own rules in their courts - "for we can do nothing against the truth but for the truth."

Justice Garson could not stand truth in her court room. Pavel asked her many times: "are you a public servant?" Garson J refused to answer a simple question with the truth. We already know the answer - she is nothing but a public servant, she is our servant. Garson J. lost it when the People in the court room themselves asked her: "why can't you answer a simple question - are you a public servant?" That was all the heat she could take that day. She stood up and started to leave and ordered the sheriff to clear the court room. However, before she managed to get out of the court room, John and Pavel told her: "You're fired Nicole." And all the People in the court said so: "You're fired."

At any rate, the matter is res judicata or already decided by virtue of the fact that the banks have no answer to John's Affidavit of Truth he filed in court. The affidavit was intended to solicit answers from the banks and establish the truth. In commerce, truth is established by an affidavit. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce. The time for filing a reply has now passed. This means that the People have already established the truth in accordance with the law of commerce. In commerce, truth is sovereign and as sovereign, we, the People have already established the truth. We have no time for the banks‚ and their lawyers‚ arguments. They are precluded by estoppel.

So that was the end of that. We are ordering the transcript to make sure that no one could tamper with the records if they have not yet done so already. We will publish the contents of the court transcript as soon as we receive it. What's going happen next? Nothing. We, the People are not going back into that temple until the court has established that they have in rem or subject matter jurisdiction over us. As sovereign men and women, they have no power over us, unless it was given to them from above; or unless we accept their assumed power or jurisdiction. God bless you all.

John-Ruiz: Dempsey

One of Many

- - -

Some earlier updates...

Updage August 10, 2005:

New Westminster, B.C., April 10, 2005. Plaintiffs Lovey Cridge, a retired forensic accountant and John Ruiz Dempsey, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist, both residents of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, filed their amended Statement of Claim on August 2, 2005. The original class action suit filed on behalf of the people of Canada was filed on April 22, 2005.

The suit alleges that the government of Canada has engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud the people of Canada through its illegal use of an invalid or non-existent statute, namely, the Income Tax Act of 1948 which has never been properly enacted according to law. The statement of claim alleges that the Plaintiffs which includes all of the People of Canada as the purported „taxpayers‰ have been defrauded and continues to be defrauded by the Canadian government, its collection agents, the now privatized Canada Revenue Agency (the former Revenue Canada), and robbed of their wealth and fruits of their labour through an elaborate scheme of coloured, illegal and unlawful seizure of property and money through the use of various coercive schemes, threats of fines and incarceration using the bogus and non-existent tax law, and the unlawful revisions thereof namely the Income Tax Act as contained within the Revised Statutes of Canada.

The class action suit is a result of more than five years of research and study of de facto Canadian federal statutes. The Plaintiffs says that there is no such thing as a lawful Income Tax Act in Canada. This so-called Act, is not a valid and lawful Act; this "Act" was unlawfully fabricated in violation of the Constitution of Canada, namely, the British North America Act of 1867 as it existed at the time of the purported enactment of the illegal Act.

The impugned Income Tax Act of 1948, as well as many other federal acts enacted by the de facto Canadian government since 1931 have not been enacted properly pursuant to the laws of England and Canada. The Income Tax Act of 1948, with unlawfully created versions thereof incorporated within various derivatives of the Revised Statutes of Canada are now fraudulently being used by the Defendants to rob the Plaintiffs and all the people of Canada.

For a bill or Act to be lawful and valid, the bill must be passed by the Canadian Parliament and the Senate. The Income Tax Act of 1948 was never passed by the Senate. After the bill has met the approval of the parliament and the senate, the bill must be assented to by the representative of the real Crown of England - the "Royal Assent" by the Governor General. At no time had this purported Act been given a Royal Assent by the Governor General if at all. And finally, pursuant to the Canadian Constitution, any Act that has been given a Royal Assent must be published in the Canada Gazette. At no time had this purported Act been published in any Gazette.

There has not been a lawfully appointed representative of the Crown since 1931 to the present. In order to circumvent this problem, the then ruling Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyons MacKenzie King signed the infamous Letters Patent of 1947 which gave the de facto Governor Generals all the powers of the Crown, including the power to give Royal Assent. This unlawful practice still goes on today. The ruling Crown of England is precluded by its own law to appoint Governor Generals. Again, to thwart this issue, King and the de facto Prime Ministers who came after him started to appoint their own Governor Generals.

Notwithstanding the fact that the said Income Tax of 1948 has not been lawfully passed by the Parliament, nor had it been given a Royal Assent, nor been published in the Canada Gazette, the Canadian government, took it upon themselves, to collect income taxes and extorted monies from the people of Canada without any colour of right, and without legal or juristic authority from 1948 to the present, and continues to collect and extort monies and properties from the people of Canada unlawfully.

Those who resisted or refused to pay income taxes were either arrested and falsely incarcerated, charged under various false criminal offences and their properties were unlawfully seized or confiscated contrary to the Magna Charta, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Plaintiffs claim that the government and its agents also violated the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 after its enactment as well the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms after it was enacted and accepted as law that is enshrined within the Constitution of 1982 in Canada.

To further carry out its fraud and deception, the Canadian government "revised" the bogus Income Tax Act of 1948 (Income Tax Act - 1948, c. 52) and fraudulently and without colour of right, incorporated the illegal Act within the 1952 Revised Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C. 1952, c. 148). To further conceal their deception, the Defendants again revised the unlawful and counterfeit Income Tax Act (now with the reference to the year „1948‰ removed) and integrated this "new" Act with the 1970 Revised Statutes of Canada (see R.S.C.1970, c. 1-5). Again, to further obscure the truth and complete the "colouring" process, the 1970 (R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-5) Revised Statutes of Canada was again revised and further became the 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp)).

In all of the above machinations, debauchery and wicked manipulations and fraudulent misrepresentations, the government of Canada failed to fully hide the fact that Canada never had a valid and lawful income tax act or statute that could have justified the colossal crimes and unlawful acts perpetrated by the Canadian government against its own people.

The Plaintiffs, Lovey Cridge and John Ruiz Dempsey on behalf of the People of Canada, with the help of other researchers searched law libraries and archives for any proof that the impugned Income Tax Act might exist. The Plaintiffs found no evidence of it. The Plaintiffs say such "Act" simply did not exist and are therefore claiming for damages including the return of all money and property wrongfully confiscated (stolen) by the Canadian government from its people.

- - -

Update August 22, 2005

THE PEOPLE vs THE BANKS

VANCOUVER, British Columbia: Almost five months to the day of the initial filing of the biggest class action suit in Canada, John Ruiz Dempsey on Behalf of the People of Canada versus Envision Credit Union, Laurentian Bank, CIBC, Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, TD Canada Trust, The Canadian Payment Association and others, the lawyers representing the financial institutions are gathering steam to try to stop John Ruiz Dempsey, a criminologist and forensic litigation specialist from proceeding with their application to the court to strike Mr. Dempsey’s statement of claim in whole or in part. Hearings are set for September 12 and 13 at the Supreme Court in Vancouver. The statement of claim alleges among other things, creation of money out of nothing, fraudulent misrepresentation, money laundering, fraud, charging of criminal interest rates and breach of contract. A copy of the Statement of Claim is available for download through http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/.

"This without a doubt will be a precedent setting case that is sure to change the face of the banking system in Canada forever. Without even taking into consideration the potential damages, the sheer numbers of people alone who potentially can participate in this action, will in my estimation make this case the largest lawsuit ever filed for Class Certification in this nation", stated John Ruiz Dempsey.

The banks are being represented by two of the largest law firms in Canada such as Borden Ladner Gervais with 670 lawyers and Fasken Martineau Dumoulin with 500 lawyers. This is clearly a David and Goliath case where these lawyers are moving to tread heavily on Mr. Dempsey and the People of Canada he represents.

News Conferences are currently being arranged and will be held September 9 in Vancouver and Montreal. Various citizen groups and freedom movements as well as other special interest groups representing thousands of Canadians from across Canada are expected to rally in support of this action.

Media representatives wishing to attend any of the News Conferences, or wanting to ensure that they are on our mailing lists, or wishing to arrange for interviews with legal, forensic and other experts after any of the News. Conferences, should call to ensure that their current information is on file.

In Montreal, Quebec
Contact: Bruce Margolese
(514) 294-3284
E-Mail: bmargolese@yahoo.com

In Vancouver, B.C.
Contact: John R. Dempsey
(604) 597-1475
E-Mail: classaction_cpa@hotmail.com or classproceeding@yahoo.ca

Since sending out a News Release in April announcing the filing of the Class Action Law Suit, we have been inundated with calls from persons asking if it is too late to become involved.

The answer is NO. As long as you fit ANY ONE of the five criteria listed below, you can apply for registration for Class Participation. While we would like those interested in becoming involved to do so on a timely basis, as it adds strength to our efforts, a cut-off date for participation will be established (I believe by the court at a future date).
The criteria for participation is as follows:

1. If you have been involved in any kind of loan transaction with any bank or financial institution you are eligible to participate;

2. If you did not know that banks and financial institutions are engaged in illegal creation of money, you are eligible to participate;

3. If you were told by your bank or financial institution they loaned you money without receiving “cash” or “legal tender” money or currency, you are eligible to participate;

4. If you were unaware that the bank or financial institution made you sign a promissory note or loan application form and ‘monetized’ the said note or form by way of your signature, you are eligible to participate;

5. If you or your family have suffered or are facing foreclosure or seizure of property or debt collection by banks or financial institutions as a result of any loan or debt transactions with any bank or financial institution, you are eligible to participate.

It is important to note that you DO NOT have to be object or victim of any debt collection, foreclosure or any other legal proceeding to participate.

rest here http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/04/19/canada_class_action_accuses_banks_of_illegal_creation_of_money.htm

Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment

2007-10-24T10:16:00.000-07:00

Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment

Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.
Background
Al Gore: an inspiring but divisive green adviser
Al Gore - he’s hot
An inconvenient truth?

Cows targeted in climate change war

As part of a government-backed project, researchers are trying to find a diet for cattle that will cause less burping and flatulence
Background
Two degrees of difference: the science that backs the protest
On climate change, Bush is all heart
The Terminator says go green
Related Links
U-turn on showing of Al Gore film in school
Al Gore tipped to win Nobel
An inconvenient truth?

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said in his ruling. “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-Presi-dent, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views.

The Government’s decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dim-mock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of brainwashing children.

The first mistake made by Mr Gore, said Mr Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps.

The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.

Mr Justice Burton added: “The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.

Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”. The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change”.

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded.

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

— A High Court judge since 1998, Sir Michael Burton, 60, was president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal from 2002 to 2005. He stood in local elections for Labour in Kensington and Chelsea in 1971; Stratford upon Avon in the General Election in 1974; and for the SDP in Greater London Council elections in 1981. Educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, his wife died in 1992 leaving him to bring up four daughters

Analysis: New Law Gives Government Six Months to Turn Internet and Phone Systems into Permanent Spying Architecture

2007-08-06T06:09:00.000-07:00

Analysis: New Law Gives Government Six Months to Turn Internet and Phone Systems into Permanent Spying Architecture

Ryan Singel
Wired
Monday Aug 6, 2007

A new law expanding the government's spying powers gives the Bush Administration a six-month window to install permanent back doors in the nation's communication networks. The legislation was passed hurriedly by Congress over the weekend and signed into law Sunday by President Bush.

The bill, known as the Protect America Act, removes the prohibition on warrantless spying on Americans abroad and gives the government wide powers to order communication service providers such as cell phone companies and ISPs to make their networks available to government eavesdroppers.

The Administration pushed for passage of the changes to close what it called a "surveillance gap," referring to a long-standing feature of the nation's surveillance laws that required the government to get court approval to capture communications inside the United States.

While the nation's spy laws have been continually loosened since 9/11, the Administration never pushed for the right to tap the nation's domestic communication networks until a secret court recently struck down a key pillar of the government's secret spying program.

The Administration argues that the world's communication networks now route many foreign to foreign calls and emails through switches in the United States.

Prior to the law's passage, the nation's spy agencies, such as the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, didn't need any court approval to spy on foreigners so long as the wiretaps were outside the United States.

Now, those agencies are free to order services like Skype, cell phone companies and arguably even search engines to comply with secret spy orders to create back doors in domestic communication networks for the nation's spooks. While it's unclear whether the wiretapping can be used for domestic purposes, the law only requires that the programs that give rise to such orders have a "significant purpose" of foreign intelligence gathering.

The law:
Defines the act of reading and listening into American's phone calls and internet communications when they are "reasonably believed" to be outside the country as not surveillance.
Gives the government 6 months of extended powers to issue orders to "communication service providers," to help with spying that "concerns persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States." The language doesn't require the surveillance to only target people outside the United States, only that some of it does.
Forces Communication Service providers to comply secretly, though they can challenge the orders to the secret Foreign Intelligence Court. Individuals or companies given such orders will be paid for their cooperation and can not be sued for complying.
Makes any program or orders launched in the next six months legal forever and perpetually renewable after the six month "sunset" of the new powers.
Grandfathers in the the current secret surveillance program -- sometimes referred to as the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- and any others that have been blessed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Requires the Attorney General to submit to the secret surveillance court its reasons why these programs aren't considered domestic spying programs, but the court can only throw out those reasons if it finds that they are "clearly erroneous."
Requires the Attorney General to tell Congress twice a year about any incidents of surveillance abuse and give statistics about how many surveillance programs were started and how many directives were issued.
Makes no mention of the Inspector General, who uncovered abuses of the Patriot Act by the FBI after being ordered by Congress to audit the use of powerful self-issued subpoenas, is not mentioned in the bill.

In short, the law gives the Administration the power to order the nation's communication service providers -- which range from Gmail, AOL IM, Twitter, Skype, traditional phone companies, ISPs, internet backbone providers, Federal Express, and social networks -- to create permanent spying outposts for the federal government.

These outposts need only to have a "significant" purpose of spying on foreigners, would be nearly immune to challenge by lawsuit, and have no court supervision over their extent or implementation.

Abuses of the outposts will be monitored only by the Justice Department, which has already been found to have underreported abuses of other surveillance powers to Congress.

In related international news, Zimbabwe's repressive dictator Robert Mugabe also won passage of a law allowing the government to turn that nation's communication infrastructure into a gigantic, secret microphone

Three Girls Died, Others Hospitalized, After HPV Vaccine

2007-07-04T13:32:00.000-07:00

Three Girls Died, Others Hospitalized, After HPV Vaccine

Mercola.com
Wednesday July 4, 2007

Amid controversy over state legislatures in the U.S. requiring young girls to take Gardasil, Merck's new vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), severe side effects are being reported.

1,637 adverse reactions have been reported by Judicial Watch, a public interest watchdog, including three girls who died shortly after receiving the immunization. Judicial Watch obtained the reports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration using the Freedom of Information Act.

In Australia, 25 girls who had just received their first injection of the vaccine experienced headache, nausea, and dizziness. In some cases, the problems were so severe that they were hospitalized. Shares of the vaccine's Australian developer, CSL, fell after the incident was reported in the news.

British Medical Journal June 9, 2007;334:1182-1183

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

Should young girls be required to take Gardasil by the government when possible side effects include hospitalization and death? There have also been reports from the National Vaccine Information Center about fainting and dizziness reported by dozens of patients as side effects of Gardasil, and there are even some concerns that Gardasil may cause infertility.

These are steep risks for a vaccine that only sometimes protects against HPV, which is virtually 100 percent avoidable without an expensive and potentially fatal vaccine.

Please realize that Merck has manipulated the medical and political system to FORCE children to get this dangerous vaccine for their own bottom line profit. The potential promised reduction of cervical cancer is the bait they use.

Remember Merck, the manufacturer of this vaccine, is the same company that made Vioxx that killed over 60,000 people.

It is also important to understand that this year, some 11,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer, which can be caused by HPV, and about 3,700 will die from it. In comparison, 16 times more American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer (178,480), and 11 times more will die from it (40,460).

As Merck's own literature says, it is important to realize that Gardasil does not protect women against some "non-vaccine" HPV types. So, even if girls accept the risks and get vaccinated, they can still get HPV.

Finally, although more than 6 million women contract HPV each year, a woman's immune system is often strong enough to clear up the infection on its own. About 90 percent of HPV infections simply clear up within two years.

Remember, it is NOT the infection that is the issue as much as it is the person's immune system. You can be exposed to these bacteria and viruses and if you are living a healthy lifestyle your body's immune system will typically know how to address the infection.

Fox News Lies, Claims Rosie Was Fired

2007-04-26T14:23:00.001-07:00

Fox News Lies, Claims Rosie Was Fired
Trump also jumps on the bandwagon

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, April 26, 2007

Neo-Con talking heads, Donald Trump and even some 9/11 truth activist groups are erroneously claiming that Rosie O'Donnell was fired by ABC in an attempt to strip her of her status as a crusader for free speech. The truth is that Rosie was sick and tired of ABC's deliberate attempts to censor her and had already decided to leave The View several weeks ago.

As we reported yesterday, prominent 9/11 truth sources close to O'Donnell revealed to Alex Jones weeks ago that Rosie had refused to have her first amendment rights restricted and was likely to quit on her own terms after she was asked to stay on the show by ABC with the proviso that she tone down her stance on the issue of 9/11.

In addition, The View wanted O'Donnell to sign a three year contract when Rosie just wanted a shorter commitment of 12 months. Many have heralded this as a huge mistake on the part of ABC.

Despite this the establishment media, once again caring little for facts or bothering to find out the truth, has surmised that Rosie was fired for talking about the 9/11 cover up.

Fox News' John Gibson has concocted his own conspiracy theory about why O'Donnell will no longer appear on The View:

Was it the grabbing the crotch and shouting "Eat me"? Probably not. As grotesque as that command was, as awful as that image may be, it was probably just a gag-inducing moment that only confirmed what the ABC suits and Barbara Walters had already decided. They had to have decided she must go because of one reason: her insistence on pushing 9/11 conspiracy nutter theories on national network television, a deeply embarrassing thing for any self-respecting network, especially one that is vying for the top spot in the evening news wars.
Do you think it helps Charlie Gibson, a respected veteran of straight news, to be on a network which has allowed an employee to bellow to the sky that the attacks of 9/11 were a put-up job in which our own government attacked its own people? And what is one left to conclude other than that when you hear Rosie demanding the audience go Google "World Trade 7" and see how they weren't telling you the truth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us help you reach a huge audience of potential customers. Help support the website and take advantage of low advertising rates. Click here for more info.
Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again we get the half baked and ill informed "this is what 9/11 conspiracy theorists think" trash and then Gibson goes on to say how anyone who suggests building 7 was "pulled" is saying "George Bush did it" - thus both WTC owner Larry Silverstein and most recently John Kerry must be saying that then?

In addition Bill O'Reilly has written a slime covered piece in which he announces himself as an oracle for predicting O'Donnell would be pushed out at ABC:

As predicted here last January, Ms. O'Donnell is leaving "The View." She made the announcement today, making me an oracle. Truthfully, that wasn't a very hard prediction to make. In corporate America, there are boundaries. People who make money for corporations can stretch the boundaries. But sooner or later, the corporations, in this case Disney, has to decide what's best for the shareholders.
O'Reilly also claims that the American public dislikes O'Donnell on The View and that is why Disney essentially severed relations with Rosie. In truth it is O'Reilly himself that the American public dislikes. As O'Donnell's ratings have sky rocketed, his own have plummeted. ABC's The View averages over twice as many viewers as O'Reilly's show, reaching a total of around 30 million viewers throughout the course of the entire show.

O'Reilly's viewership has been in freefall since his October 2004 sex scandal, dropping from a height of around 3.1 million to just over 2 million in October 2006 and leveling of at that rate to the present day. O'Reilly has lost over a third of his audience in two years, yet has the gall to continually announce that he has his finger on the pulse of America and "knows the American people".

In a further series of lies, un-truths and total ignorance, Donald Trump has weighed in on the issue.

O'Reilly "interviewed" Trump on his radio show whereupon he had this to say:

O'REILLY: Do you have any inside information about Disney?
TRUMP: I don't want to say what I have, Bill. I can just tell you that this was a deal that was not going to happen. And she —most likely — I mean the straw that broke the camel's back was what she did at the Waldorf- Astoria.
O'REILLY: Yes, that's what I believe, too. But let me just get this straight. You don't have to burn any sources, but you are convinced that Disney threw her over the side.
TRUMP: I am convinced that Disney threw her over the side, absolutely.
People magazine checked in with Trump to get his expert opinion about O’Donnell leaving the show. When asked Trump told them, “Well, she didn't leave The View, ABC fired her. They couldn't take it anymore. Her ratings, frankly, were good during the month of January when she and I were going at it, but they've been falling very steadily ever since. Her other show – her talk show – was canceled because of low ratings.”

Not one iota of this statement is true. O'Donnell has ensured that The View's ratings have risen by 17% in the time she has been on the show, introducing 600, 000 new viewers, the primary reason as to why she was offered a new contract.

Given the success of her outspoken approach on The View, there is no doubt that O'Donnell will now be offered her own syndicated show, and it will be on her own terms. Therefore we expect her pledge of allegiance to exposing 9/11 truth to only intensify in the coming months.

5-Year Prison Sentence For Brown As New Waco Draws Nearer

2007-04-25T16:18:00.000-07:00

5-Year Prison Sentence For Brown As New Waco Draws Nearer

Margot Sanger-Katz
Concord Monitor
Wednesday April 25, 2007

A federal judge sentenced tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown to more than five years in prison yesterday, giving them sentences at the top of the range recommended by probation officers but below sentencing recommendations offered by the prosecutor.

The couple did not attend the hearing, and Ed Brown refused to recognize the sentence or the federal court that issued it.

"I've been convicted of crimes?" he asked in a phone interview yesterday.

The couple have been holed up in their fortified Plainfield home for several months, saying that any attempts to arrest them will trigger a violent confrontation with federal officials.

The Browns were convicted in January of conspiring to defraud the government, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large financial transactions. Elaine Brown, whose West Lebanon dental practice earned the couple's income, was also convicted of multiple counts of tax evasion and failure to withhold employment taxes. The government calculated the couple's unpaid tax bill at roughly $750,000.

The Browns, who maintain that federal income tax laws don't apply to them, argued during their trial that the laws were invalid. Midway through the trial, the Browns stopped attending the proceedings. Ed Brown issued internet and radio statements that the situation might turn into "another Waco" and urged armed supporter to help him resist capture. In 1993, a standoff between the Branch Davidian religious sect and federal officers near Waco, Texas, resulted in 80 deaths, including those of four law enforcement agents.
Elaine Brown returned to court several days later and was released into the custody of a son in Massachusetts on the condition that she not return to her husband.

But a few weeks after the guilty verdict, she violated the terms of her release and joined Ed Brown in Plainfield. On a daily internet radio show and in sporadic blog posts and news interviews, the couple have challenged the validity of their convictions and the jurisdiction of the court, and they have issued threats against the judge, prosecutor and other federal officials.

Yesterday, it appeared that the U.S. marshals took those threats seriously. More than a dozen marshals were positioned around the courtroom during the sentencing. Others stood at patrols around the Concord courthouse during the day. Several of the marshals said they were brought in from out of state to work the hearings.

"We have concerns," U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said at a press conference after the sentences were announced. "We're genuinely concerned because of their use of the internet, the blogs and some of the statements the Browns have made."

Judge Stephen McAuliffe rejected attempts by the prosecutor to boost the couple's sentences outside of the range recommended by probation officers. Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Morse argued that both Browns' sentences could be increased under federal sentencing guidelines because they had disrupted government functions and committed further crimes as fugitives. He also asked the judge to depart from the guidelines altogether because of the unusual circumstances surrounding their convictions.

"The defendants are thumbing their noses at the rule of law every step of the way," Morse said.

McAulliffe handed down nearly identical sentences. Both Ed and Elaine Brown were sentenced to 63 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The conditions of their supervised release require them to immediately file accurate tax returns for the years of their crimes and to comply with any payment plan required by the IRS.

The judge also finalized an order requiring the Browns to forfeit part of their interest in their home and office building found to be related to their crimes. The couple can satisfy that requirement by paying the total judgment, about $215,000.

During the trial, Elaine Brown turned down a plea deal that would have included a two-year prison sentence.

McAuliffe said the Browns' sentences were appropriate, given that they had been convicted of "garden variety" tax crimes, but he noted that they might face additional prison sentences if they were charged and convicted of the other crimes Morse described.

During the sentencings, Morse mentioned the Browns' destruction of Elaine Brown's electronic monitoring bracelet as a federal felony and also referred to threats against court officials, another federal crime.

Morse did not answer reporters' questions yesterday, but in a phone interview on Monday he said he could not comment on whether his office planned to charge the Browns over those allegations.

The Browns have 10 days to appeal their convictions. It is unclear whether they will. Shortly after the jury verdict in January, the couple attempted to file an appeal, but it was rejected as premature. In recent statements, the Browns have said that they will no longer receive mail from the court or file any documents. Joe Haas, a friend from Gilmanton Iron Works, said that Ed Brown told him yesterday that he would not file an appeal.

"Ed says he doesn't care. He doesn't acknowledge them. It's all a fiction," Haas said.

In a phone interview yesterday, Brown did not answer questions about his appeal, but he questioned whether the judge's ruling applied to him.

"Who's he?" Brown asked. "What's he? Part of the corporation of the United States? That has nothing to do with me. I'm a natural living soul."

Monier, the U.S. marshal, said his office's strategy has not changed as a result of the sentences. He said his staff will continue to communicate with the Browns and will not initiate a siege or standoff at their home.

"We're just not going to engage in that kind of game with them," he said.

In a letter he sent to the couple yesterday, he urged the Browns to turn themselves in.

"We have, and will continue to take, all reasonable steps to resolve this peacefully," he wrote.

Monier did say that his office will take action against Brown supporters who bring weapons to the Plainfield house or otherwise provide "assistance, aid, or comfort to the Browns in their continuing efforts to obstruct justice and avoid apprehension."

Since Ed Brown stopped attending his trial, he has been visited by a number of supporters who have brought food, weapons and technical assistance to him, and later to Elaine. Monier did not say whether friends who brought food might be subject to prosecution, but he did say visiting would be allowed.

"It's got to be a little bit more than just, 'Let's go out and say hi to Ed and Elaine today,' " Monier said.

About 15 supporters either attended the hearings or demonstrated outside the courthouse yesterday. Most said they were not surprised by the outcome.

"The whole thing was unfair, so it's still unfair," said Bernie Bastian of Weare, a close friend of Ed Brown's who attended every day of the trial. Bastian waited outside the courthouse yesterday because he said that he did not want to recognize the court's jurisdiction over his friend.

"I expected them to do wrong, and they met my expectation," he said.

Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win

2007-04-25T13:45:00.001-07:00

Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win

Roger Simon
The Politico
Wednesday April 25, 2007

MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: “America will safer with a Republican president.”
Giuliani, whose past positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights have made him anathema to some in his party, believes his tough stance on national defense and his post-Sept. 11 reputation as a fighter of terrorism will be his trump card with doubting Republicans.

“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”

The crowd thundered its approval.

Giuliani also said that America had been naive about terrorism in the past and had missed obvious signals.

“They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ’90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.”

Are we safe from robots that can think for themselves?

2007-04-24T06:47:00.001-07:00

Are we safe from robots that can think for themselves?

REBECCA CAMBER
UK Daily Mail
Tuesday April 23, 2007

Robots that can think for themselves could soon be caring for our children and the elderly and policing our streets, say experts.

Scientists told yesterday of a new generation of robots which can work without human direction.

They predict that in the next five years robots will be available for child-minding, to work in care homes, monitor prisons and help police trace criminals.

And while it may sound like something out of a science-fiction film, the experts say advances in technology have made the thinking robot possible.

A group of leading robotic researchers called for an urgent public debate and legislation to prevent large numbers of autonomous robots being introduced into society without considering the potential risks to public safety.

Until now most robots have been operated by humans, usually by remote control or verbal commands. But now autonomous machines such as toys and vacuum cleaners which cover the room without needing any human instructions or guidance are being introduced.

Manufacturers are exploring ways to make robotic toys look after children, which experts say will lead to child-minding machines able to monitor youngsters, transmitting their progress to the parents by onboard cameras.

In Japan, scientists are producing robots to act as companions for the elderly and check their heart rate.

Alan Winfield, professor of electronic engineering at the University of the West of England in Bristol, said yesterday it would not be long before technological advances made it possible for robots to be introduced in the home, as well as prisons and the police service.

Speaking at a debate on robot ethics at the London Science Media Centre, he said: "It is highly likely that in a number of years robots will be employed both for child-minding and care for the elderly.

"But the danger is that we will sleepwalk into a situation where we accept a large number of autonomous robots in our lives without being sure of the consequences.

"The outcome could be that when given a choice the robot could make the wrong decision and someone gets hurt. They can go wrong just like a motor car can.

"We should be aware of the future that we are letting ourselves in for. We need to look at their safety and reliability."

His warning echoes the hit Hollywood sci-fi film I, Robot, starring Will Smith, in which a slave robot with a mind of its own causes chaos.

Noel Sharkey, professor of computer science at Sheffield University, said: "Technology is increasing at an incredible rate.

"My main worry is that these autonomous robots could be introduced very quickly. We need to have an informed public debate now before that happens."

The biggest advances in robots in recent years have been as weapons of war. The U.S. military is developing battlefield robots which will be given the ability to decide when to use lethal force.

At the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, a battlefield robot is being developed which will use radar data and intelligence feeds to make decisions based on a set of ethical rules, which has been compared to an artificial conscience.

The Korean government is looking to create robotic armed border guards as part of a £ 51million investment in robotics.

Virginia School Shooting: Another Government Black-Op?

2007-04-17T07:05:00.001-07:00

Virginia School Shooting: Another Government Black-Op?
Early details suggest Columbine-style set-up to justify mass gun control, VA Tech has "blood on their hands," banned concealed carry, disarming victims

Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, April 16, 2007

Early details about the horrific school shooting at Virginia Tech strongly indicate that these events represent a Columbine-style black-op that will be exploited in the coming days to push for mass gun control and further turning our schools into prisons.

Eyewitness Matt Kazee told the Alex Jones Show that it was a full two to three hours after the shootings began that loudspeakers installed around the campus were used to warn students to stay indoors and that a shooter was on the loose.

Quite how the killer was afforded so much time before any action was taken to stop him is baffling, especially considering the fact that the campus, according to Kazee, was crawling with police before the event happened due to numerous bomb threats that had been phoned in last week.

The shootings came three days after a bomb threat Friday forced the cancellation of classes in three buildings, WDBJ in Roanoke reported. Also, the 100,000-square-foot Torgersen Hall was evacuated April 2 after police received a written bomb threat, The Roanoke Times reported.

CNN quoted a student who was outraged at the delay in identifying and stopping the killer.

"What happened today this was ridiculous. And I don't know what happened or what was going through this guy's mind," student Jason Piatt told CNN. "But I'm pretty outraged and I'll say on the record I'm pretty outraged that someone died in a shooting in a dorm at 7 o'clock in the morning and the first e-mail about it — no mention of locking down campus, no mention of canceling classes — they just mention that they're investigating a shooting two hours later at 9:22."

He added: "That's pretty ridiculous and meanwhile, while they're sending out that e-mail, 22 more people got killed."

The details that are beginning to emerge fill the criteria that this could very well be another government black-op that will be used as justification for more gun control and turning our schools into prisons, festooned with armed guards, surveillance cameras and biometric scanning to gain entry.

Ironic therefore it is that Virginia is a concealed carry state and yet Virginia Tech campus recently enforced a policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus. According to gun rights activists such as Aaron Zelman of Jews For The Preservation of Firearms, VA Tech has "blood on its hands" for disarming the victims who could potentially have defended themselves against the killer.

Initial reports suggested there were two shooters, but the story quickly changed to just one shooter who later killed himself (as happens in almost all these cases) or was shot by police.

Eyewitness accounts describe police hiding behind trees and failing to pursue the killer, while ordering the school to be placed on lockdown so nobody could escape the carnage as the killer picked off his targets with seemingly little interruption from the police.

At the moment, the official death toll is 30, but could rise, making this the deadliest school shooting in history.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/11 Hero William Rodriguez Tells His Story!
In this powerful and emotional DVD, produced by William Rodriguez himself, the 9/11 hero presents his incredible story of bravery and the subsequent honors and accolades he turned his back on in his search for the real truth of what happened that fateful day. Click here to buy the DVD or click here to subscribe to Prison Planet.tv and watch it online now in high quality!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If these figures are accurate, the casualty figures surpass those of the school shooting at Columbine in 1999 when Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves.

It is well documented that disturbing questions remain over the incident at Columbine. It is clear that authorities had prior knowledge of what was going to happen. Observers were in the area hours before the shooting took place. Articles from the Associated Press stated that ballistics from Columbine show that six of the thirteen victims were possibly shot and killed by Jefferson County SWAT.

In addition, it was never properly explained how Klebold and Harris were able to transport over 100 bombs into the school before the shootings began.

In the aftermath of Columbine there were calls for vastly increased gun control laws, more than 15 state legislatures passed significant gun control bills or dropped NRA-supported bills.

In 1996 a similar incident occurred in Dunblane in Scotland where sixteen children and one adult were killed. The resulting inquiry recommended tighter control of handgun ownership, public feeling had turned against private gun ownership, allowing a much more restrictive ban on handguns to pass.

It then emerged that the killer Thomas Hamilton was heavily involved in Freemasonry, as well as running clubs for young boys, a fact which Labour and Tory ministers acknowledged in correspondence to each other. A a 100-year public secrecy order was placed on the documents, along with the majority of other information relating to the case including the police report. There have been allegations that the lengthy closure order was placed on the report after it linked Hamilton to figures in the Scottish establishment, including two senior politicians and a lawyer.

In both the Dunblane and Columbine cases the shooters turned the guns on themselves after the killing spree was over.

We will have more on this story as it unfolds.

Gloria Steinem: How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society

2007-04-15T11:44:00.000-07:00

Gloria Steinem: How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
March 18, 2002

"In the 1960's, the elite media invented second-wave feminism as part of the elite agenda to dismantle civilization and create a New World Order."

Since writing these words last week, I have discovered that before she became a feminist leader, Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA spying on Marxist students in Europe and disrupting their meetings. She became a media darling due to her CIA connections. MS Magazine, which she edited for many years was indirectly funded by the CIA.

Steinem has tried to suppress this information, unearthed in the 1970's by a radical feminist group called "Red Stockings." In 1979, Steinem and her powerful CIA-connected friends, Katharine Graham of the Washington Post and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas prevented Random House from publishing it in "Feminist Revolution." Nevertheless the story appeared in the "Village Voice" on May 21, 1979.

Steinem has always pretended that she had been a student radical. "When I was in college, it was the McCarthy era," she told Susan Mitchell in 1997, "and that made me a Marxist." (Icons, Saints and Divas: Intimate Conversations with Women who Changed the World 1997. p 130) Her bio-blurb in June 1973 MS. Magazine states: "Gloria Steinem has been a freelance writer all her professional life. Ms magazine is her first full-time salaried job."

Not true. Raised in an impoverished, dysfunctional family in Toledo Ohio, Steinem somehow managed to attend elite Smith College, Betty Friedan's alma mater. After graduating in 1955, Steinem received a "Chester Bowles Student Fellowship" to study in India. Curiously, an Internet search reveals that this fellowship has no existence apart from Gloria Steinem. No one else has received it.

In 1958, Steinem was recruited by CIA's Cord Meyers to direct an "informal group of activists" called the "Independent Research Service." This was part of Meyer's "Congress for Cultural Freedom," which created magazines like "Encounter" and "Partisan Review" to promote a left-liberal chic to oppose Marxism. Steinem, attended Communist-sponsored youth festivals in Europe, published a newspaper, reported on other participants, and helped to provoke riots.

One of Steinem's CIA colleagues was Clay Felker. In the early 1960's, he became an editor at Esquire and published articles by Steinem which established her as a leading voice for women's lib. In 1968, as publisher of New York Magazine, he hired her as a contributing editor, and then editor of Ms. Magazine in 1971. Warner Communications put up almost all the money although it only took 25% of the stock. Ms. Magazine's first publisher was Elizabeth Forsling Harris, a CIA-connected PR executive who planned John Kennedy's Dallas motorcade route. Despite its anti establishment image, MS magazine attracted advertising from the cream of corporate America. It published ads for ITT at the same time as women political prisoners in Chile were being tortured by Pinochet, after a coup inspired by the US conglomerate and the CIA.

Steinem's personal relationships also belie her anti establishment pretensions. She had a nine-year relationship with Stanley Pottinger, a Nixon-Ford assistant attorney general, credited with stalling FBI investigations into the assassinations of Martin Luther King, and the ex-Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Latelier. In the 1980's, she dated Henry Kissinger. For more details, see San Francisco researcher Dave Emory.

Our main misconception about the CIA is that it serves US interests. In fact, it has always been the instrument of a dynastic international banking and oil elite (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan) coordinated by the Royal Institute for Internal Affairs in London and their US branch, the Council for Foreign Relations. It was established and peopled by blue bloods from the New York banking establishment and graduates of Yale University's secret pagan "Skull and Bones" society. Our current President, his father and grandfather fit this profile.

The agenda of this international cabal is to degrade the institutions and values of the United States in order to integrate it into a global state that it will direct through the United Nations. In its 1947 Founding Charter, the CIA is prohibited from engaging in domestic activities. However this has never stopped it from waging a psychological war on the American people. The domestic counterpart of the "Congress for Cultural Freedom" was the "American Committee for Cultural Freedom." Using foundations as conduits, the CIA controlled intellectual discourse in the 1950's and 1960's, and I believe continues to do so today. In "The Cultural Cold War," Francis Stonor Saunders estimates that a thousand books were produced under the imprint of a variety of commercial and university presses, with covert subsidies.

The CIA's "Project Mockingbird" involved the direct infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets. "By the early 1950's," writes Deborah Davis, in her book "Katherine the Great," the CIA owned respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communication vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all." In 1982 the CIA admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field. Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, who ran the operation until his "suicide" in 1963, boasted that "you could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple of hundred dollars a month."

I was born in 1949. Idealists in my parent's generation were disillusioned when the Communist dream of universal brotherhood turned out to be a shill for a brutal despotism. My own generation may discover that our best instincts have also been manipulated and exploited. There is evidence that the 60's drug counter culture, the civil rights movement, and anti-war movement, like feminism, were CIA directed. For example, the CIA has admitted setting up the (National Student Association as a front in 1947 http://www.cia-on-campus.org/nsa/nsa2.html). In the early 1950's the NSA opposed the attempts of the House Un American Activities Committee to root out Communist spies. According to Phil Agee Jr., NSA officers participated in the activities of SNCC, the militant civil rights group, and Students for a Democratic Society, a radical peace group.

According to Mark Riebling, the CIA also may have used Timothy Leary. Certainly the agency distributed LSD to Leary and other opinion makers in the 1960s. Leary made a generation of Americans turn away from active participation in society and seek fulfillment "within." In another example of the CIA's use of drugs to interfere in domestic politics, Gary Webb describes how in the 1980's, the CIA flooded Black ghettos with cocaine.

I won't attempt to analyze the CIA's motivation except to suggest what they have in common: They demoralized, alienated and divided Americans. The elite operates by fostering division and conflict in the world. Thus, we don't realize who the real enemy is. For the same reason, the CIA and elite foundations also fund the diversity and multicultural movements.

Feminism has done the most damage. There is no more fundamental yet delicate relationship in society than male and female. On it depends the family, the red blood cell of society. Nobody with the interests of society at heart would try to divide men and women. Yet the lie that men have exploited women has become the official orthodoxy.

Man loves woman. His first instinct is to nurture ("husband") and see her thrive. When a woman is happy, she is beautiful. Sure, some men are abusive. But the vast majority have supported and guided their families for millennium.

Feminists relentlessly advance the idea that our inherent male and female characteristics, crucial to our development as human beings, are mere "stereotypes." This is a vicious calumny on all heterosexuals, 95% of the population. Talk about hate! Yet it is taught to children in elementary schools! It is echoed in the media. Lesbians like Rosie O'Donnell are advanced as role models.

All of this is calculated to create personal confusion and sow chaos among heterosexuals. As a result, millions of American males are emasculated and divorced from their relationship to family (the world and the future.) The American woman has been hoodwinked into investing herself in a mundane career instead of the timeless love of her husband and children. Many women have become temperamentally unfit to be wives and mothers. People, who are isolated and alone, stunted and love-starved, are easy to fool and manipulate. Without the healthy influence of two loving parents, so are their children.

Feminism is a grotesque fraud perpetrated on society by its governing elite. It is designed to weaken the American social and cultural fabric in order to introduce a friendly fascist New World Order. Its advocates are sanctimonious charlatans who have grown rich and powerful from it. They include a whole class of liars and moral cripples who work for the elite in various capacities: government, education and the media. These imposters ought to be exposed and ridiculed.

Women's oppression is a lie. Sex roles were never as rigid as feminists would have us believe. My mother had a successful business in the 1950's importing watchstraps from Switzerland. When my father's income increased, she was content to quit and concentrate on the children. Women were free to pursue careers if they wanted to. The difference was that their role as wife and mother was understood, and socially validated, as it should be.

Until Gloria Steinem and the CIA came along.

War Profiteering and the Concentration of Income and Wealth in America

2007-04-13T20:52:00.000-07:00

Escalating Military Spending

by Prof. Ismael Hossein-zadeh

Global Research, April 13, 2007

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

How Escalation of War and Military Spending Are Used as Disguised or Roundabout Ways to Reverse the New Deal and Redistribute National Resources in Favor of the Wealthy.

Escalating Military Spending: Income Redistribution in Disguise

Critics of the recent U.S. wars of choice have long argued that they are all about oil. "No Blood for Oil" has been a rallying cry for most of the opponents of the war.

It can be demonstrated, however, that there is another (less obvious but perhaps more critical) factor behind the recent rise of U.S. military aggressions abroad: war profiteering by Pentagon contractors.

Frequently invoking dubious "threats to our national security and/or interests," these beneficiaries of war dividends, the military–industrial complex and related businesses whose interests are vested in the Pentagon’s appropriation of public money, have successfully used war and military spending to justify their lion’s share of tax dollars and to disguise their strategy of redistributing national income in their favor.

This cynical strategy of disguised redistribution of national resources from the bottom to the top is carried out by a combination of (a) drastic hikes in the Pentagon budget, and (b) equally drastic tax cuts for the wealthy. As this combination creates large budget deficits, it then forces cuts in non-military public spending as a way to fill the gaps that are thus created. As a result, the rich are growing considerably richer at the expense of middle– and low–income classes.

Despite its critical importance, most opponents of war seem to have given short shrift to the crucial role of the Pentagon budget and its contractors as major sources of war and militarism—a phenomenon that the late President Eisenhower warned against nearly half a century ago. Perhaps a major reason for this oversight is that critics of war and militarism tend to view the U.S. military force as primarily a means for imperialist gains—oil or otherwise.

The fact is, however, that as the U.S. military establishment has grown in size, it has also evolved in quality and character: it is no longer simply a means but, perhaps more importantly, an end in itself—an imperial force in its own right. Accordingly, the rising militarization of U.S. foreign policy in recent years is driven not so much by some general/abstract national interests as it is by the powerful special interests that are vested in the military capital, that is, war industries and war–related businesses.

The Magnitude of U.S. Military Spending

Even without the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are fast surpassing half a trillion dollars, U.S. military spending is now the largest item in the federal budget. Officially, it is the second highest item after Social Security payments. But Social Security is a self-financing trust fund. So, in reality, military spending is the highest budget item.

The Pentagon budget for the current fiscal year (2007) is about $456 billion. President Bush’s proposed increase of 10% for next year will raise this figure to over half a trillion dollars, that is, $501.6 billion for fiscal year 2008.

A proposed supplemental appropriation to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "brings proposed military spending for FY 2008 to $647.2 billion, the highest level of military spending since the end of World War II—higher than Vietnam, higher than Korea, higher than the peak of the Reagan buildup."[1]

Using official budget figures, William D. Hartung, Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York, provides a number of helpful comparisons:
Proposed U.S. military spending for FY 2008 is larger than military spending by all of the other nations in the world combined.
At $141.7 billion, this year's proposed spending on the Iraq war is larger than the military budgets of China and Russia combined. Total U.S. military spending for FY2008 is roughly ten times the military budget of the second largest military spending country in the world, China.
Proposed U.S. military spending is larger than the combined gross domestic products (GDP) of all 47 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
The FY 2008 military budget proposal is more than 30 times higher than all spending on State Department operations and non-military foreign aid combined.
The FY 2008 military budget is over 120 times higher than the roughly $5 billion per year the U.S. government spends on combating global warming.
The FY 2008 military spending represents 58 cents out of every dollar spent by the U.S. government on discretionary programs: education, health, housing assistance, international affairs, natural resources and environment, justice, veterans’ benefits, science and space, transportation, training/employment and social services, economic development, and several more items.[2]

Although the official military budget already eats up the lion’s share of public money (crowding out vital domestic needs), it nonetheless grossly understates the true magnitude of military spending. The real national defense budget, according to Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, is nearly twice as much as the official budget. The reason for this understatement is that the official Department of Defense budget excludes not only the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also a number of other major cost items.[3]

These disguised cost items include budgets for the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security; nuclear weapons research and development, testing, and storage (placed in the Energy budget); veterans programs (in the Veteran’s Administration budget); most military retiree payments (in the Treasury budget); foreign military aid in the form of weapons grants for allies (in the State Department budget); interest payments on money borrowed to fund military programs in past years (in the Treasury budget); sales and property taxes at military bases (in local government budgets); and the hidden expenses of tax-free food, housing, and combat pay allowances.

After adding these camouflaged and misplaced expenses to the official Department of Defense budget, Higgs concludes: "I propose that in considering future defense budgetary costs, a well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon's (always well publicized) basic budget total and double it. You may overstate the truth, but if so, you'll not do so by much."[4]

Escalation of the Pentagon Budget and the Rising Fortunes of Its Contractors

The Bush administration’s escalation of war and military spending has been a boon for Pentagon contractors. That the fortunes of Pentagon contractors should rise in tandem with the rise of military spending is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is the fact that these profiteers of war and militarism have also played a critical role in creating the necessary conditions for war profiteering, that is, in instigating the escalation of the recent wars of choice and the concomitant boom of military spending.[5]

Giant arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman have been the main beneficiaries of the Pentagon’s spending bonanza. This is clearly reflected in the continuing rise of the value of their shares in the stock market:

"Shares of U.S. defense companies, which have nearly trebled since the beginning of the occupation of Iraq, show no signs of slowing down. . . . The feeling that makers of ships, planes and weapons are just getting into their stride has driven shares of leading Pentagon contractors Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., and General Dynamics Corp. to all-time highs."[6]

Like its manufacturing contractors, the Pentagon’s fast-growing service contractors have equally been making fortunes by virtue of its tendency to shower private contractors with tax-payers’ money. These services are not limited to the relatively simple or routine tasks and responsibilities such food and sanitation services. More importantly, they include "contracts for services that are highly sophisticated [and] strategic in nature," such as the contracting of security services to corporate private armies, or modern day mercenaries. The rapid growth of the Pentagon’s service contracting is reflected (among other indicators) in these statistics: "In 1984, almost two-thirds of the contracting budget went for products rather than services. . . . By fiscal year 2003, 56 percent of Defense Department contracts paid for services rather than goods."[7]

The spoils of war and the devastation in Iraq have been so attractive that an extremely large number of war profiteers have set up shop in that country in order to participate in the booty: "There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield," reported The Washington Post in its 5 December 2006 issue.

The rise in the Pentagon contracting is, of course, a reflection of an overall policy and philosophy of outsourcing and privatizing that has become fashionable ever since President Reagan arrived in the White House in 1980. Reporting on some of the effects of this policy, Scott Shane and Ron Nixon of the New York Times recently wrote: "Without a public debate or formal policy decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does."[8]

Redistributive Militarism: Escalation of Military Spending Redistributes Income from Bottom to Top

But while the Pentagon contractors and other beneficiaries of war dividends are showered with public money, low- and middle-income Americans are squeezed out of economic or subsistence resources in order to make up for the resulting budgetary shortfalls. For example, as the official Pentagon budget for 2008 fiscal year is projected to rise by more than 10 percent, or nearly $50 billion, "a total of 141 government programs will be eliminated or sharply reduced" to pay for the increase. These would include cuts in housing assistance for low-income seniors by 25 percent, home heating/energy assistance to low-income people by 18 percent, funding for community development grants by 12.7 percent, and grants for education and employment training by 8 percent.[9]

Combined with redistributive militarism and generous tax cuts for the wealthy, these cuts have further exacerbated the ominously growing income inequality that started under President Reagan. Ever since Reagan arrived in the White House in 1980, opponents of non-military public spending have been using an insidious strategy to cut social spending, to reverse the New Deal and other social safety net programs, and to redistribute national/public resources in favor of the wealthy. That cynical strategy consists of a combination of drastic increases in military spending coupled with equally drastic tax cuts for the wealthy. As this combination creates large budget deficits, it then forces cuts in non-military public spending (along with borrowing) to fill the gaps thus created.

For example, at the same time that President Bush is planning to raise military spending by $50 billion for the next fiscal year, he is also proposing to make his affluent-targeted tax cuts permanent at a cost of $1.6 trillion over 10 years, or an average yearly cut of $160 billion. Simultaneously, "funding for domestic discretionary programs would be cut a total of $114 billion" in order to pay for these handouts to the rich. The targeted discretionary programs to be cut include over 140 programs that provide support for the basic needs of low- and middle-income families such as elementary and secondary education, job training, environmental protection, veterans’ health care, medical research, Meals on Wheels, child care and HeadStart, low-income home energy assistance, and many more.[10]

According to the Urban Institute–Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, "if the President's tax cuts are made permanent, households in the top 1 percent of the population (currently those with incomes over $400,000) will receive tax cuts averaging $67,000 a year by 2012. . . . The tax cuts for those with incomes of over $1 million a year would average $162,000 a year by 2012."[11]

Official macroeconomic figures show that, over the past five decades or so, government spending (at the federal, state and local levels) as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) has remained fairly steady—at about 20 percent. Given this nearly constant share of the public sector of national output/income, it is not surprising that increases in military spending have almost always been accompanied or followed by compensating decreases in non-military public spending, and vice versa.

For example, when by virtue of FDR’s New Deal reforms and LBJ’s metaphorical War on Poverty, the share of non-military government spending rose significantly the share of military spending declined accordingly. From the mid 1950s to the mid 1970s, the share of non-military government spending of GNP rose from 9.2 to 14.3 percent, an increase of 5.1 percent. During that time period, the share of military spending of GNP declined from 10.1 to 5.8 percent, a decline of 4.3 percent.[12]

That trend was reversed when President Reagan took office in 1980. In the early 1980s, as President Reagan drastically increased military spending, he also just as drastically lowered tax rates on higher incomes. The resulting large budget deficits were then paid for by more than a decade of steady cuts on non-military spending.

Likewise, the administration of President George W. Bush has been pursuing a similarly sinister fiscal policy of cutting non-military public spending in order to pay for the skyrocketing military spending and the generous tax cuts for the affluent.

Interestingly (though not surprisingly), changes in income inequality have mirrored changes in government spending priorities, as reflected in the fiscal policies of different administrations. Thus, when the share of non-military public spending rose relative to that of military spending from the mid 1950 to the mid 1970s, and the taxation system or policy remained relatively more progressive compared to what it is today, income inequality declined accordingly.

But as President Reagan reversed that fiscal policy by raising the share of military spending relative to non-military public spending and cutting taxes for the wealthy, income inequality also rose considerably. As Reagan’s twin policies of drastic increases in military spending and equally sweeping tax cuts for the rich were somewhat tempered in the 1990s, growth in income inequality slowed down accordingly. In the 2000s, however, the ominous trends that were left off by President Reagan have been picked up by President George W. Bush: increasing military spending, decreasing taxes for the rich, and (thereby) exacerbating income inequality (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Income Inequality in the U.S. (Gini Index), 1913-2004

Source: Doug Henwood, Left Business Observer, No. 114 (December 2006), p. 1

Leaving small, short-term fluctuations aside, Figure 1 shows two major peaks and a trough of the long-term picture of income inequality in the United States. The first peak was reached during the turbulent years of the Great Depression (1929–1933). But it soon began to decline with the implementation of the New Deal reforms in the mid 1930s. The ensuing decline continued almost unabated until 1968, at which time we note the lowest level of inequality.

After 1968, the improving trend in inequality changed course. But the reversal was not very perceptible until the early 1980s, after which time it began to accelerate—by virtue (or vice) of Reaganomics. Although the deterioration that was thus set in motion by the rise of neoliberalism and supply-side economics somewhat slowed down in the 1990s, it has once again gathered steam under President George W. Bush, and is fast approaching the peak of the Great Depression.

It is worth noting that even at its lowest level of 1968, income inequality was still quite lopsided: the richest 20 percent of households made as much as ten times more than the poorest 20 percent. But, as Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer points out, "that looks almost Swedish next to today’s ratio of fifteen times."[13]

The following are some specific statistics of how redistributive militarism and supply-side fiscal policies have exacerbated income inequality since the late 1970s and early 1980s—making after-tax income gaps wider than pre-tax ones. According to recently released data by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), since 1979 income gains among high-income households have dwarfed those of middle- and low-income households. Specifically:
The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population nearly tripled, rising from $314,000 to nearly $868,000—for a total increase of $554,000, or 176 percent. (Figures are adjusted by CBO for inflation.)
By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose a relatively modest 21 percent, or $8,500, reaching $48,400 in 2004.
The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose just 6 percent, or $800, during this period, reaching $14,700 in 2004.[14]

Legislation enacted since 2001 has provided taxpayers with about $1 trillion in tax cuts over the past six years. These large tax reductions have made the distribution of after-tax income more unequal by further concentrating income at the top of the income range. According to the Urban Institute–Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, as a result of the tax cuts enacted since 2001:
In 2006, households in the bottom fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts (averaging $20) that raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 0.3 percent.
Households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts (averaging $740) that raised their after-tax incomes an average of 2.5 percent.
The top one percent of households received tax cuts in 2006 (averaging $44,200) that increased their after-tax income by an average of 5.4 percent.
Households with incomes exceeding $1 million received an average tax cut of $118,000 in 2006, which represented an increase of 6.0 percent in their after-tax income.[15]

Concluding Remarks: External Wars as Reflections of Domestic Fights over National Resources

Close scrutiny of the Pentagon budget shows that, ever since the election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980, opponents of social spending have successfully used military spending as a regulatory mechanism to cut non-military public spending, to reverse the New Deal and other social safety net programs, and to redistribute national/public resources in favor of the wealthy.

Close examination of the dynamics of redistributive militarism also helps explain why powerful beneficiaries of the Pentagon budget prefer war and military spending to peace and non-military public spending: military spending benefits the wealthy whereas the benefits of non-military public spending would spread to wider social strata. It further helps explain why beneficiaries of war dividends frequently invent new enemies and new "threats to our national interests" in order to justify continued escalation of military spending.

Viewed in this light, militaristic tendencies to war abroad can be seen largely as reflections of the metaphorical domestic fights over allocation of public finance at home, of a subtle or insidious strategy to redistribute national resources from the bottom to the top.

Despite the critical role of redistributive militarism, or of the Pentagon budget, as a major driving force to war, most opponents of war have paid only scant attention to this crucial force behind the recent U.S. wars of choice. The reason for this oversight is probably due to the fact that most critics of war continue to view U.S. military force as simply or primarily a means to achieve certain imperialist ends, instead of having become an end in itself.

Yet, as the U.S. military establishment has grown in size, it has also evolved in quality and character: it is no longer simply a means but, perhaps more importantly, an end in itself, an imperial power in its own right, or to put it differently, it is a case of the tail wagging the dog—a phenomenon that the late President Eisenhower so presciently warned against.

Accordingly, rising militarization of U.S. foreign policy in recent years is driven not so much by some general/abstract national interests, or by the interests of Big Oil and other non-military transnational corporations (as most traditional theories of imperialism continue to argue), as it is by powerful special interests that are vested in the war industry and related war-induced businesses that need an atmosphere of war and militarism in order to justify their lion’s share of the public money.

Preservation, justification, and expansion of the military–industrial colossus, especially of the armaments industry and other Pentagon contractors, have become critical big business objectives in themselves. They have, indeed, become powerful driving forces behind the new, parasitic U.S. military imperialism. I call this new imperialism parasitic because its military adventures abroad are often prompted not so much by a desire to expand the empire’s wealth beyond the existing levels, as did the imperial powers of the past, but by a desire to appropriate the lion’s share of the existing wealth and treasure for the military establishment, especially for the war-profiteering contractors. In addition to being parasitic, the new U.S. military imperialism can also be called dual imperialism because not only does it exploit defenseless peoples and their resources abroad but also the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens and their resources at home. (I shall further elaborate on the historically unique characteristics of the Parasitic, dual U.S. military imperialism in another article.)

Stephen Harper's "Quisling" government pursues further talks for U.S. take-over of Canada

2007-04-13T20:47:00.000-07:00

by Don Nordin

Global Research, September 16, 2006
The Canadian

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

Media organization elites cover-up the biggest scandal in Canadian history

What would you think if it was announced that Canada was to cease as an independent country as early as 2007? Would it matter to you? Would you want to know who was responsible? What would you do?

Well, during the last week there have been announcements from at least two sources that Canada will soon cease to exist as a sovereign country.

The first notice I received was in the form of an Aug. 18 email from Connie Fogal, leader of the Canadian Action Party. The email includes a bulletin from the Fraser Institute entitled, "The Case for the Amero: The Institutions of a North American Monetary Union." A statement near the end of the bulletin reads, "On the day the North American Monetary Union is created--perhaps on January 1, 2010--Canada, the United States, and Mexico will replace their national currencies with the Amero. On that day, all American dollar notes and coins will be exchanged at the rate of one US dollar for one Amero."

Then much worst news came. On August 30 I received, indirectly from an email correspondent, an article from 'Vivelecanada.ca' entitled, "Timeline of the Progress Towards a North American Union". At the end of the timeline it projected that the North American Union would be created in 2007, three years before the projection of the Fraser Institute!

You might ask how we got into a situation where our country would be dismantled without our consent. Well, from World Net Daily we read that "the White House has established working groups, under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership (also called the North American Union) signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005". This was done without authorization of the U.S. Congress or any level of government in all three countries as far as I am able to ascertain.

Where is all this heading?

We are heading into a One World neo-fascistic government and a On

Police State in the US and Canada: The Radio Frequency ID Card

2007-04-13T17:01:00.000-07:00

Police State in the US and Canada: The Radio Frequency ID Card
Tracking device that will tell authorities where the holder is at any time

by Connie Fogal

Global Research, January 20, 2006

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

Let us be very clear! The radio frequency ID now required in the USA and intended for Canada is a tracking device that will tell authorities where the holder of this PASS card is at any time.

It is a location device.

The acronym PASS card tells all. It is an abbreviation for People Access Security Service.

The US Canada border already has and has had for some time a device that reads your car's licence information instantly transmitting to the border attendant all your identification the moment you approach the border guard station. What did you think that flashing light was that snapped a picture of your car before you are allowed to cross the demarcation line? They do not need a PASS card to do the identification of the person passing through the border.
Subjecting citizens of democracies to tracking devices is a violation of and tragedy for freedom.

S 6 (1) of the Charter reads "Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter,remain in, and leave Canada."

To require such a tracking ID card in order that one could move in an out of Canada violates this right. The Canadian Bill of Rights S 1(a) guarantees to Canadians the right to be free. To be tracked is not to be free.

Such location devices are already in some cell phones unknown to users. The justification made (if you discover the tracking capabilities) is that if someone steals your cell phones, authorities can instantly read the tracking information to locate the cell phone.

The same authorities can locate where you are at any point of time so long as you carry that cell phone. Some clothing from Walmart, some automobiles also carry such tracking devices.

What is going on here is the imposition and implementation of a police state in Fortress America extending its territory over all of North America.

Unless Canadians inform themselves of the process unfolding right now that fundamentally intends to deform Canada, we will all wake up soon to discover we do not have a democracy, nor freedom, nor a country.

On December 12,2001 John Manley, who was at that time the Liberal Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, entered an agreement with Tom Ridge, the USA Homeland Security Director, called the 30 point Smart Border Declaration.By that agreement both signatories on behalf of their respective countries promised to create a new regime of North America. That plan included, among other things, the promise to introduce the radio frequency ID cards, biometric identifiers in documentation( DNA markers, eyeprints, fingerprints), permanent resident cards, no fly lists (i.e. lists of people not allowed to fly.), no passport lists (i.e lists of people not allowed to renew their passports), surveillance of internet use, email, cell phone and fax communications, sharing of revenue Canada and census information (i.e. divulging all the personal and financial data of Canadians to the USA Homeland Security Office), and anti-terrorism legislation. .

Many other steps in this plan are also being effected . The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is working collaboratively with the United States Customs Service, the United State Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

The question is, how can such dramatic, profound, liberty stripping, and nation dissecting processes be in the works, actually being effected without Parliamentary debate and decision? The nation's business and destiny have passed out of the control of our citizens and our constitution.When Tom Manley signed that Smart Border declaration and then began its implementation via various departments of government, he was exercising dictatorial practice. He began a process of regime change in Canada. This betrayal of the sacred trust of Canada is far more egregious than the corruption revealed in the Gomery Enquiry. It reveals systemic, deliberate self destruction and sabotage of Canada.

The Smart Border Plan mirrors the recommendations of a USA, Canada, Mexico Task Force which recommendations were divulged on May 17, 2005.This task force is composed of the leading CEOs of the most powerful corporations in North America, prominent former officials, like Tom Manly who now heads that task force, business men and academic apologists from all three countries. They plan to unify North America. The recommendations include a common security perimeter by 2010. (Fortress America), a North American border pass with biometric identifiers, a unified border and expanded facilities, a single economic space,a common external tariff, a seamless movement of goods within North America, a North American energy strategy, a review of sectors of NAFTA that were excluded, a North American Regulatory plan that removes regulations, a permanent tribunal for disputes,an annual North American summit meeting.

So there you have it. This task force is the driving source and force of policy and practice that is changing the shape and fabric of Canada. Unelected, unaccountable, uncontrollable people and corporations are in control of our destiny,our lives, and our well-being.

In March of 2005 Prime Minister Martin and President Bush and President Fox signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement which adopts the Task Force Recommendations. Martin, Bush, and Fox then assigned three cabinet ministers in their respective countries to implement the deal. In Canada they are Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of Foreign affairs, David Emerson,Minister of Industry, Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minster of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (the last being a new department flowing from Task Force demands) . In June of 2005 the three ministers of each country reported their progress to date to the Leaders in a document called Report To Leaders, Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. They reference the intention that the deal be permanent, and irrevocable.

The Members of Parliament appear not to know about these deals. As Leader of the Canadian Action Party, I am running for Parliament in the Vancouver Kingsway riding, held by David Emerson , one of Canada's three Joe Boys. None of the other candidates know of these deals or talk of them. Emerson hides from his role in them. Other candidates seeking reelection in other ridings know nothing of them. None of them know about the existence of the No Passport list. Most know about the No Fly lists. Both of these appear to have been implemented by the bureaucracy without Parliamentary debate.

All of these agreements are being effected by a stealthy manoeuver of incremental presentation to Parliament and/or incremental bureaucratic departmental implementation. Some parts of the Smart Border Plan necessarily have to be dealt with in Parliament,like the liberty stripping anti-terrorist legislation passed in 2002, or the surveillance legislation to legalize spying on internet, e mail and cell phone use, etc. The surveillance legislation was before Parliament when the writ dropped and will be back after the new government convenes.

I have documented these agreements with their details and urls to sources in a three part article titled the Metamorphosis and Sabotage of Canada by our Own Government. See www.canadianctionparty.ca

We have already reached the stage many of us warned against since the introduction of various international agreements like NAFTA came on scene. Members of Parliament are now irrelevant. They are impotent in the face of these international agreements that cede power out of the nation's control to an unelected unaccountable body of Chief executive corporate officers, retired government officials, business men, and academics. They will remain so unless they reverse these arrangements. This election is a sham under this changing regime.

Only the Canadian Action Party is trying to expose these agreements. Only the Canadian Action Party calls for the abrogation of the FTA and NAFTA, the rescission of the anti-terrorist legislation, the cancelling of the aforesaid agreements arising out of the North American Task force as being unconstitutional and violations of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are , in fact, acts of treason.

Unless Canadians join in these demands, our nation, our country as we know it will continue to die. The anti- Canadians and anti democrats are in control. The fact that only this one small party is exposing this betrayal of Canada is a national disgrace. One can only conclude that the other Parties support this transfer of power out of their control, and are complicit in the death of the sovereignty of our nation which is not theirs to destroy. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not to political parties, nor unelected unaccountable bodies.

Devices that track citizen movement are only one part of a terrible intention

New Law slated to install Police State in Canada(2005)

2007-04-13T17:00:00.001-07:00

New Law slated to install Police State in Canada

by Connie Fogal

Global Research, August 24, 2005

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

Connie Fogal, Leader of CAP, says " 'NO' to an impending federal law to give police and national security agencies new powers to eavesdrop on cellphone calls and monitor the Internet activities of Canadians".

"This law is another destruction of Canadian freedom,"insists Fogal. "It moves Canada even further into the realm of a police state. This is an adjunct to our nefarious anti terrorism laws imposed on an uninformed citizenry by our Parliament and Senate. It is another elimination of some of our sovereign rights that were supposed to be guaranteed to us under our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is an act of stealth imposed under the guise of national security."

Fogal asks? "Why is this being done? Canada is mirroring recent U.S legislation because our government has committed Canada by stealth and backroom deals to a North American Union: US, Canada, and Mexico under US command and control. Information on this year's meeting by the three national leaders at Bush's ranch in Texas on North American Union has been revealed even in mainstream media."

"This latest piece of liberty stripping legislation is but one more incremental step of stealth because Canadians would not tolerate this if we were allowed to have full information of what is going on. This is an incredible situation," reported Fogal.

She continued, "Many Canadians fought and died in WW2 to stop this very kind of police state activity. What we are witnessing now with these types of laws is an exact pattern of liberty -stripping imposed by Hitler on Germans under the guise of 'National Security'. Good people there who turned a blind eye or failed to resist later discovered it was too late.Their liberty was completely eliminated . Eventually it reached a stage where even Germany's highest court judges were committing crimes by convicting innocent people. See the Nuremburg Trials. Even Judges are corruptible in such regimes. As Harry Rankin, Vancouver's renowned 25 year alderman and criminal lawyer, used to say, 'If you want justice, go to church,not to the courts. The courts are there to apply the law created by politicians.' "
"Fogal, a lawyer, said, "Canada along with many countries has been participating for years in an eavesdropping program called Echelon. That is illegal. What government is trying to do is make it legal. It is illegal because our system as a democracy had built in protections for the good and innocent. Police have to justify any invasion of privacy before a court of law. If the court did not accept the reason for the invasion, it was not allowed. This protection is core to civil liberties. We should not abandon it. We must not abandon it, if we are to be a free and democratic people."

"It is such hypocrisy for Canada to be supporting the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as deliverers of "freedom" when new local draconian laws at home are stripping Canadians and Americans of our liberty. It is time for a reality check," insisted Fogal.

"At a crucial point in 'the tide of the affairs of men' human beings have to take a stand and be counted. Better sooner than later when to do so means imprisonment or death, as happened in Germany. I, for one, say "NO" to another deceitful and wrongful law. I also speak as the leader of a small federal party voicing the view of thousands of Canadians who feel betrayed by the existing Parliamentarians,"said Fogal.

Neocon War Propaganda To Be Investigated

2007-04-13T16:54:00.001-07:00

Neocon War Propaganda To Be Investigated
Will panel investigate all the lies, foul play, deaths and cover ups surrounding the Tillman and Lynch cases or will it be another whitewash?

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, April 13, 2007

A U.S. House committee has announced it will hold hearings to investigate misleading military statements that followed the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan and the rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch in Iraq.

As reported by the Associated Press, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said an April 24 hearing will be part of its investigation into whether there was a strategy to mislead the public.

It will "examine why inaccurate accounts of these two incidents were disseminated, the sources and motivations for the accounts, and whether the appropriate administration officials have been held accountable,'' the panel said on its Web site.

The House Armed Services Committee also is considering Tillman hearings, a spokeswoman for that panel said Monday.

The Tillman and Lynch cases are two clear and blatant examples of how the government has consistently lied to the public about events during both the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, often spinning situations and distorting reality in order to put the US military occupations in a better light.

We have covered both cases extensively and exposed the propaganda and the cover ups that have followed, now it seems, rather encouragingly, that some within the House are taking an interest in uncovering the truth and exposing the lies perpetrated by the Neocon White House war machine.

The Lynch case is well documented. In 2003 facing flack and extreme criticism the Bush administration orchestrated a clear piece of war propaganda in an effort to rally the people behind the troops and the Invasion of Iraq.

In April 2003 the US Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company took a wrong turning near Nassiriya and was ambushed by Iraqi soldiers. Nine of Lynch's US comrades were killed. The Iraqis took Lynch to the local hospital, where she was kept for eight days.

The Iraqi soldiers fled the hospital days before Lynch's rescuers stormed it. The doctors there, having already tried and failed to return Lynch to the Americans after they fired upon an ambulance which she was being transported in, described the "rescue" as a Hollywood show, as special forces stormed in with cameras rolling.

"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried, 'Go, go, go', with guns and blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show - an action movie like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan, with jumping and shouting, breaking down doors." one doctor later recounted.

First, a U.S. military spokesman in Iraq was ordered by CENTCOM to tell journalists that soldiers exchanged fire during the Rambo like rescue, without adding that Iraqi soldiers had already abandoned the hospital, then the military released a green-tinted night-vision film of the mission, adding to the drama.

Releasing its five-minute film to the networks, the Pentagon then claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed, interrogated and possibly even raped.

Then news organizations began repeating reports that Lynch had heroically resisted capture, emptying her gun as she fired at her attackers.

But subsequent disclosures have proved all those details to be complete fabrications. Lynch was badly injured by the crash of her vehicle, her weapon jammed before she could fire, the Iraqi doctors made friends with her and treated her kindly, and the hospital was already in friendly hands when her rescuers arrived.

Asked by the ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer after the event if the military's portrayal of the rescue bothered her, Lynch said: "Yeah, it does. It does that they used me as a way to symbolize all this stuff. Yeah, it's wrong,".

Lynch went on the record quickly and has since gone on to denounce the whole debacle as outright propaganda. This was perhaps wise given that four of Lynch's rescuers and colleagues have coincidentally died since.

Petty Officer First Class David M. Tapper died of wounds received in Afghanistan. He took part in the rescue.

Lance Cpl. Sok Khak Ung was killed in a drive-by shooting. He was also part of the rescue team.

Spc Josh Daniel Speer died when his car crashed into some trees for no apparent reason. He was part of the rescue team.

Kyle Edward Williams, who worked in the same company as Lynch, died of "suicide".

Will the House committee be investigating these deaths as part of the hearings?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us help you reach a huge audience of potential customers. Help support the website and take advantage of low advertising rates. Click here for more info.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have previously reported on how Pat Tillman's tragic death was also seized upon and used as a cheap propaganda tool by the government for the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. His death may have even been a criminal plot manufactured to this end, a suspicion that both military investigators and Tillman's family have repeated.

After his death it was announced that Tillman, the All American poster boy, the former sporting hero who had traded in his football boots for army boots after witnessing the 9/11 attacks, had been tragically gunned down by evil Taliban terrorists whilst he was charging up a hill side to attack, bellowing orders to fellow Rangers.

A nationally televised memorial service and a Silver Star commendation cemented Tillman's place as the nation's first war hero since the story of Jessica Lynch's capture and phony details of her rescue were foisted on the public in 2003.

The truth was that Tillman's death was being exploited for public relations purposes by the U.S. military and the administration.

Weeks later, the Army acknowledged that Tillman had been a victim of friendly fire whilst on a routine patrol.

Tillman's platoon of the Second Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, began the day that he died dealing with a minor annoyance in the southeastern part of Afghanistan where the soldiers were conducting sweeps, the Army records show, one of their vehicles would not start.

Against their own policy and after the overruling of some objections, the platoon split into two parts so that half the team, including Tillman, could go on to the next town for sweeps while the second half could tow the disabled vehicle to a drop-off spot.

But both groups ended up in the same twisting canyon, along the same road, without radio communication. And after the sounds of an enemy ambush, three Rangers in the second group wound up firing at members of the first group — at an Afghan soldier who was fighting alongside Tillman, and then at Tillman himself.

The Afghan was killed. According to testimony, Tillman, who along with others on the hill waved his arms and yelled “cease fire,” set off a smoke grenade to identify his group as fellow soldiers. There was a momentary lull in the firing, and he and the soldier next to him, thinking themselves safe, relaxed, stood up and started talking. But the shooting resumed. Tillman was hit in the wrist with shrapnel and in his body armor with numerous bullets.

The soldier next to him testified: “I could hear the pain in his voice as he called out, ‘Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat f—ing Tillman, dammit.” He said this over and over until he stopped,” having been hit by three bullets in the forehead, killing him.

It was also admitted that soldiers destroyed evidence — Tillman's uniform and flak vest — after the shooting, claiming that they were a "biohazard". However another soldier involved offered a contradictory take, saying "the uniform and equipment had blood on them and it would stir emotion" that needed to be suppressed until the Rangers finished their work overseas.

An initial investigation by then-Capt. Richard Scott, interviewed all four shooters, their driver, and many others who were there. He concluded within a week that while some of the gunmen demonstrated "gross negligence" others demonstrated "criminal intent" and recommended further investigation to push for the harshest possible criminal sentencing.

But Scott's report disappeared after circulating briefly among a small corps of high-ranking officers. Some of Tillman's relatives think the Army buried the report because its findings indicated foul play. Army officials refused to provide a copy to the media, saying no materials related to the investigation could be released. A second investigation was then commenced by a higher ranking officer which called for less severe punishment.

Richard Scott later gave testimony alleging that Army officials allowed witnesses to change key details in their sworn statements so his findings could be softened.

Scott stated “watching some of these guys getting off, what I thought … was a lesser of a punishment than what they should’ve received. And I will tell you, over a period of time … the stories have changed. They have changed to, I think, help some individuals.”

The document containing Scott's testimony was reviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle. In a published story in September 2005 the Chronicle highlighted the following passage from Scott:

“They had the entire chain of command (inaudible) that were involved, the [deleted], all sticking up for [deleted] … And the reason the [deleted] called me in … because the [deleted] … changed their story in how things occurred and the timing and the distance in an attempt to stick up for their counterpart, implied, insinuated that the report wasn’t as accurate as I submitted it …”

In another section of his testimony, he said witnesses changed details regarding “the distance, the time, the location, the lighting conditions and the positioning” in Tillman’s killing.

There are many other examples of conflicting testimony in the Tillman case including the fact that he may not have been killed immediately and was certainly given CPR hours after being shot in the head three times.

At least one Army officer, the records show, changed his sworn statements about which supervisor had actually ordered the split of the platoon and what conversations had occurred before the order was given.

A further review of the case by the Pentagon's inspector general,Gen. Gary M. Jones found that Army officers told soldiers to remain quiet about the circumstances of Tillman's death for fear of negative news coverage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv.
Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films,
books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One or more members of the Tillman family will testify in the new hearings, in addition to Jessica Lynch herself.

The Tillman family have been very reluctantly outspoken since the tragic Death of Pat Tillman, "All I asked for is what happened to my son, and it has been lie after lie after lie," Tillman's father told the New York Times, explaining that he believed the matter should remain "between me and the military" but that he had grown too troubled to keep silent.

Quoted elsewhere Mr Tillman has stated “The administration clearly was using this case for its own political reasons... This cover-up started within minutes of Pat’s death, and it started at high levels. This is not something that (lower-ranking) people in the field do,” he said.

"After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this," Mr Tillman has said. "They purposely interfered with the investigation …. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out."

Mr Tillman is certain that a cover up has been perpetrated and believes his son's death may not even have been an accident.

"There is so much nonstandard conduct, both before and after Pat was killed, that you have to start to wonder," Mr. Tillman said. "How much effort would you put into hiding an accident? Why do you need to hide an accident?"

Kevin Tillman, Pat's brother (pictured above) has also been very outspoken and recently slammed the Bush administration and the war in Iraq in a lengthy article. Kevin Tillman wrote:

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.
Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.
Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.
Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.
Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.
Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.
Somehow torture is tolerated.
Somehow lying is tolerated.
Indeed, it has been revealed since his death that Pat Tillman was himself highly critical of the war in Iraq where he also served a tour of duty. Fellow soldiers have described the well spoken, well educated Tillman as having strong views, often openly stating "this war is so f— illegal." and describing Tillman as "totally against Bush.”

Moved in part by the 9/11 attacks, Tillman decided to give up his career, saying he wanted to fight al Qaeda and help find Osama bin Laden. He spurned an offer of a three year, $3.6 million NFL contract extension with Arizona Cardinals and joined the Army in June 2002.

Instead of going to Afghanistan, as Tillman expected, their Ranger battalion was sent to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Word of the new hearings comes three years after Tillman was killed and two weeks after the Pentagon released the latest findings of its own investigations into Pat Tillman's death. The latest report once again faults as many as nine officers as responsible for mistakes and irregularities during the investigation into Tillman's death, but also dismisses the notion of a cover up, much the same as a previous report did in 2005.

In all, the Army and Defense Department have conducted five investigations into Tillman's April 22, 2004 death, with the most recent one pointing toward high-ranking military officers knowing the circumstances of his death long before Tillman's family.

As reported by the AP, a memo sent to a four-star general a week after Tillman's death revealed that then-Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that it was "highly possible" the Army Ranger was killed by friendly fire. McChrystal made it clear his warning should be conveyed to the president.

The memo was provided to the AP by a government official who requested anonymity because the document was not released as part of the Pentagon's official report into the way the Army brass withheld the truth. McChrystal was, and still is, commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, head of "black ops" forces and was the highest-ranking officer accused of wrongdoing in the report.

Tillman's parents have since stated that they believe the memo backs the cover up theory. "He knew it was friendly fire in the very beginning, and he never intervened to help, and he essentially has covered up a crime in order to promote the war," Mary Tillman said in a telephone interview. "All of this was done for PR purposes."

As the AP commented, The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although it is encouraging that the high profile Tillman and Lynch cases are being investigated, it seems there are countless others that should be deserving of the same treatment. One such example is the case of Jess Buryj, a soldier from Canton, Ohio, who (it turns out) died in a friendly fire incident – shot in the back.

When his parents were told by the U.S. military that Polish soldiers were responsible for his death, a soldier who served with Buryi could not bear for the truth to be buried and so told Buryi's parents that an American G.I. was actually at fault. Buryj’s father was so shaken by the alleged cover-up that he came to question whether the body they buried was even their son’s.

Again and again, the press, the public, parents and spouses have been lied to about how young Americans in the military have died. The lies and the propaganda are endemic, just as the Bush government cannot afford to allow Americans to see flag draped coffins coming home, nor can they allow the truth of the war machine to be exposed and jeopardize their international killing spree.

Bush asks Congress to alter 1978 eavesdropping law

2007-04-13T16:52:00.001-07:00

Bush asks Congress to alter 1978 eavesdropping law

David Morgan
Reuters
Friday, April 13, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration asked Congress on Friday to expand the number of people it can subject to electronic surveillance in the United States.

The request was contained in a proposed bill authored by intelligence and Justice Department officials that also protects companies that cooperate with spy operations.

Legislation submitted a week ahead of a Senate hearing on government surveillance practices calls for the 1978 law that governs eavesdropping operations to be updated to combat the threat from Islamist militants who use computer and wireless technology that did not exist in the 1970s.

It was not clear what kind of reception the proposal would receive in Congress, where Democrats took over in January for the first time since 1994.

But the move was likely to reinvigorate a congressional debate over the effectiveness of the generation-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Several efforts to update the law, designed to oversee electronic eavesdropping against foreign agents operating inside the United States, failed in Congress last year.

"The Justice Department is selling this new bill as a better way to protect our privacy and civil liberties. Lawmakers should reject such false advertising," said Caroline Fredrickson of the American Civil Liberties Union.

FISA, which requires the government to get court warrants for surveillance, was at the center of political controversy over President George W. Bush's domestic spying program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without warrants.

The program was suspended for a review by a secret federal court that grants FISA warrants.

TWO NEW CATEGORIES

Senior administration officials, who spoke to reporters only on condition of anonymity, said they proposed to add two new categories of non-U.S. persons to FISA's definition for foreign agents who can be targeted for surveillance.

Under current law, a U.S. person is either a U.S. citizen or a foreign national with permanent residence status.

"It adds a new category of individuals to the non-U.S. person-agent-of-a-foreign-power definition to include people who we believe have significant foreign intelligence information but where the relationship between that person and the foreign power is unclear," said one official.

Foreign powers can include the governments of other countries as well as militant groups including al Qaeda.

A second new category of foreign agents would be non-U.S. persons involved in a deliberate attempt to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

The bill extends the life of court warrants that authorize eavesdropping on non-U.S. persons from 120 days to one year.

It also shields companies against legal liabilities if they participate in "lawful" eavesdropping activities.

Major telecommunications companies accused of participating in the NSA spying program have faced federal lawsuits charging involvement in illegal espionage.

Another main thrust of the bill is to drop FISA provisions by dropping references to older technology and refocusing the instead law on categories of persons who can be targeted.

O'Donnell 9/11 Rant Reaches 30 Million Viewers

2007-04-13T14:59:00.000-07:00

O'Donnell 9/11 Rant Reaches 30 Million Viewers
Promises to feature physics professor on The View to discuss WTC collapse

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, March 29, 2007

Rosie O'Donnell is certainly not backing away from her public stance about 9/11, and this morning on The View went on a 9 minute rant about the many questions surrounding the attack, reaching around 30 million viewers in the process.

This is the largest single exposure 9/11 truth has enjoyed to date and it represents a watershed moment in the quest to bring the truth to the masses.

Rosie O'Donnell is certainly not backing away from her public stance about 9/11, and this morning on The View went on a rant about the many questions surrounding the collapse of Building 7, reaching around 30 million viewers in the process.

This is the largest single exposure 9/11 truth has enjoyed to date and it represents a watershed moment in the quest to bring the truth to the masses.

O'Donnell and her co-panelists debate the situation concerning Iran's seizure of the British marines before O'Donnell states, "Historically, have governments ever faked incidents or incited incidents in order to get them into wars?"

The discussion then moves on to the level of trust one can place in the Bush administration before O'Donnell asks, "What do you have to do to get an impeachment in this country?"

The debate moves on to the "propaganda of the war on terror," with O'Donnell stating, "In America we are fed propaganda and if you want to know what's happening in the world go outside of the U.S. media because it's owned by four corporations, one of them is this one (ABC)."

"Go outside of the country to find out what's going on in our own country because it's frightening."

"I think Democracy is threatened in a way it hasn't been in 200 years and if America doesn't stand up we're in big trouble," says O'Donnell.

Neo-Con panelist Elizabeth Hasselbeck tries to make an argument that thinking Iraq was involved in 9/11 was justifiable at the time, before asking O'Donnell if she believed the U.S. government had anything to do with 9/11.

"No, but I do believe it's the first time in history that fire has melted steel - I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Building 7, which collapsed in on itself, it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved - World Trade Center 7."

"One and two got hit by planes, 7 miraculously the first time in history, steel was melted by fire - it is physically impossible," states O'Donnell.

"I don't know but to say we don't know and it was imploded in a demolition is beyond ignorant, look at the films get a physics expert here from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school, it defies reason."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a video blog posted on her website yesterday, O'Donnell promised to feature physics professors on The View to discuss the highly suspicious collapse of the WTC towers.

"The thing about World Trade Center 7 is that it was totally left out of the 9/11 Commission - that's weird," said O'Donnell.

"It's only the third time in history that fire has brought down a steel building, the other two times it happened was on the same day, World Trade Center One and World Trade Center Two - they both crumbled into dust and it was steel - very odd."

"I wanna have some physics professors on the show to explain if that is actually possible, that World Trade Center 7 could have imploded the way it did without being a controlled demolition - and if it was a controlled demolition why didn't they just tell people that in the 9/11 Commission Report?"

Come back soon to watch the video clip from this morning's The View

rosie speaking about 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPtEQk0k3YI

petition to support rosies right to free speech
http://www.a-free-guestbook.com/guestbook.php?username=infowars

Is the tv show 24 propaganda? you decide

2007-04-13T10:36:00.000-07:00

Fox Show "24": Torture on TV

By Jon Wiener, TheNation.com. Posted January 15, 2007.

With at least one big torture scene in every episode and steadily increasing ratings, TV show "24" is more convincing than the White House at making the case for torture. Tools

"24" is back on Fox TV -- the hit show starring Kiefer Sutherland, which premiered Sunday night, once again features at least one big torture scene in every episode -- the kind of torture the Bush White House says is necessary to protect us from you-know-who.

The show is much more convincing than the White House at making the case for torture; its ratings have gone steadily up over the last five years, while Bush's ratings have gone steadily down.

In "24," Sutherland plays special agent Jack Bauer, head of the Counter Terrorism Unit. He fights some of his biggest battles not with the dark-skinned enemies trying to nuke L.A., but rather with the light-skinned do-gooders who think the head of the Counter Terrorism Unit should follow the rules.

Back in season four, for example, the bumbling bureaucrats released a captured terrorist before he could be tortured -- because a lawyer for "Amnesty Global" showed up whining about the Geneva Conventions. Jack had to quit the Counter Terrorist Unit and become a private citizen in order to break the suspect's fingers.

It's especially unfortunate to see Kiefer Sutherland play the world's most popular torturer -- because his father, Donald Sutherland, has been a prominent antiwar activist since Vietnam days and starred in some great films critiquing fascist politics, including "MASH" and Bertolucci's "1900" -- and also because Kiefer's grandfather, Tommy Douglas, was Canada's first socialist premier, and was recently voted "the greatest Canadian of all time" -- because he introduced universal public health care to Canada. The grandson meanwhile is being paid $10 million a season by Rupert Murdoch to shoot kneecaps, chop off hands, and bite his enemies to death (Sunday's special thrill).

The show's connection to the Bush White House and the conservative establishment became explicit last June, when Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff appeared alongside the show's producers and three cast members at an event sponsored by the Heritage Foundation to discuss "The public image of US terrorism policy." The discussion was moderated by Rush Limbaugh. The C-SPAN store sells a DVD of the event--price reduced from $60 to $29.95. Sunday night's two-hour premiere again argued not just that torture is necessary but that it works -- and it's also really exciting to watch. The show as usual made the "ticking time bomb" case for torture: we need to torture a suspect, or else thousands, or millions, will die in the next hour.

It's the same case made by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who proposed that judges ought to issue torture warrants in the "rare 'ticking bomb' case," and by University of Chicago law professor and federal judge Richard Posner, who has written, "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used." He added that "no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility."

Thanks to "24," tens of millions of TV viewers know exactly what Dershowitz and Posner are talking about. As Richard Kim pointed out in The Nation in 2005, those are the cases where "the stakes are dire, the information perfect and the authorities omniscient." Of course that's a fantasy of total knowledge and power, and of course the U.S. has never had a real "ticking time bomb" case -- but Jack Bauer faces one every Sunday night on Fox.

Cartoon Network Contains 'New World Order' Propaganda

2007-04-13T10:29:00.000-07:00

(article and video http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/281205cartoonnetwork.htm

Prison Planet | December 28 2005

This is a clip from a show recently broadcast on Cartoon Network.

It contains two references to the 'New World Order' even though it is totally out of context and has no reason for being included.

Time and time again we hear 'New World Order' included in children's programming, sitcoms like Friends and numerous other popular TV shows.

Why is it included? Obviously not every example is part of a secret conspiracy.

Nevertheless, in some instances it is clearly an example of the elite dropping their 'gang sign' as a form of communication and as a way to externalize the hierarchy.

Others suggest it is just an arrogant Illuminati laughing in our faces.

Watch the clip and decide for yourself

Gene mutations behind fidgety kids: German scientists

2007-04-13T07:55:00.000-07:00

Gene mutations behind fidgety kids: German scientists

AFP
Thursday, April 12, 2007

Scientists in Germany said Thursday they have found compelling evidence of a genetic link to hyperactivity in children, identifying three mutations prevalent in fidgety youngsters.

A research team led by Professor Johannes Hebebrand of the University of Duisburg-Essen in western Germany studied 329 families in which one child had attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder syndrome.

They found that a great majority -- around 70 percent -- had a combination of three mutations in the gene for the so-called dopamine transporter linked to hyperactivity.

"People who have this combination in both copies of the gene have a 2.5 increased ADHD risk. People with only one copy of this variant still have almost twice the risk," Hebebrand said in a statement.

"Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone who has the genetic variants will automatically get the disease."

He noted that even healthy children can have such variations and that it requires several gene mutations happening at once for ADHD to result.

The study provides firmer genetic evidence for the role of the dopamine transporter in hyperactivity than had been found to date, Hebebrand said.

ADHD is the most common psychiatric disorder among children and adolescents, with boys affected three or four times as often as girls.

The Federal Reserve Is A PRIVATELY OWNED Corporation

2007-04-13T07:22:00.000-07:00

The Federal Reserve Is A PRIVATELY OWNED Corporation
By Thomas D. Schauf
© 1992
11-28-98

Note - Even though this was originally released in 1992, the essential information in it is more relevant today than ever.

Acknowledgements:

Our country likes to thank our forefathers for the Constitution.

I wish to thank Mr. Lou Gamboa for his research of the Constitution and our banking system. Lou Gamboa is a national speaker on the subject, and has spoken on numerous radio programs in an effort to educate the public.

I also want to thank Bob Corcoran for his research and encouragement.

I applaud the thousands of patriotic Americans who are spreading the word so we can live in economic prosperity and uphold our Constitutional rights.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF.

IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE ITS POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP. (Reference 22, P. 168)

Rothschild, a London Banker, wrote a letter saying "It (Central Bank ) gives the National Bank almost complete control of national finance. The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class... The great body of the people, mentally incapable of comprehending, will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical (contrary) to their interests." [The bankers created the legislation for the FED]

In 1913, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Mr. Alexander stated: "But the whole scheme of a Federal Reserve Bank with its commercial-paper basis is an impractical, cumbersome machinery, is simply a cover, to find a way to secure the privilege of issuing money and to evade payment of as much tax upon circulation as possible, and then control the issue and maintain, instead of reduce, interest rates. It is a system that, if inaugurated, will prove to the advantage of the few and the detriment of the people of the United States. It will mean continued shortage of actual money and further extension of credits; for when there is a lack of real money people have to borrow credit to their cost."

Dear American:

Pursuant to your request, I will attempt to clear up questions you have about the Federal Reserve Bank (FED). I spent much time researching the FED and these are the shocking and revealing conclusions.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value.

The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners (stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share - the stock is not publicly traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison (Reference 1, 14). The FED banking system collects billions of dollars (Reference 8, 17) in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud (Reference 1,2,3,5,17).

Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed:

Rothschild Bank of London Warburg Bank of Hamburg Rothschild Bank of Berlin Lehman Brothers of New York Lazard Brothers of Paris Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy Goldman, Sachs of New York Warburg Bank of Amsterdam Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (Reference 14, P. 13, Reference 12, P. 152)

These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America (our forefathers were fighting their own government), they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt (Reference 4, 22).

The individuals listed below owned banks which in turn owned shares in the FED. The banks listed below have significant control over the New York FED District, which controls the other 11 FED Districts. These banks also are partly foreign owned and control the New York FED District Bank. (Reference 22)

First National Bank of New York James Stillman National City Bank, New York Mary W. Harnman

National Bank of Commerce, New York A.D. Jiullard

Hanover National Bank, New York Jacob Schiff

Chase National Bank, New York Thomas F. Ryan Paul Warburg William Rockefeller Levi P. Morton M.T. Pyne George F. Baker Percy Pyne Mrs. G.F. St. George J.W. Sterling Katherine St. George H.P. Davidson J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life) Edith Brevour T. Baker (Reference 4 for above, Reference 22 has details, P. 92, 93, 96, 179)

How did it happen? After previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson's campaign for President. He had committed to sign this act. In 1913, a Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas when much of Congress was on vacation (Reference 3, 4, 5). When elected, Wilson passed the FED. Later, Wilson remorsefully replied (referring to the FED), "I have unwittingly ruined my country" (Reference 17, P. 31).

Now the banks financially back sympathetic candidates. Not surprisingly, most of these candidates are elected (Reference 1, P. 208-210, Reference 12, P. 235, Reference 14, P. 36). The bankers employ members of the Congress on weekends (nickname T club -out Thursday...-in Tuesday) with lucrative salaries (Reference 1, P. 209). Additionally, the FED started buying up the media in the 1930's and now owns or significantly influences most of it Reference 3, 10, 11, P. 145).

Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers by printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest (Reference 4). Today, if the government runs a deficit, the FED prints dollars through the U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the dollars are circulated into the economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system $286 billion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing money virtually cost free (Reference 12, P. 265). Forty percent of our personal federal income taxes goes to pay this interest. The FED's books are not open to the public. Congress has yet to audit it.

Congressman Wright Patman was Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency for 40 years. For 20 of those years, he introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913.

Congressman Henry Gonzales, Chairman of a banking committee, introduces legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913 nearly every year. It's always defeated, the media remains silent, and the public never learns the truth. The same bankers who own the FED control the media and give huge political contributions to sympathetic members of Congress (Reference 12, P. 155-163, Reference 22, P. 158, 159, 166).

THE FED FEARS THE POPULATION WILL BECOME AWARE OF THIS FRAUD AND DEMAND CHANGE

We, the People, are at fault for being passive and allowing this to continue.

Rep. Louis T. McFadden (R. Pa.) rose from office boy to become cashier and then President of the First National Bank in Canton Ohio. For 12 years he served as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, making him one of the foremost financial authorities in America. He fought continuously for fiscal integrity and a return to constitutional government (Reference 1). The following are portions of Rep. McFadden's speech, quoted from the Congressional Record, pages 12595-12603:

"THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, A GOVERNMENT BOARD, HAS CHEATED THE GOVERNMENTOF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OUT OF ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY THE NATIONAL DEBT.

The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks acting together have cost this country ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY THE NATIONAL DEBT SEVERAL TIMES OVER."

About the Federal Reserve banks, Rep. McFadden said, "They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; the rich and predatory money lenders. This is an era of economic misery and for the reasons that caused that misery, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are fully liable."

On the subject of media control he state, "Half a million dollars was spent on one part of the propaganda organized by those same European bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion in regard to it."

Rep. McFadden continued, "Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has USURPED THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT CONTROLS EVERYTHING HERE AND IT CONTROLS ALL OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. IT MAKES AND BREAKS GOVERNMENTS AT WILL.

No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. These evil-doers have robbed this country of more than enough money to pay the national debt. What the Government has permitted the Federal Reserve Board to steal from the people should now be restored to the people."

"Our people's money to the extent of $1,200,000,000 has within the last few months been shipped abroad to redeem Federal Reserve Notes and to pay other gambling debts of the traitorous Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. The greater part of our monetary stock has been shipped to foreigners. Why should we promise to pay the debts of foreigners to foreigners? Why should American Farmers and wage earners add millions of foreigners to the number of their dependents? Why should the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks be permitted to finance our competitors in all parts of the world?" Rep. McFadden asked.

"The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed and the Federal Reserve banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately.

FAITHLESS GOVERNMENT OFFICERS WHO HAVE VIOLATED THEIR OATHS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND BROUGHT TO TRIAL", Rep. McFadden concluded (Reference 1, contains an entire chapter on http://www.myfreeoffice.com/dwi/McFadden.htmlRep. McFadden's speech).

If the media is unbiased, independent and completely thorough, why haven't they discussed the FED? Currently, half the states have at least a grass roots movement in action to abolish the FED, but there's no press coverage. In July, 1968, the House Banking Subcommittee reported that Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9% of the stock in CBS. Furthermore, the bank had gained interlocking directorates with ABC.

In 1974, Congress issued a report stating that the Chase Manhattan Bank's stake in CBS rose to 14.1% and NBC to 4.5% (through RCA, the parent company of NBC). The same report said that the Chase Manhattan Bank held stock in 28 broadcasting firms. After this report, the Chase Manhattan Bank obtained 6.7% of ABC, and today the percentage could be much greater. It only requires 5% ownership to significantly influence the media (Reference 14, P. 56-57). This is only one of 300 wealthy shareholders of the FED. It is believed other FED owners have similar holdings in the media. To control the media, FED bankers call in their loans if the media disagrees with them (Reference 25, P. 134-137).

Rockefeller also controls the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the sole purpose of which is to aid in stimulating greater interest in foreign affairs and in a one world government. Nearly every major newscaster belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations. The Council on Foreign Relations controls many major newspapers and magazines. Additionally, major corporations owned by FED shareholders are the source of huge advertising revenues which surely would influence the media (Reference 14, P. 56-59). It can be no wonder why groups such as FED-UP(tm) receive minimal, if any, press attention.

How do taxpayers stop financing those whose purpose it is to destroy us? First, expose their activity, then demand change.

THE SOLUTION

Currently all we do is exchange FED money (interest attached) for real U.S. money (interest-free) dollar for dollar as Kennedy tried to do. We should not be required to pay interest on our own currency. According to Benjamin Franklin, this was one of the primary reasons we fought the Revolutionary War. Today we are still fighting the same family of bankers (Reference 4, Reference 1, P. 211, 212).

The U.S. Government can buy back the FED at any time for $450 million (per Congressional record). The U.S. Treasury could then collect all the profit on our money instead of the 300 original shareholders of the FED. The $4 trillion of U.S. debt could be exchanged dollar for dollar with U.S. non- interest bearing currency when the debt becomes due. There would be no inflation because there would be no additional currency in circulation. Personal income tax could be cut if we bought back the FED and therefore, the economy would expand. According to the Constitution, Congress is to control the creation of money, keeping the amount of inflation or deflation in check. If Congress isn't doing their job, they should be voted out of office. Unfortunately, voters can't vote the FED or its Chairman out of office.

If the government has a deficit, we could handle it as Lincoln and Kennedy did. Print money and circulate it into the economy, but this time interest-free. Today the FED, through foreign banks, owns much of our debt and therefore controls us. The FED will cease to exist as taxpayers become informed and tell other taxpayers. The news media and Congress will have no choice but to meet the demands of grass roots America. (Reference 1, P. 17, 22)

AMERICA DECEIVED

By law (check the Congressional record), we can buy back the FED for the original investment of the FED's 300 shareholders, which is $450 million (Reference 1, P. 227, Reference 17, P. 36). If each taxpayer paid $25, we could buy back the FED and all the profit would flow into the U.S. Treasury. In other words, by Congress allowing the constitutionally illegal FED to continue, much of your taxes go to the shareholders of the FED and their bankers. Note: The people who enacted the FED started the IRS, within months of the FED's inception. The FED buys U.S. debt with money they printed from nothing, then charges the U.S. taxpayers interest. The government had to create income tax to pay the interest expense to the FED's shareholders, but the income tax was never legally passed (Reference 20 shows details, state-by-state why it was not legally passed). The FED is illegal, per Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Not one state legally ratified the 16th Amendment making income tax legal.

Currently, fewer and fewer Americans are being convicted for refusal to pay income taxes. In IRS jury trials, the jury, by law, must decide if the law is just. If taxpayers do not believe the law is just, the jury may declare the accused innocent. Judges are legally bound to inform juries of their right to determine the fairness of a law. Judges often do not disclose this information so they can control the court outcome. Luckily, more and more citizens are becoming informed. If one juror feels the law is unfair, they can find the defendant innocent (Reference 19). In Utah, the IRS quit prosecuting taxpayers because jurors verdict is not guilty. Please tell your friends and sit in the next jury.

If we eliminate the FED and uphold the Constitution, we could balance the budget and cut personal income tax to almost nothing. In Congressional hearings on September 30, 1941, FED Chairman Eccles admitted that the FED creates new money from thin air (printing press), and loans it back to us at interest (Reference 17, P. 93). On June 6, 1960, FED President Mr. Allen admitted essentially the same thing (Reference 22, P. 164). If you or I did this we would go to jail.

It is time to abolish the FED! Tell your friends the truth and win America back. We don't even need to buy back the FED. We only need to print money the way the Constitution requires, not the new proposed international money. We want to keep our sovereignty and print real U.S. money.

Why has Congress allowed the FED to continue? If a Congressperson tries to abolish the FED, the banks fund the Congressperson's opponent in the next election (Reference 17, P. 35). The new Congressperson will obviously support the FED. When Congresspeople retire, political campaign funds are not taxed. Get elected and be a millionaire if you vote right. By the way, the profit of the FED is not taxed either (Reference 1, 9). Once America understands, and takes action, Congresspeople will then gladly abolish the FED. In 1992, Illinois Congressman Crane introduced a bill, co-sponsored by 40 other Congressman, to audit the FED. This is a step in the right direction.

America is a great nation. As "We the People" become informed, the media and Congress will be forced to buy back the FED, balance the budget, significantly cut taxes, and stop allowing bribes to determine voting strategies. I have already heard from politicians who claim they will change their platform to include abolishing the FED if enough people become informed.

IT IS UP TO YOU TO INFORM THE PEOPLE

The FED hopes you will be passive and not act on this information. We believe in grass roots America - we are waking up America. Ultimately, the battle plan is to inform all Americans and demand change in the media and Congress. True Americans should run for office and throw out the politicians who allow this fraud to continue. Congress may refuse to deal with this issue. That's why each person needs to go to their local county/state government with the proper paperwork and ask them to abolish the FED. With the proper documents, they are legally obligated to do it.

WE NEED LEADERS TO BEGIN THIS ACTION. WILL YOU HELP?

Consider this fact. Most of the given sources in this booklet show how the bloodline of family bankers who own the FED funded both sides of all major wars. They created fake colonial money to destroy the Americans during the Revolutionary War and tried to finance both sides in the American Civil War. Abraham Lincoln refused and the South accepted. Many publications show that these bankers financed World War I, World War II, and the Russian Revolutionary War, which helped Napoleon, Lenin, and Hitler come to power. They financed both sides from money created from nothing and profited greatly. These same bankers created a number of American depressions to change the U.S. legislation and seize our wealth. Read the sources for details. This is why our forefathers wrote in the Constitution that only Congress can issue money - not private banks (Reference 18).

More wars create more debt which means more profit to the bankers (Reference 1, 21). These bankers planned three world wars so people would welcome United Nations intervention to govern the world in peace, not war. (Reference 22 gives specific details on World War I and World War II, showing exactly how the bankers were responsible for the beginning and continuation of these wars for their profit).

The banks have publicly announced they will force us to a cashless society by 1997. Furthermore, they plan to create a one world government through the United Nations headed by the FED, Trilaterals, and the Council on Foreign Relations (Reference 3). By the definition of treason, they have committed treason! This means you lose your rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Does this sound far fetched? Twenty-four U.S. Senators (two of them presidential candidates, Harkin & Tsongas) and 80 Representatives have signed a "Declaration of Interdependence." This Declaration, designed to make a one world government, is treason to the oath of office they took. The media remained silent. The FED announced publicly that their first objective was to get nationalism out of the American people's heads because patriotism to a country would not be of value in the future. The media makes us think the U.N. has all the answers, and to "think globally." Congress passed a law stopping certain individuals from being tried for this treason (Reference 6, Reference 1, P. 191-198). Why pass this law if no treason was committed? State Department document 7277 calls for the disarming of America, thus turning our sovereignty over to a one-world government. Again, the media is pushing to eliminate guns. Our forefathers believed that the right to bear arms would prevent a takeover of our government. History shows that before any government took over, they disarmed the citizens. Hitler did it, and before our Revolutionary War, King George told us to disarm - good thing we didn't!

Under the Federal Reserve Bank Act, the bankers control our economy. The FED controls interest rates and the amount of money in the economy. These factors determine either economic prosperity or the lack thereof. Bankers are now pushing for a one world government and a cashless society. Why cashless? No cash means no money for drugs, no theft, and the ability to collect taxes on the underground economy. Anyone who wouldn't support a cashless society must be a drug dealer, thief, or tax evader, right? What a cashless society really means is the banks can now control you. Today you fear the IRS. In a cashless society, if you disagree with the bankers' political goals, you'll find your money gone via computer error. (For additional information on a cashless society, read Reference 13, P. 174; Reference 3; Reference 14, P. 9-12; Reference 15, P. 136; Reference 25, P. 216).

If you could accurately predict future interest rates, inflation and deflation, you would know when to buy or sell stocks and make a bundle of money. The FED has secret meetings (per Congressional Record) to determine future interest rates and the amount of money to be printed. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) by law, stops insiders from profiting by privileged information. Congressional records prove that FED bankers routinely hold secret meetings to profit by manipulating the stock market via interest rates and the amount of money they create. FED bankers also profit greatly from economic disasters like the Depression (Reference 22, P. 56). The bankers create inflation, sell their stocks before the market crashes, then buy up stocks at cheaper prices. Bankers admitted this to Congress. This violates the law, yet Congress does not act because these bankers are large political contributors (Reference 17, P. 96-98; Reference 1, P. 162-163; Reference 22, P. 114-170 & P. 136). Thomas Jefferson predicted this scenario if we ever allowed a private bank, like the FED, to create our currency (Reference 1, P. 247).

FED Chairman Burns states "Killing can be made simply by knowing the next few months newspapers ahead of time." Congressman Patman said "The FED officials own more than 100 million dollars (of stocks) while making decisions influencing these stock prices..." (Reference 24, P. 123). History proves that banks profit from bankrupting a nation (Reference 22, P. 56).

Congress consistently defeats balanced budget amendments. In the past 30 years, Congress has raised our taxes 56 times and balanced the budget only once. We need the sound banking system our forefathers wanted us to have. History proves that banking systems like the FED don't work. Major world powers have been destroyed over similar banking systems (Reference 1). If we don't change this system NOW, in five years the only thing our taxes will pay is the interest on the national debt.

Section 7 of the Federal Reserve Act, passed December 23, 1913, states that much of the profit of the FED should flow into the U.S. Treasury. In 1959, new legislation allowed the FED to transfer bonds to commercial banks at no cost to the bank. Now the FED receives less interest income and less profit for the U.S. Treasury because the money is diverted to other banks through an accounting entry (Reference 17, P. 115-130). Congress and the IRS do not have access to the financial records of the FED. Every year Congress introduces legislation to audit the FED, and every year it is defeated. The FED banking system could easily be netting 100s of billions in profit each year. Through "creative accounting" profit can easily be reclassified as expense (Reference 14, P. 20, Reference 17, P. 239). Within the first few years, the shareholders of the FED received their initial investment back with no risk. All the income is tax-free, except for property tax, according to the Federal Reserve Act. When are the profits of the FED going to start flowing into the Treasury so that average Americans are no longer burdened with excessive, unnecessary taxes? Clearly, Congress cannot or will not control the FED. IT IS TIME TO ABOLISH IT!

3 WAYS TO ABOLISH THE FED AND ISSUE MONEY PER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8:

* Buy back the FED and have the U.S. Government collect all profits.

* Abolish the FED by printing real U.S. dollars as President Kennedy attempted (Executive Order 11.110, 1963) (Reference 4).

* Request your county/state to use their Constitutional powers to abolish the FED. This is the BEST SOLUTION. Nearly half the states are attempting or considering this action (Reference 5). Congress has had 80 years to follow the Constitution, and has refused to abolish the illegal FED. The state/county effort is working faster than any other method. We need your support to start a local chapter of FED-UP(tm) Inc. and petition your county.

THE WRONG SOLUTION THAT HAS FAILED FOR 80 YEARS

Congress and the media may want to require the FED to return the required profits into the U.S. Treasury (per the Federal Reserve Act, 1913). The problem is that with "creative accounting" techniques, profit can be easily masked as expense. The FED has expensed items illegally to lower profit (Reference 17).

"We the People" have pushed the following states to pass or introduce legislation calling for an end to the FED: Arizona, Washington, Arkansas, Idaho, Oregon, Indiana, and Texas. We still need your signatures on petitions, even if you live in these states. Many other states are considering such action due to your petitions. These states and a few honest Congresspeople are powerless until all Americans become informed and demand change. Please pass out the petition. Once we demand change, the media will have to report the whole truth and not just push their own agenda. FED-UP(tm) challenges the media to expose the facts on prime time talk shows or news programs.

By abolishing the FED, we would not pay interest on Federal Reserve Notes. Until it is abolished, the FED has a monopoly on profit on our currency and whether our money supply will be increased or decreased, inflation or depression. The banks are capable of controlling business by controlling who can or cannot obtain a loan.

WE'VE DONE OUR PART - NOW IT IS UP TO YOU TO SPREAD THE WORD. Please take the brochure (Cutting taxes $6,000 per family per year) to VFW, Moose/Elk Lodges, Bars, Union Halls, Churches, and Association groups. Make copies of the "single-page" brochure for everyone at work and ask your friends to do the same. Ask small business owners in your community to tell other business owners and spread the brochure and petition through the local Chamber of Commerce. CPAs should be interested in saving their clients taxes. Ask your CPA to mail the brochure and petition out to his/her clients. Upon receiving this petition, many presidents of large corporations made this brochure and petition available to all employees. Once people are informed, we can force a change. People will have more money to spend, the economy will be strong, and we can keep our Constitutional rights, liberties, and freedoms.

Contact your library for the names and addresses of your local and federal Congresspeople. MAIL THEM AN ENVELOPE WITHOUT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ATTACHED. In the envelope, say "FED-UP(tm) Inc. Abolish the FED." Also enclose one teabag (Boston Tea Party). Ask your friends to do the same (give them the addresses). Politicians are aware of the "Teabag Protest." If you don't mail it in, they're going to believe that we're not organized or we just don't care. IF YOU DON'T DO IT NO ONE ELSE WILL!

Many Congresspeople want to make this change, but can't without the support of the people.

WHY OUR FOREFATHERS FOUGHT THE FED

"Allow me to control the issue and the nation's money and I care not who makes its laws!" The above quote has long been attributed to the 18th century banker Amshell Rothschild (his blood line controls the FED). For if one unscrupulous group is allowed to print a nation's money - it can eventually use that money to gain control of the press AND the politicians - and thus gain control of making the nation's laws - and finally - control of the nation itself. (Reference 4)

If you will take the time to read the reference material listed which has been researched by Professors of Universities, Congresspeople, etc, you will turn up information that might frighten you. For instance, in 1921 the stockholders of the Federal Reserve financed an organization called the "Council on Foreign Relations" (CFR). Harpers magazine called this the most powerful organization in the United States. Ninety percent of the people in the State Department and key positions in the Executive Branch are members of the CFR. The CFR publishes a magazine called "Foreign Affairs." Read it if you want to know what is going to happen in coming years. The CFR is in favor of a New World Order (Reference 3).

Congressman Patman re-quoted Thomas Jefferson showing that our founding fathers knew this banking principle very well. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...." "Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money)," he said, "should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." The American Revolution was a struggle to wrest control of wealth from the Bank of England and to restore the centers of power to the People where it "properly belongs." The Constitution is specific about the authority of the People, through their elected officials, to control the money, and thus, the affairs of their government. (Reference 5, P. 32).

Ben Franklin said in his autobiography that the inability of the colonists to get the power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was [one of] the PRIME reason[s] for the Revolutionary War. (Quoted in Reference 4)

Thomas Jefferson stated, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." (Reference 1, P. 247)

Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh of Minnesota said: "This [Federal Reserve] Act establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized... the worst legislative crime of the ages, perpetuated by this banking and currency bill." (Reference 5, P. 33)

Robert H. Hemphill (Credit Manager, Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta): "We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It [the banking problem] is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects are remedied very soon." (Reference 1, P. 247)

Napoleon, a sympathizer for the international bankers, turned against them in the last years of his rule. He said: "When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain." (Reference 4)

Congresspeople have referred to Federal Reserve Notes as "FIAT" (no- backing) money. (Reference 1, P. 128, 169)

In 1879 the Supreme Court declared that the U.S. Government can legally issue United States Notes, debt and interest-free, just as Lincoln and Kennedy attempted. (Reference 1, P. 233)

A bank that attempted to repossess property on the basis of default faced Judge Mahoney in a jury trial. Jerome Daly was found innocent. The bank could not foreclose on the property because it created the loan money from thin air, as many banks do. Use this as a precedent the next time any bank tries to foreclose on your house. (Reference 17, P. 82, 83 for court records)

The FED violates Security & Exchange Commission (SEC) rules. (Reference 17, P. 96-98)

California 9th Circuit Court declared FED banks are private, not government. (Reference 17, P. 273)

Mr. Marriner Eccles, who was Chairman of the board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System longer than any other man, testified before the Joint Economic Committee in August 1962. When Chairman Rep. Wright Patman asked whether it was not a fact that the Federal Reserve System has more power than either the Congress or the President, Eccles replied: "In the field of money and credit, yes." (Reference 1, P. 206)

Dr. Hans F. Sennholz, Chairman of the Department of Economics at Grove City (PA) College stated: "The Federal Reserve System facilitates the government's own inflationary financing in "periods of emergency." It makes easy the inflationary financing of budget deficits and the inflationary refunding of government loans. It stabilizes the government bond market through inflationary methods and manipulates this market to the advantage of the government. It does all this by wrecking the purchasing power of the dollar; by subtly stealing from the people of this country what it thus provides for the government, through a process exactly on par with the coin clipping of ancient kings but much less visible." (Reference 1, P. 250, 251)

Source: Banking Act of 1935, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Banking and Currency Committee, U.S. Senate, 74th Congress, 1st Session, on S.1715, May 1935, pp 871-2. "The Federal Reserve System is in the wrong hands. No Constitutional republic can function when the government's money powers are in the hands of the financial oligarchy such as New York financiers.

A Republican Senator, who preferred to remain unnamed, stated: "Congress is too much motivated by fears and anxieties concerning pressure groups and the "non election." (Reference 1, P. 210)

By controlling Congress, the FED has been able to control the nominating conventions of both political parties. In this way, it has been able to hand-pick the presidential nominees so that no matter which party wins, their nominee for President is under definite obligations to the FED... (Reference 1, P. 210; Reference 22)

In 1975, the Rockefeller Foundation Report discussed the "Interdependence" of the countries of the world on each other. It stated we are one world and America shall become a nation-state under one government. They also say we must reach a zero state population growth. The Rockefeller Foundation stated that they have in excess of 747 million dollars to achieve this with. (Reference 3)

Congressman John R. Rarick states that the Council on Foreign Relations CFR) is dedicated to a one world government. The media remains conspicuously quiet. The CFR wants to convert the U.S. from a sovereign, constitutional republic into a servile member state of a one world dictatorship. On February 17, 1950, CFR member James Warburg (banker, and architect of the Federal Reserve System) stated before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "We shall have one world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent." Again, the media remained silent. In the April 1974 issue of the CFR journal, "Foreign Affairs", page 558, Richard Gardener states that the new world order "will be built... but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault." Congressman McDonald, Heinz and Tower stated that this is a conspiracy. Again, the media remained silent. (Reference 14, P. 17, 18, 32, 33).

THE CFR WANTS TO ABOLISH THE CONSTITUTION. (Reference 14)

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote: "All the perplexities, confusions, and distresses in America arise, not from defects in the Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, as much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation".

; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by prosperity, under the same name of funding is swindling futurity on a large scale." (Reference 1, P. 199)

British bankers have stated "Those that create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in their hands the destiny of the people". (Reference 1, P. 200-214)

Adams, Jefferson, and Lincoln believed that banker capitalism was more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. In a republic, banks would lend money but could not create or manufacture it. (Reference 1, P. 215)

Later, Jefferson used stronger language and denounced the institution as "one of the most deadly hostilities against the principles and form of our Constitution." Some have said that Jefferson did not favor a strong central bank. What he did not favor was the delivery of our monetary system into private hands to be run for private profit. (Reference 1, P. 230)

President James A. Garfield said: "Whoever controls the money in any country is absolute master of industry [legislation] and commerce". (Reference 1, P. 247, Reference 4)

Without the Federal Reserve System, there can be no continuing march towards socialism, and with it there can be no free economy. (Reference 1, P. 251)

By controlling our own money, Thomas Jefferson expected that the government would incur no debt, as had occurred in the European system. (Reference 1, P. 243) European banks are like the FED.

The FED system is the death of our Constitution. (Reference 1, P. 250)

THE PLAN TO REDUCE PERSONAL INCOME TAX BY 75% AND BALANCE THE BUDGET BY ABOLISHING THE FED CAN BE PROVEN BY AMERICAN HISTORY.

THE FACTS

* England lost the Revolutionary War.

* England nearly destroyed the Colonies by creating fake Colonial money and hyper-inflation.

* Rothschilds who control the Bank of England (Like our FED) said that by controlling the issue of money (printing it) you can control the government.

* The authors of the Constitution understood private banks" control over governments. The Constitution gives only Congress the right to print money.

* From the beginning of the United States to present there have been two ways to issue new currency:

The first way is to have the government print the money, debt and interest- free, and circulate it through the economy for use as a medium of exchange. There is no tax levied to pay interest on the currency in circulation because it is debt and interest-free. This is the system Lincoln used with his "greenbacks", a system Kennedy desired, and Jefferson demanded.

The second method is: The Citizens allow the bank to print $500 billion in currency (cash). The bank pays for printing costs, ink, and paper. The Citizens do not charge the bank any interest for use of the $500 billion in printed currency. The bank uses the $500 billion cash to buy a $500 billion government bond which pays the bankers interest. The bank keeps some of the bonds and sells, for a fee (10%), some of the bonds to the public. The bank can buy back the bonds from the public simply by printing more money. The bankers can create inflation and depressions by manipulating the amount of currency in circulation. The FED operates exactly like this today. It also prints money (through the U.S. Treasury) and uses this printed money to buy loans from other banks. This money has created our inflation. We give the bank cash interest-free, then they charge us interest on our own currency.

Take a look at our history in view of the two banking systems:

BEN FRANKLIN - THE TWO BANKING SYSTEMS

From the autobiography of Ben Franklin as reported by Gertrude Coogan in Money Creators:

...the inability of the colonists to get the power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War. (Reference 4).

Ben Franklin answering a question about the booming economy of the young colonies: "That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportions to the demands of trade and industry." (Colonial Scrip had no debt or interest attached.) (Reference 4)

BANK OF AMERICA

International bankers saw that interest-free scrip would keep America free of their influence, so by 1781 banker-backed Alexander Hamilton succeeded in starting the Bank of America. After a few years of "bank money", the prosperity of "Colonial Scrip" was gone. Benjamin Franklin said, "Conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity had ended and a depression set in to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with the unemployed!" Bank money was like our FED money. It had debt and interest attached. By 1790 Hamilton and his bankers had created a privately owned central bank and converted the public debt (interest-free) into interest bearing bonds, payable to the bankers. When Hamilton's bank charter expired in 1811, the international bankers started the war of 1812. By 1816, another privately-owned U.S. bank was started with $35 million in assets - only $7 million of that was owned by the government. This bank lasted for 20 years. U.S. history shows that currency with debt and interest attached created a depression. (Reference 4)

ANDREW JACKSON - A GREAT PRESIDENT!

When the 1816 charter expired in 1836, Andrew Jackson vetoed its renewal. It was then that he made two famous statements: "The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it!" Later he said "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..." (Reference 4)

ABRAHAM LINCOLN - ANOTHER GREAT PRESIDENT!

President Lincoln needed money to finance the Civil War, and the international bankers offered him loans at 24-36% interest. Lincoln balked at their demands because he didn't want to plunge the nation into such a huge debt. Lincoln approached Congress about passing a law to authorize the printing of U.S. Treasury Notes. Lincoln said "We gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they ever had - their own paper money to pay their debts..." Lincoln printed over 400 million "Greenbacks" (debt and interest-free) and paid the soldiers, U.S. government employees, and bought war supplies. The international bankers didn't like it and wanted Lincoln to borrow the money from them so that the American people would owe tremendous interest on the loan. Lincoln's solution made this seem ridiculous. (Reference 1, P. 46, 47; Reference 4)

Shortly after Lincoln's death, the government revoked the Greenback law which ended Lincoln's debt-free, interest-free money. A new national banking act was enacted and all money became interest bearing again. (Reference 4)

The late Thomas A Edison explained the matter of issuing currency this way: "If our nation can issue a dollar bond (interest bearing) it can issue a dollar bill (interest-free). The element that makes the bond good makes a bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 percent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay: But one promise fattens the usurers (interest collectors) and the other helps the people." (Reference 1, P. 46)

The FED is owned largely by foreign banks that control our economy and Congress through the power of money and the media which they bought with profits generated with profits generated by artificial debt.

If we can convert U.S. dollars that are debt and interest-free to interest bearing currency, we can change it back just as easily. Both the media and the banking system will probably claim that such a change will cause hyper- inflation. The answer however, can be found in history. Lincoln printed debt and interest-free Greenbacks (cash) to finance an entire war. With added production you can add currency without having hyper-inflation. Lincoln proved it. John F. Kennedy - a President with vision! On June 4, 1964, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110. This Executive Order called for the issuance of new currency - the United States Note. At the time, $4,292,893 of this currency was put into circulation. This new currency was to be distributed through the U.S. Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System. Furthermore, it was to be issued debt and interest-free. Upon Kennedy's assassination, this currency was withdrawn from circulation, never to be issued again. The media remained silent on how Kennedy would have eliminated the debt and interest payments, and therefore eliminated the FED. Interest-free United States Notes do not result in hyper-inflation. By issuing United States Notes, interest-free, we have less interest expense, and less taxes. With less taxes people spend more and buy more. This result is added production, and therefore, you can add dollars without inflation. Either Rockefeller and his people will spend your tax money into the economy or you get to spend your own money by paying less taxes. The bankers want you to think you'll have mass inflation by changing the system. This is only true if you add dollars to the economy without added production. For example, look what happened in post World War I Germany. They merely printed money without increasing production. The result was hyper-inflation. Another example: In the entire economy, if you have only 10 loaves of bread and only $10, each loaf would sell for $1. If you print an extra $10, now you have $20 and the 10 loaves which would sell for $2 each. This is only true if we don't have added production. By cutting taxes, people will spend more and buy more bread. If we print more money and bake more bread, we have $50 and 50 loaves, so each loaf still sells for $1. As long as you monitor production with increased cash, inflation will not occur. Under the FED system, the price of bread has dramatically increased since 1913. If we cut taxes and YOU spend your money instead of the BANKERS spending it, you will have more bread, cars, and wealth than the bankers. SOMEONE will spend your money - it might as well be YOU!

A FED-like banking system has destroyed other governments. In five years the only thing taxes will pay is the interest on the debt. Clearly, the FED must be abolished before we're demolished! Already laws are set up to have a dictatorship when we have the economic crisis (Federal Emergency Management Act, or FEMA).

Under the FED system, when a new dollar is issued, we pay taxes to pay for the dollar as the principal (debt) plus interest on the dollar. We pay for each new dollar twice, and who gets most of the money? The bankers, who control this money. Taxpayers should only pay taxes for the paper, ink, and printing costs of new money. Why should we give bankers the right to print money on a printing press, charge them no interest on this money, and then let them exchange their "free" money for a government bond that pays them interest??

England never gave up on owning the United States. They are still silently fighting the same Revolutionary War. The Bank of England, through the Rothschilds, owns and controls the FED (Reference 22). We have been robbed of our wealth, and in five years we will be bankrupt if there is no change. The FED bankers will LEGALLY OWN OUR NATION; OUR HOUSES, OUR CARS, OUR BUSINESSES, just as Thomas Jefferson predicted.

SPECIFIC PLAN: HOW TO GET OUT OF DEBT

U.S. history proves that issuing debt and interest-free currency allows our economy to prosper, as long as Congress controls the amount of money created. You can add printed dollars into the economy as you add production, and there will be no inflation. With today's sophisticated computers, we can easily monitor the printing of money and inflation.

Congress needs to buy back the FED and/or abolish it. Any government debt they own would be automatically eliminated. All remaining debt could be paid as needed with the same type of currency Kennedy issued (debt and interest-free United States Notes). United States Notes are backed by the full faith of the best government in the world - The United States of America. This is no different than the backing of today's Federal Reserve Notes. U.S. citizens collect only a small fraction of the interest income on Federal Bonds and Bills. Foreigners benefit from this interest, but we pay the tax so that they collect interest on our currency. This makes sense to bankers and Congresspeople who receive money from bankers and foreign lobbyists.

As we pay less interest, government spending will decrease and so will taxes. Less taxes mean that people buy more goods and services and our economy expands. An expanded economy means more jobs and higher profits for businesses. More profit means increased state/federal business taxes. Businesses continue to pay taxes while personal taxes decrease. People will have more money to spend, will buy more, and therefore pay increased state sales tax. This allows the states to balance their budgets without raising real estate taxes. As history proves, we will prosper.

For 80 years the FED has destroyed our economy. It will take years to undo this damage. Just as Congress appoints a Postal Service, we will have Congress appoint an agency to monitor inflation as we exchange our retiring government debt for debt and interest-free United States Notes (cash). We need to break up all Central Banks created by the FED and return to the Constitution of the United States. We have to return the power of the citizens' money back to the people.

THERE ARE SEVERAL SIMPLE WAYS TO ABOLISH THE FED

* Inform all Americans of this report and collect signatures on the petition.

* Demand that Congress and the media support "We the People's" rights to uphold the Constitution and abolish the illegal FED.

* Write to your local newspaper, show them this report and ask them to keep freedom of the press alive, support the Constitution and abolish the FED. Freedom of the press should not be limited to those who own it.

* Write to CNN and other media. Tell them you want to see FED-UP(tm) on their programs.

* Ask your State/County Representatives to use their Constitutional powers to enforce your rights under the Constitution to have the FED abolished. Write to Reference 5 for detailed paperwork to be given to your local government.

* Call in on TV and radio talk shows and discuss why the FED should be abolished.

* Support businesses who distribute the petition and display the sign "FED-UP". If they don't, please ask them to.

* Ask candidates if they plan to introduce legislation to abolish the FED and uphold the Constitution which they are obligated to defend. Make candidates take a stand! Have the politician sign a contract with "We the People" enacting legislation to abolish the FED by a certain date or the politician must resign from office. The Democratic Congress and President promised the people "no FED" before the election. Thirteen months later, they passed the FED.

* Display your bumper sticker to show support and inform people.

* If 5,000 people distribute 2-3 brochures daily, we can inform half a million Americans monthly. Roughly 10% of these half a million people will make copies and inform others. Our goal is to inform 70 million adult Americans. Public opinion will soon be on our side. Once 10% of the population know, the other 90% will follow.

* Pray and ask God to return us to "One nation under God."

It is our recommendation that you research the references listed, support all organizations that re trying to stop this fraud, and help us in our goal to get every American to sign this petition.

REFERENCES

(1) "The Federal Reserve Bank", by H.S. Kenan, published by The Noontide Press

(2) National Committee to Repeal the Federal Reserve Act, P.O. Box 156, Westmont, IL 60559

(3) "The New World Order, Saving America", P.O. Box 1205, Middleburg, FL 32050-1205

(4) "Bulletin", February 1989 & November 1991 issues, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (Newsletter; $3 each)

(5) "The Most Secret Science", Betsy Ross Press, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (Book) States attempt to abolish the FED. $12.00

(6) "Insider Report", P.O. Box 84903, Phoenix, AZ 85071

(7) "Phoenix Journal Express", P.O. Box 986, Tehachap, CA 93581

(8) $16 trillion in government and private debt, much of which the FED printed and collected interest on (Reference 3)

(9) Northpoint Tactical Team, P.O. Box 129, Topton, NC 28781

(10) Christian Defense League, Box 449, Arabi, LA 70023

(11) "Bulletin", June 1992 issue, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (Newsletter; $3 each)

(12) "Savings and Loan Unethical Bailout" by Rev. Casimir F. Gierut

(13) "Dark Secrets of the New Age" by Texe Marrs

(14) "En Route to Global Occupation" by Gary H. Kah

(15) "One World" by John Amkerberg & John Weldon

(16) "The Spotlight", Liberty Lobby, 300 Independence Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 (Newspaper)

(17) "Repeal the Federal Reserve Banks" by Rev. Casimir Frank Gierut

(18) The Constitution of the United States

(19) "Walls in Our Minds" by M.J. Red Beckman, Common Sense Press, P.O. Box 1544, Billings, MT 59103. A must read book - $2.50

(20) "The Law That Never Was" Volume I, Bill Benson & M.J. Red Beckman, P.O. Box 1544, Billings, MT 59103 or write to Bill Benson, P.O. Box 550, South Holland, IL 60473. Proof that the 16th Amendment (income tax) was never properly ratified.

(21) "New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies" by William T. Still

(22) "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Mullins

(23) "The Social Security & Pension Conspiracy" by Metz

(24) "The History of the Federal Reserve. How to Replace It or How to Reform It" by Metz - for references 23 & 24 write to Howard Metz, P.O. Box 341, Malverne, LI 11565

(25) "The New World Order" by Pat Robertson. On page 131 he states that we must abolish the FED.

(26) "Operation Vampire Killer 2000", highly recommended book. $6.00 ($8.00 for 2) from ACLA, P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, AZ 85066 This is a must read book with quotes from well known people. This book proves conspiracy. Your local police needs to read this book so they will protect you - not become United Nations Agents against you. This book will stop the New World Order plan to take over the U.S.A.

"America Betrayed", Center For Action, 652 N. Glenview, Nesa, AZ 85213

For references 1, 12, and 17, contact The National Committee to Repeal the Federal Reserve Act (Reference 2)

MEDIA BLACKS OUT THE FACTS

Here's one terrific example. John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, was one of New York's best loved newspapermen. Called by his peers "The Dean of his Profession", John was asked in 1953 to give a toast before the New York Press Club, and in so doing, made a monumentally important and revealing statement. He is quoted as follows:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

RICHARD M. COHAN, Senior Producer of CBS political news said: "We are going to impose OUR AGENDA on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that WE choose to deal with."

RICHARD SALANT, former President of CBS News stated: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what WE decide they ought to have."

And what is "their" agenda? What do they believe we, the American people, - THE COMMON HERD, "...ought to have?" Here is the answer:

NORMAN THOMAS - For many years the U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate proclaimed: "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing what happened."

HERMAN DISMORE, foreign editor of the New York Times from 1950 to 1960: "The New York Times is deliberately pitched to the liberal (socialist) point of view."

WALTER CRONKITE: "News reporters are certainly liberal (socialists) and left of center."

BARBARA WALTERS: "The news media in general are liberals (socialists)."

Reference for everything above - Operation Vampire Killer, P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, AZ 85066

The world, finally including even the balky American public, is "being rapidly educated into overcoming limited patriotism" and accepting "United Nations solutions to common global problems," said Henry Kissinger.

Bilderberg participants expressed satisfaction with progress toward world government on two fronts:

* Establishing a UN tax to not only finance new global programs, but to condition "citizens of the world" to paying tribute.

* Conditioning the public -- again, especially "those stubborn Americans" -- to accept the idea of a UN army that could, by force, impose its will on the internal affairs of any nation.

"Today, Americans would be outraged if UN forces entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful," Kissinger said (of the 1992 Los Angeles riot).

Kissinger reported on a shocking speech made by UN Secretary General Butrous Ghali to the American Association of Newspaper Publishers at UN headquarters in New York in early May. The publishers' newspapers covered up the story.

The UN Security Council must have a permanent force that can be deployed anywhere in the world, instantly, to "protect the peace" and "ensure human rights" the secretary-general told the newspaper publishers.

UN TO INVADE U.S.

This force must be allowed to intervene "at the local and community levels," the UN leader told the American publishers.

What is "especially gratifying," Kissinger said, "is that the publishers showed no reservations about the prospects of UN forces landing in the United States and imposing the UN's will."

Reference - The Spotlight, June 8, 1992, page 10. Liberty Lobby, 300 Independence Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 (Newspaper)

SUMMARY OF QUICK FACTS

* Various dates and proofs that the Bankers created panic to push Congress to pass laws favoring bankers... Reference 22

* President Wilson received $85,000 bribe from bankers... Reference 22, pages 25-26

* How England, through the Bankers, controls our Congress... Reference 22, pages 47-48

* Rockefeller is connected to President Carter... Reference 22, page 171; Reference 25, page 103

* How George Bush is directly connected to the FED bank... Reference 22, page 49

* President Hoover and President Roosevelt were international Bankers... Reference 22, pages 69-71 and pages 157-159

* President Nixon was hired by Rockefeller's law firm to become President... Reference 25, pages 100-101

* FED owner's manual to destroy and control U.S. citizens... Reference 22, pages 55-56

* Proof Bankers claim they control the government... Reference 22, page 59

* Proof the FED knowingly created the Great Depression for their gain... Reference 22, pages 137-170

* FED bankers are directly linked to the New World Order and the United Nations. New World Order was discussed by George Bush, Rockefeller, Adolph Hitler, and Jimmy Carter... Reference 25, pages 5-7

* The Great Seal on back of the FED $1 bill, below pyramid, the NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM means "New World of the Ages" or --- New World Order... Reference 25, page 35

* How the Banker's tax-exempt organizations fund activities to destroy America's freedom by attacking our Constitution and way of life... Reference 25, pages 138-159; Reference 14 (throughout whole book)

* Senator Barry Goldwater warned of economic powers capable of bypassing or controlling the political powers. Bank induced depression is possible in the future to force political change... Reference 25, 131

* Rockefeller's money was used to seize control of America's teaching and training of students by rewriting history and textbooks. Rockefeller has also funded the National Education Association (NEA)... Reference 14, page 61

* Gary Kah, high-ranking government liaison having first-hand knowledge of the New World Order exposes the truth. Read his book and En Route To Global Occupation... Reference 14

QUICK FACTS FROM TOM SCHAUF

First, we must uphold the Constitution. Please call the Hotline (217-854-7504) weekly for new information. When a state considers a Constitutional Convention, concerned Americans call the Hotline and it gives us the names and telephone numbers of the legislators involved. It tells us exactly what to say, and to whom. The Hotline helps us to fight and win!

Secondly, we must change the opinions of the masses with information. The brochure has been a big help, and once 10% of the population agrees to abolish the FED, the rest will follow.

It is obvious the media (radio and newspapers) have lied about the FED and the efforts of FED-UP(tm) to educate people with the truth. This will not stop us - we will persist! Decide for yourself if you want to win America back. If 10,000 patriotic Americans each distribute 1,000 brochures, 10 million Americans will become informed. It would be almost impossible to stop people from talking about abolishing the FED if that many Americans were informed. Another way you can participate is to put a bumper sticker on your car. Over 1,000 people every month will see that bumper sticker about abolishing the FED.

If you think our goal is impossible, remember this; only 3% of Americans supported the Revolutionary War, and we won that war. We can win this war too, but only with your help.

IN CLOSING

For the secret owners of the FED to control the volume of money and become our absolute masters, they had to get the Gold away from our grandparents. This was accomplished in 1933 with the threats of fines and imprisonments by their President Franklin D. Roosevelt with aide Harry Hopkins, who said... "Elect, elect, elect, tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, for the people are too damned stupid to understand". By the way, Roosevelt was an international Banker. See Fool's Gold is Green by Winston Smith.

THE FED IS SLOWLY DESTROYING AMERICA

Our government never had a chance...with political corruption ravaging its Constitution. The *real facts* don't lie...and neither do government documents...Congressional Record, Congressman Wright Patman, A Primer On Money prepared by the Sub-committee on Domestic Finance, House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and Currency - 88th Congress, 2nd session, August 4th, 1964 and December 23, 1913, page 1464 & 1478.

Congressional Record, Congressman Louis McFadden, June 10, 1932, House of Representatives, pages 12604-12605

Congressional Record, 98th Congress, 1st session, February 3, 1983, Congressman Ron Paul

Congressional Record, Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, 77th Congress, 1st session, Tuesday, September 30, 1941, pages 1342-1345

THERE ARE MANY MORE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONIALS

IS THERE BIAS IN THE MEDIA REGARDING THE FED?

DURING THE TV PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, CLINTON WAS ASKED SHOULD THERE BE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FED? THE NEXT DAY, MAJOR NEWSPAPERS SAID THEY COVERED THE WHOLE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE TEXT, BUT MANY NEWSPAPERS ELIMINATED THIS ONE QUESTION. CHECK YOUR LIBRARY!

The Revolutionary War was fought and the Constitution was written to prevent other nations and private banks from issuing (printing) money and controlling our currency.

In 1913, members of Congress committed treason and violated their oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic by voting in the Federal Reserve Bank.

For the New World Order to create a one world government, they must control a central bank, eliminate the Constitution, end Christian values, disarm America, and control the media. The Council on Foreign Relations has openly said they will take us over in favor of a one world government. The American people must be warned or we may lose our freedom forever. If we do not demand our rights and uphold the Constitution, the CFR and bankers will continue their march toward socialism. If we allow them to continue, they will abolish our rights and put an end to our present government. I urge all Americans to distribute the "main" FED-UP brochure ("saving $6000 in taxes per year, per person & balancing the budget) and collect signatures on the petition (see order form in the main brochure). Then all informed Americans can take action and hold their politicians accountable. The bankers control the media, but can not stop patriotic Americans from using copy machines to distribute information and inform America. Once informed, people will demand an explanation why Congress allowed this fraud as the media appeared to be independent and investigative, but remained silent on this important issue.

The ones who scream the loudest to keep the Federal Reserve Bank probably profit the most.

About the Author

Thomas D. Schauf, CPA, is a national speaker to Certified Public Accountants and business leaders. Mr. Schauf's expertise includes banking, the economy, business appraisals, mergers, and acquisitions.

We are looking for leaders in all states to help us abolish the FED. Please write and let us know you're willing to help. The future of America depends on you.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONTINUE THE CAUSE ARE APPRECIATED

PLEASE HELP DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION AND COLLECT SIGNATURES ON PETITIONS

Mr. Schauf and other speakers are available to speak at seminars, group meetings, on radio, and on television. FED-UP(tm) * P.O. Box 834 * Streamwood, IL 60103-0834

(C) 1992 Thomas D. Schauf

PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE WIDELY WITH NO CHANGES

http://www.rense.com/ufo2/fedrez.htm

THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm

SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
The London Connection
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

The Fed, The Fed, The Fed
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_01/sennholz040301.html

The Declaration of Independence
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/declaration.htm

The Federal Reserve - What Is It? Who Is It?
http://www.the-oil-patch.com/archive/federal-reserve.html

The Coming Battle (The Book)
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/comingbattle.htm

The United Nations plans to CONFISCATE your profit and ---.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/united_nations.htm

The 545 People Responsible For All of America's Woes
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/woes.htm

The Orginal 13th Amendment
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm

Was the 14th Amendment Ratified?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/14th.htm

Get That Gold Fringe Off My Flag
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm

War Powers Act 1933
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/1933.htm

The Oath of Office
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/oathofoffice.htm

The Secret Oath
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/queen.htm

The Lawyers Secret Oath
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm

Judge gets orders from England
http://www.newnetizen.com/fbi/ordersfromengland.htm

It's Time To Circle The Wagons
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/money.htm

The Federal Reserve Monopoly Over Money

2007-04-13T07:20:00.000-07:00

(video of ron paul speech in congress http://youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q)

Ron Paul
Prisonplanet
Tuesday April 10, 2007

Recently I had the opportunity to question Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he appeared before the congressional Joint Economic committee. The topic that morning was the state of the American economy, and many of my colleagues raised questions about how the Fed might better "regulate" things to ease fears of an economic downturn. The tenor of my colleagues' questions suggested that Mr. Bernanke's job is nothing less than to run the U.S. economy, like some kind of Soviet central planner.

Certainly it’s true that Mr. Bernanke can drastically affect the economy at the drop of a hat, simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. But why do members of Congress assume this is good? Why do we accept without objection that a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board wields so much power over our economic well-being? Is centralized, monopoly control over our money even compatible with a supposedly free-market economy?

Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general. But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued.

The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch – Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference – that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.

The Fed’s inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings. Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed incomes, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings. So while Fed policies encourage younger people to overborrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement.

The financial press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy, but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged. Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism. Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic – or so they believe.

Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars.

Thousands Riot Over China Land Seizure

2007-04-12T21:43:00.000-07:00

Reuters | November 10, 2006

HONG KONG—Thousands of Chinese villagers clashed with riot police after barricading officials and foreign businessmen in a warehouse they said has been built on illegally seized land, a newspaper reported on Friday.

The clash erupted on Wednesday near Shunde, in the southern province of Guangdong, during the opening of the warehouse, which villagers said had been built on land grabbed by officials and sold off to developers, Hong Kong's Apple Daily said.

The villagers only began to disperse the next morning when police used tear gas.

China has struggled to smother rising flare-ups of social unrest in recent years, sparked by issues ranging from corruption, forced layoffs, land grabs without compensation, to disparities in wealth between the rich coastal belt and the impoverished hinterland.

Up to 10,000 blockaded the warehouse entrance in the village of Sanzhou, trapping 300 assembled dignitaries, including Guangdong officials and Hong Kong and foreign businessmen inside, the newspaper said.

Around 1,000 police and riot police arrived to defuse the standoff, but the villagers stood their ground, refusing to leave unless the corrupt officials were investigated, the paper said.

It was only when police began firing tear gas the following morning that the crowds dispersed, according to witnesses quoted by the paper.

Photographs showed riot police standing on a wide highway, clasping transparent riot shields.

Ten people were arrested, the newspaper said.

Villagers interviewed by the paper said of some 9,000 acres (3,650 hectares) of land in the village of Sanzhou, half had been sold off illegally by officials last year.

In January, China's Ministry of Public Security said there had been 87,000 "public order disturbances, obstructions of justice, gathering of mobs and stirring up of trouble" last year, a 6.6 per cent increase from 2004

UN 'ignored' abuse at Kosovo mental homes

2007-04-12T21:38:00.001-07:00

UN 'ignored' abuse at Kosovo mental homes

London Guardian 08/08/02: Oliver Burkeman

Original Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,770954,00.html

Patients at United Nations mental institutions in Kosovo have been raped and physically attacked under the eyes of UN staff, held in "filthy and degrading" conditions, and threatened with punishment if they report the abuses, according to a damning investigation published in New York yesterday.

In one case, a woman patient was raped after UN employees locked her in a room with a male patient because they wanted to "calm her down", while employees who observed another rape in a hallway said they did not intervene because the victim "must have asked for it", according to the independent campaigning group Mental Disability Rights International (MDRI), which produced the report.

"This is a pervasive pattern of serious abuses. The rule of law simply does not apply within these psychiatric facilities," Dr Eric Rosenthal, MDRI's founder, said yesterday. "We found extreme, inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary detention and the physical and sexual assault of women, and we received a blanket denial from the authorities."

Dr Robert Okin, chief psychiatrist at San Francisco's biggest hospital and one of the report's authors, said the UN had "disregarded its own standards for the protection and treatment of the mentally disabled and turned a blind eye to the evidence" at Kosovo's two mental institutions - the Shtime home, which houses 285 patients 19 miles south of Pristina, and the Pristina elderly home - and the Pristina University hospital.

In the course of the two-year study, investigators at Shtime reported finding patients sleeping on concrete floors amid piles of human excrement, or in soiled sheets, and spending their days in apathy, sometimes without clothing, and often with nothing to do. They were given out-of-date psychotropic drugs with no monitoring by experts, because there is no psychiatrist on staff.

In further reports of sexual assault, male patients were allowed to roam the women's wards at night making what one Red Cross worker called "voluntary or involuntary girlfriends".

Kosovo's director of psychiatric institutions told MDRI he did not have the money available to fit a secure door to protect the women's wards, even though funds were available for refurbishment elsewhere in the facility, the group said.

An official at the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (Unmik), which holds overarching responsibility for the government of the former Yugoslav province, admitted the report was "not generally inaccurate".

The campaigners condemned the UN for continuing to fund refurbishment of the institutions instead of integrating the patients into community care programmes, but the official said money was not available for such initiatives. In addition, the patients were mostly ethnic Serbs, while the surrounding community was mostly ethnic Albanian, and the patients might be "abused or killed" if released.

"This is not in any way to excuse the bad circumstances in the institutions, but it's not like New York or California." But the official agreed that many ethnic Albanian staff had "not been trained and probably [were] not very sympathetic" to the patients.

Another UN official said the organisation intended to "explore and examine" individual allegations, but money might prevent it. "The question is, do we have the resources that are sufficient to follow the recommendations in the report?" the official said.

Later, in a statement, Unmik said: "We are in the process of developing special programmes to alert nurses and staff to the issue," adding that "children have been removed from the institution at Shtime and are no longer vulnerable". But "to build up a structure and mechanisms to deal with this phenomenon at the local level... takes time".

Dr Rosenthal said that patients had been warned by staff to keep quiet. "If you say anything bad about the staff, God will kill you," a nurse was reported as telling a patient in front of an MDRI investigator at Pristina University hospital.

Two former patients there, along with a physician working for another organisation, were also threatened by a staff member to prevent them revealing that the staff member had had sexual relationships with the two patients, the report said.

Furthermore, "when women have been diagnosed as mentally ill, they are no longer credible as witnesses to the abuse", said Laura Prescott, one of the report's authors and president of Sister Witness International, a US organisation founded by formerly institutionalised women.

Dr Okin said UN bureaucracy prevented the organisation from hiring a foreign psychiatrist. There were no psychiatrists at Shtime because "the UN is strangled by its own version of a civil service bureaucracy: its pay classification system is such that it won't allow itself to pay for a psychiatrist", he said.

The report, funded by the Open Society Institute with money from financier George Soros, was endorsed by the most respected human rights organisation in the US yesterday. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, called it "profoundly important... the horrors it describes are undeniable

Teenagers 'used for sex by UN in Bosnia'

2007-04-12T21:37:00.001-07:00

Teenagers 'used for sex by UN in Bosnia'

London Telegraph 04/25/02: Stewart Payne

Original Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml

A HUMAN rights investigator who claims she was sacked for exposing the sexual abuse of Bosnian women by her United Nations colleagues, told a tribunal yesterday that girls as young as 15 were offered for sex.

Kathryn Bolkovac, 41, said women were forced to dance naked in Bosnian bars frequented by UN police officers.

Mrs Bolkovac is using a British employment tribunal to bring her case of unfair dismissal from an American recruitment agency which has an office in the UK.

The former American policewoman claims she was sacked because she sent an email to Jacques Paul Klein, the chief of UN mission in Bosnia-Hercegovina, which highlighted the sexual exploitation of women by those who had been sent to protect them from the sex trade.

Details of the email, sent in October 2000, were given to the tribunal at Southampton, Hants, yesterday.

In it, Mrs Bolkovac, a mother of three from Lincoln, Nebraska, claims that bars were frequented by UN police officers and other humanitarian workers who availed themselves of women forced into prostitution.

The tribunal has heard that her employer, the US-based agency DynCorp, which is registered with the State Department to provide American police officers to work on humanitarian and peacekeeping duties, admits that there was a problem with officers using prostitutes and that one was sacked for paying for a woman to live with him to provide sexual services.

But the company, which has an office in Salisbury, Wilts, denies that it sacked Mrs Bolkovac for exposing the abuse and said that she was dismissed for time-sheet irregularities.

In her email, Mrs Bolkovac said that women and girls were handed over to bar owners and told to perform sex acts to pay for their costumes.

"The women who refused were locked in rooms and withheld food and outside contact for days or weeks. After this time they are told to dance naked on table tops and sit with clients.

"If the women still refuse to perform sex acts with the customers they are beaten and raped in the rooms by the bar owners and their associates. They are told if they go to the police they will be arrested for prostitution and being an illegal immigrant."

The tribunal has heard that after sending the e-mail Mrs Bolkovac, who was investigating human trafficking and forced prostitution, was demoted and removed from front-line policing.

In April 2001, she was sacked for allegedly falsifying her time sheets, which she denies.

Giving evidence to the tribunal, Mrs Bolkovac said she had discovered "extensive use of brothels" by UN police and other peacekeepers.

She said she also found that international staff were helping local police to sell women for the sex trade and she feared this was being "covered up".

"The victims of trafficking were reporting extensive use of the brothels and other criminal acts by the international community and international police task force," she said.

She claimed that Mike Stiers, the international police task force's deputy commissioner, had flippantly dismissed victims of human trafficking as "just prostitutes".

This attitude led many members of the peacekeeping mission to believe it was acceptable to use sex slaves and go to brothels, she said.

Spencer Wickham, the head of DynCorp, has told the tribunal he sacked three police officers for using prostitutes.

The tribunal is taking place in Britain because DynCorp contracts state they are governed by UK employment law.

DynCorp's Bosnia site manager, Pascal Budge, said that after Mrs Bolkovac's email was sent, he circulated a memo warning officers they would be sent home if caught using prostitutes.

But Mrs Bolkovac called an investigation by DynCorp into her allegations "inadequate".

The tribunal continues.

U.N. Finally Forced to Probe Its Pedophilia Scandal

2007-04-12T21:33:00.000-07:00

U.N. Finally Forced to Probe Its Pedophilia Scandal

Newsmax 05/07/02

Original Link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/6/151901.shtml

The United Nations' massive pedophilia scandal has not received 1 percent of the media attention given to the Catholic Church's homosexual priest scandal. Finally some attention is being paid, now that the U.N.'s cover is blown.

As world leaders converge on New York for the controversial conference on children this week, U.N. investigators and relief agencies say they are finally trying to stop recurrence of sexual abuse against West African refugee children by U.N. "peacekeepers" and aid workers.

The scale of allegations, partly revealed Feb. 26, sent shock waves through the "international aid community" and led to calls from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and governments for an urgent investigation in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea.

Calls were raised for measures to ensure that refugee children were protected worldwide from abuse.

About a half-dozen investigators from the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services in New York, plus investigators from the office of the inspector-general of the U.N. High Commissioner of Refugees, were still examining the allegations, senior U.N. officials told United Press International.

The U.N. investigating team also includes a medical doctor, the same sources said.

It was unclear how long the investigation will last. "We're all waiting for the results of the inquiry to take action," said an official from one of the agencies under investigation.

After formal moves by UNHCR last December, a preliminary OIOS investigation was initiated in January, but it only moved into full gear in March, said a U.N. official.

Not Much Progress

The U.N.'s investigating arm, however, also came under heavy criticism by senior Western diplomats for the slow pace of its work on the ground in the three countries. The limited number of investigators at the oversight office, less than 20, partly explains the grinding pace of the inquiry.

"We can barely cope with the cases that are being referred to us," Dileep Nair, U.N. undersecretary general and chief of OIOS, told UPI.

In 2001, the burdened OIOS had more than 400 cases referred to it ranging from petty to serious alleged breaches linked to U.N. matters.

Some officials close to the investigation reckon a final report could be ready by the end of the month.

Parallel investigations in the field have also been initiated by many of the nearly 40 non-governmental organizations such as Save the Children-UK and Doctors Without Borders.

Brendan Paddy, a spokesman for Save the Children-UK, told UPI on Sunday that the agency has conducted its own investigation and sacked one staff member in Guinea and stopped two community volunteers from participating in its aid work.

Similarly, a spokesman for Doctors Without Borders, Rafael Vilasanjuan, told UPI the group has also been conducting an investigation into the allegations but so far "we have not found any concrete evidence.

"If there is any evidence, we will take all the measures." He said Doctors Without Borders had "no tolerance" for such behavior.

In the meantime, U.N. agencies and many of the NGOs were busy at work putting in place new checks and balances in the field to prevent sexual abuse of refugee children.

Some of the measures have included beefing up staff by more than 35 in areas such as UNHCR emergency, protection and community services in the three countries, including 12 solely to respond to sexual exploitation.

Rotation of staff to different camps has also been expanded.

Moreover, the U.N. World Food Program has increased the number of female monitors and held meetings with all staff and NGOs to highlight the agency's "zero tolerance" policy over sexual abuse, said WFP spokeswoman Christiane Berthiaume.

Reactionary U.N. Knew of Atrocities

However, the United Nations has not always been that proactive on this issue.

A full copy of the joint study sponsored by the UNHCR and SC-UK, obtained by UPI, notes that during debriefing sessions in all three countries:

"UNHCR staff, government representatives and the agency staff, including senior managers, acknowledged that they knew such practices happened. Regrettably, even in situations where such information had been brought to their attention in the past, no action had been taken to monitor or redress the situation."

The number of allegations documented "is a critical indicator of the scale of this problem," it said.

U.N. Workers Among 'Worst Sexual Exploiters of Children'

"Agency workers from the international and local NGOs as well as U.N. agencies were ranked as among the worst sex exploiters of children, often using the very humanitarian aid and services intended to benefit the refugee population as a tool of exploitation."

The assessment team listed sexual allegations and called for further investigation against workers from 42 agencies and 67 individuals.

"The details of these allegations were submitted to UNHCR in confidential lists as the mission was ongoing," the report said.

Some 'Peacekeepers'

The U.N. agencies identified included UNHCR and WFP and the international "peacekeepers" from nine countries stationed in Sierra Leone.

United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) battalions whose "peacekeepers" are alleged to be involved in sexual exploitation include those from Britain, Kenya, Ghana, Guinea, India, Nigeria (Ecomog force before 2000), Pakistan, Bangladesh and Zambia.

In addition, the assessment mission report identified staff from 10 NGOs in Liberia, 10 NGOs in Sierra Leone and 16 NGOs in Guinea for alleged sexual abuse.

Besides Doctors Without Borders and Save the Children-UK, other NGOs listed for alleged abuses by their mainly locally employed staff included, among others:

The Red Cross in Trouble Yet Again

The American Refugee Committee; the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies/Guinean Red Cross; Lutheran World Service/World Federation; Norwegian Refuge Council; Council of Churches, Sierra Leone; Germany's BMZ; and Medical Relief International (MERLIN); and Family Empowerment Program.

In July 2001, children accounted for about 45 percent of the world's refugees and others of concern assisted by the U.N. refugee agency. The percentage of children, the report said, was even higher in Guinea and Liberia: at 63 percent in Guinea or 426,140; and 50 percent in Liberia, or 33,766.

The full 84-page report, written in January after a six-week mission to the three countries, has not yet been published.

BBC Exposes the Cover-up

It was only after the British Broadcasting Corp. revealed the contents of the assessment mission that UNHCR and Save the Children group revealed some of report's findings and recommendations.

The initial refusal by UNHCR and Save the Children-UK to furnish to other NGOs, confidentially, the names of the alleged 67 individuals created tensions among the normally close-knit "humanitarian community." The UNHCR cited legal concerns, fears about the safety of child victims still living in camps, and the limitations of anecdotal information, for its stance.

After a number of heated closed-door meetings, however, the NGOs were furnished with the confidential information they had been seeking in March.

But humanitarian officials familiar with the brief said many sex abuse victims are afraid to take part in a formal investigation and don't come forward for fear of vengeance and recrimination.

The report notes that most "incidents of sexual violence go unreported," and concludes that the incidence of the problem may be much higher than the numbers cited in the report suggest.

Indeed, sources close to the investigation said early indications were that they had difficulties to get firsthand accounts from victims.

Observations in the report highlight the problems victims face.

"In order for a refugee to make a report, they would have to go through the same persons who themselves are perpetrators of sexual exploitation. Most staff appear to connive to hide the actions of other staff."

Sickening Double Standard

So let's see: Senior U.N. officials knew of the widespread pedophilia. Not only did they not take action against the perpetrators, they covered up the atrocities.

And even after the scandal comes to light, most media give this major news event little or no coverage.

Imagine the screaming headlines and worldwide outrage if the Catholic Church or any other church allowed sexual abuse of children on such a massive scale. Could the media establishment's pro-U.N., anti-religious bias have anything to do with the stunning discrepancy?

Child sex book given out at U.N. summit

2007-04-12T21:32:00.001-07:00

Child sex book given out at U.N. summit

Washington Times 05/10/02: George Archibald

Original Link: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020510-25256488.htm

A UNICEF-funded book being passed out at the United Nations Child Summit encourages children to engage in sexual activities with other minors and with homosexuals and animals.

As the delegations to the summit remain deadlocked on abortion, international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that support the U.S. delegation's anti-abortion stance circulated copies of pages from a UNICEF-funded book given to delegates from Latin America that promotes sexual activity and abortion among teens in their countries.

"Reproductive health includes the following components: Counseling on sexuality, pregnancy, methods of contraception, abortion, infertility, infections and diseases," says the Spanish-language book, whose title translates to "Theoretic Elements for Working with Mothers and Pregnant Teens."

An accompanying workshop book produced by the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) tells Latin American mothers and teens: "Situations in which you can obtain sexual pleasure: 1. Masturbation. 2. Sexual relations with a partner — whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. 3. A sexual response that is directed toward inanimate objects, animals, minors, non-consenting persons."

The book, which was distributed by the Mexican government with U.N. funding, suggests lesbian sex as an acceptable alternative for girls.

"Sexual relations with a partner: Here we should insist there is no ideal or perfect relations between two or several people," the book says. "The one that gives us the most satisfaction and that which is adopted to our way of being and the style of life we have chosen. This is why we encounter many differences among women. Some women like to have relations with men. And others with another woman."

UNICEF spokesman Alfred Ironside acknowledged U.N. funding for the book, but said it was produced by the Mexican government in 1999 and pulled from circulation "when the content was more carefully reviewed."

Mr. Ironside said he did not know how many of the books were circulated. "A very small number were produced — fewer than a thousand," he said. "It was pulled out of circulation when the content was more carefully reviewed."

"That book was a product of the Mexican government, supported by UNICEF financially as part of UNICEF's support to the Mexican government," Mr. Ironside said.

"We do everything we do in full agreement with the governments we support. We do not operate independently," he said.

He said the book was "intended as a training manual for people working with adolescent women to prevent teen pregnancy. That publication was a compilation of articles by different contributors and has a very clear disclaimer in the front that the views of the writers do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations."

The workshop book is being passed out by anti-abortion NGOs to persuade delegates from the large Latin American bloc of countries called the Rio Group to support the U.S. proposal to remove ambiguous language from the child-summit action document, which has been used in the past by U.N. agencies to promote abortion.

Delegations to the U.N. Child Summit remained deadlocked yesterday in closed-door negotiations over abortion and other hot-button issues that have held up final agreement on a U.N. action agenda to protect the world's children.

The U.S. delegation, praised by pro-family groups for standing firm to ensure the agenda does not sanction continued U.N. promotion of abortions, was attacked by NGO critics for a second day at an afternoon briefing, NGO members at the meeting said.

Douglas Sylva, an official with the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, called the briefing "an NGO feeding frenzy," in which the United States was attacked for its position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; arms sales to allies; the Bush administration's support of capital punishment; and U.S. failure to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

"The fact that the United States is the only country besides Somalia that has not ratified [the] child's rights [convention] is shocking," said Paula Daeppen, director in Zurich for the Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas.

"We're supposed to be a moral leader of the world and child friendly," she said.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, told the meeting she applauded the administration's work to protect children from pornography, exploitation and "child soldiering." But she said she disagreed with the U.S. delegation on some issues.

"There needs to be flexibility on life," she said — an apparent reference to the administration's strong anti-abortion stance. A person close to the congresswoman, who asked to remain anonymous, said her remarks were intended to urge "more flexibility on family planning."

Abortion is not mentioned directly in the draft child-summit document, but UNICEF, which organized the 187-country special session of the General Assembly, and the U.N. Fund for Population Activities, interpret the ambiguous phrase "reproductive health services" to include abortion.

A senior Canadian negotiator told delegates in earlier preparatory meetings that the term includes abortion, prompting the Bush administration to start pushing for the alternate term "reproductive health care."

European countries, with the exception of Spain, along with Canada, Japan and New Zealand oppose the U.S. position. Muslim nations and some African countries also support the United States.

The Rio Group, whose delegations say their predominantly Catholic populations don't condone abortion, said there is no danger the term "reproductive health services" will be used to promote abortions in Latin America.

Woman sacked for revealing UN links with sex trade

2007-04-12T21:30:00.001-07:00

Woman sacked for revealing UN links with sex trade
How a tribunal vindicated an investigator who blew whistle on workers in Bosnia

London Times 08/07/02: Daniel McGrory

Original Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-376444,00.html

A DAMNING dossier sent by Kathryn Bolkovac to her employers, detailing UN workers’ involvement in the sex trade in Bosnia, cost the American her job with the international police force.

She was sacked after disclosing that UN peacekeepers went to nightclubs where girls as young as 15 were forced to dance naked and have sex with customers, and that UN personnel and international aid workers were linked to prostitution rings in the Balkans.

After a two-year battle, an employment tribunal ruled yesterday that Ms Bolkovac was unfairly dismissed by DynCorp, an American company whose branch in Salisbury, Wiltshire, dealt with the contracts of the American officers working for the international police force in Bosnia. There will be a further hearing at Southampton to decide the amount of compensation DynCorp must pay Ms Bolkovac.

During her time in Bosnia as an investigator, Ms Bolkovac, 41, uncovered evidence of girls who refused to have sex being beaten and raped in bars by their pimps while peacekeepers stood and watched. She discovered that one UN policeman who was supposed to be investigating the sex trade paid £700 to a bar owner for an underage girl who he kept captive in his apartment to use in his own prostitution racket.

She detailed her findings in a series of explicit e-mails to DynCorp, but after first being demoted and transferred from the investigation she was sacked for allegedly falsifying her timekeeping records.

Charles Twiss, the tribunal chairman, said: “We have considered DynCorp’s explanation of why they dismissed her and find it completely unbelievable. There is no doubt whatever that the reason for her dismissal was that she made a protected disclosure and was unfairly dismissed.”

There are powerful voices in support of her claims, including that of Madeleine Rees, the head of the UN Human Rights Commission office in Sarajevo, who is in no doubt that trafficking in women started with the arrival of the international peacekeepers in 1992.

As well as 21,000 Nato peacekeepers and aid workers, there were police from 40 countries trying to keep Bosnia’s warring factions apart.

“When the civil war ended in 1992 there were curfews and ordinary people didn’t have cars or money,” Ms Rees said. “Only the international community would have been able to get to the flats and bars being made available with foreign women.” She estimates that there are more than 900 premises in Bosnia where sex can be bought.

Richard Monk, a former senior British policeman who ran the UN police operation in Bosnia until 1999, said: “There were truly dreadful things going on by UN police officers from a number of countries. I found it incredible that I had to set up an internal affairs department to investigate complaints that officers were having sex with minors and prostitutes.

“The British officers were on the whole extremely good and very professional, setting a great example. But there were policemen from other countries who should not have been in uniform.”

The tribunal was told that a senior UN official, Dennis Laducer, was caught in one of the most notorious brothels. Mr Laducer, Deputy Commissioner of the International Police Task Force, was investigated by UN human rights officers and is no longer with the mission.

The ruling yesterday will cause further embarrassment to the UN over the behaviour of its peacekeepers. In March investigators disclosed that British aid workers and the UN contingent in Sierra Leone were demanding sex from teenage refugees in exchange for food and money. The UN’s refugee agency, which carried out the inquiry, told of “a shameful catalogue of sexual abuse”.

Ms Bolkovac, a mother of three who now lives in The Netherlands, said that she was elated by the tribunal’s ruling. “Now I hope to gain more international exposure for this problem,” she said.

She was posted to Sarajevo in 1999 to investigate the traffic in young women from Eastern Europe. “When I started collecting evidence from the victims of sex-trafficking, it was clear that a number of UN officers were involved from several countries, including quite a few from Britain,” she said. “I was shocked, appalled and disgusted. They were supposed to be over there to help, but they were committing crimes themselves. But when I told the supervisors they didn’t want to know”. Two Britons, a UN peacekeeper and a policeman, have been sent home after allegations involving the sex trade. Both are being investigated.

Ms Bolkovac said that she witnessed frightened young women given exotic dance costumes by club owners, who told them they had to perform sex acts on customers, including UN personnel, to pay for the outfits.

“The women who refused were locked in rooms and food and outside contact was withheld for days or weeks. After this time they were told to dance naked on table tops and sit with clients, recommending the person buy a bottle of champagne for DM200, which includes a room and ‘escort’.

“If the women still refuse to perform sex acts with the customers, they are beaten and raped in the rooms by the bar owners and their associates. They are told if they go to the police they will be arrested for prostitution and being an illegal immigrant.”

Within days of reporting her findings in October 2000 she was demoted and six months later was sacked. She claimed that DynCorp wanted her removed because her work was threatening its “lucrative contract” to supply officers to the UN mission. DynCorp said that she was dismissed for gross misconduct. During the hearing DynCorp admitted that it had dismissed three officers for using prostitutes. Since 1998, eight DynCorp employees have been sent home from Bosnia; none has been prosecuted.

The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation

2007-04-12T21:09:00.000-07:00

http://www.prisonplanet.com/09_03_03_connett.html

The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation

Paul Connett, PhD

Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT was deemed so "safe and effective" that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic tables. One by one all these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.
For over 50 years US government officials have confidently and enthusiastically claimed that fluoridation is "safe and effective". However, they are seldom prepared to defend the practice in open public debate. Actually, there are so many arguments against fluoridation that it can get overwhelming.

To simplify things it helps to separate the ethical from the scientific arguments.

For those for whom ethical concerns are paramount, the issue of fluoridation is very simple to resolve. It is simply not ethical; we simply shouldn't be forcing medication on people without their "informed consent". The bad news, is that ethical arguments are not very influential in Washington, DC unless politicians are very conscious of millions of people watching them. The good news is that the ethical arguments are buttressed by solid common sense arguments and scientific studies which convincingly show that fluoridation is neither "safe and effective" nor necessary. I have summarized the arguments in several categories:

Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

As stated by the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlsson:

"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy."

As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al 2000):

"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ' It is a preposterous notion."

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly. (See studies)
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
8) The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:

1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).
6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.

The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.

Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets', do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"

Motivations - especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers - are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:

a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation's children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a 'pollutant.'
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.

So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

However, difficult as it may be, it is nonetheless essential - in order to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm - that the US Government begin to move away from its anachronistic, and increasingly absurd, status quo on this issue. There are precedents. They were able to do this with hormone replacement therapy.

But getting any honest action out of the US Government on this is going to be difficult. Effecting change is like driving a nail through wood - science can sharpen the nail but we need the weight of public opinion to drive it home. Thus, it is going to require a sustained effort to educate the American people and then recruiting their help to put sustained pressure on our political representatives. At the very least we need a moratorium on fluoridation (which simply means turning off the tap for a few months) until there has been a full Congressional hearing on the key issues with testimony offered by scientists on both sides. With the issue of education we are in better shape than ever before. Most of the key studies are available on the internet and there are videotaped interviews with many of the scientists and protagonists whose work has been so important to a modern re-evaluation of this issue.

With this new information, more and more communities are rejecting new fluoridation proposals at the local level. On the national level, there have been some hopeful developments as well, such as the EPA Headquarters Union coming out against fluoridation and the Sierra Club seeking to have the issue re-examined. However, there is still a huge need for other national groups to get involved in order to make this the national issue it desperately needs to be.

I hope that if there are RFW readers who disagree with me on this, they will rebut these arguments. If they can't than I hope they will get off the fence and help end one of the silliest policies ever inflicted on the citizens of the US. It is time to end this folly of water fluoridation without further delay. It is not going to be easy. Fluoridation represents a very powerful "belief system" backed up by special interests and by entrenched governmental power and influence.

Paul Connett.

All references cited can be found at http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html

Top Scientist Advocates Mass Culling 90% Of Human Population

2007-04-12T21:06:00.000-07:00

Fellow professors and scientists applause and roar approval at elite's twisted and genocidal population control agenda

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 3 2006

A top scientist gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science last month in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Dr. Eric R. Pianka's chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite's agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.

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 bird flu 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 clammered 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.

One horrified observer was able to make notes on the speech and our gratitude goes to Forrest M. Mims for bringing this sickening display to the attention of the world.

Throughout history elites have invented justification for barbaric practices as a cover for their true agenda of absolute power and control over populations. Up until the 19th century, the transatlantic slave trade was justified by saying that the practice was biblical and therefore morally redeemable in nature, despite the fact that no such bible passage exists.

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.

Pianka's doomsday warning of the population bomb, for which Mims claims he presented no evidence whatsoever, is complete pseudo-science. Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries is it expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite 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. It is commonly accepted that the entire world population could all fit into the state of Texas and each have an acre of their own land.

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 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 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.

In the 21st century the elite are concerned that from over 6 billion people might spring a new elite to challenge their stranglehold on the reigns of power. This is one reason for desire to cull the population down to a manageable level. Another is control over the behavior of the existing serfs and herding them like cattle into the slaughter house.

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 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."

National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974, and titled "Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests," says:

"Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that "depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World." He quoted reasons of national security, and because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries ... Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S."

Kissinger prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called 'Global 2000' which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world.

One of the most chilling admissions of deadly intent 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."

The Melbourne Age reported on recently 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.

Pianka's ideology is in the same league as Hitler, Pol Pot, and the rest of history's despots who advocated mass extermination and had the temerity to dress it up in a 'noble' Straussian facade. We demand that he be investigated for openly calling for mass murder and in the meantime we encourage everyone to and e mail Pianka, enabling him to receive your feedback about his wish that you and your entire family die.

Global warming and the UN

2007-04-12T20:32:00.001-07:00

The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria
Man-made orthodoxy is a dogma of coercion, bias, and junk science

Prison Planet | February 13, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further centralize global power.

In an interview with a Czech newspaper , Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic blamed the "whip of political correctness" for preventing more scientists and statesmen from going public with their skepticism on man-made global warming. This is precisely what we have arrived at, in a bizarre vacuum of common sense and without any attribution, the establishment and the controlled left have managed to squash reasoned two-sided debate about global warming by coating their argument with the nebulous claim that expressing disagreement is somehow bigoted, backward and even racist.

TOOLS:
Printer Friendly Version

The very fact that the man-made advocates have to introduce such a far distant concept as race into a debate about scientific climate change makes it self-evident that their argument is inherently weak and vulnerable.

In an article we published in November about global warming being primarily caused by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek that people who express doubts about global warming would soon be compared to holocaust deniers by the media and other self-appointed cultural kingpins who demand total adherence to orthodox religion style beliefs about climate change.

Here's what we wrote :

The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.
It's not longer a joke.

The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman wrote an op-ed last week denouncing anyone who dares dissent against the God-like authoritative status of the IPCC UN report on climate change.

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
This assault betrays what's at the heart of the global warming agenda - a cadre of control freaks who can't respond to the overwhelming evidence that the Sun and other long term natural cycles are responsible for climate change and thus have to resort to vile propagandistic personality attacks to sway the court of public opinion.

During a debate on the BBC's Question Time program, a panelist's appeal for viewers to simply look at both sides of the argument and consider other causes besides the man-made explanation was met with boos and cat-calls from the audience and the speaker was shouted down. It's now treated as sacrilegious to even question the force fed dogma that leads the automatons to endlessly repeat what has been brainwashed into them by the establishment media like a broken record.

"We can't afford to have this debate," they scream, arguing that the end is nigh and unbelievers need to be metaphorically burned at the stake of public opinion in the interests of human survival.

But for those with memories and the nerve to actually think for themselves, the climate doomsayers have been proven wrong throughout the decades. In the late 60's and early 70's, the in-vogue hysteria about climate change and how it spelled the end for humanity as we know it revolved around the concept of global cooling . Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations and the fact that the earth was at the end of the cycle of the Little Ice Age .

Writer John Bender has done an excellent job of compiling quotes from environmental "authorities" of past decades who told us that the sky was falling yet have been completely discredited with hindsight. Keep these dire proclamations in mind when you hear yet another "repeater" regurgitate the brainwashing that he or she has been indoctrinated with by the establishment.

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific organization, therefore its proclamation is purely intended at achieving a political agenda. The document they released on February 2 that was devotedly afforded days of intense coverage by the compliant establishment media was a political manifesto based on a scientific undertaking that has not even been completed. How empirical is a "scientific experiment" whose conclusions are announced before tests have even been completed? The document immediately states that the "scientific" research is being edited to conform to the already released political summary.

“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter,” states the brief.

The U.N. has confidently announced "case closed" on man-made global warming because they are editing their own uncompleted report to mirror their pre-conceived conclusion. Hardly "independent" is it?

The IPCC report was piggybacked onto a bandwagon of public relations stunts that had nothing to do with the evidence behind global warming but were enough to leave an impression in the mind of the casual viewer that the man-made explanation was a global consensus. These included the Eiffel Tower's lights being turned off for 5 minutes and a ludicrous incident in which British primate expert Jane Goodall imitated the wild call of a tropical chimpanzee.

Czech President Klaus stated, "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

Man-made advocates go to great lengths to highlight the fact that transnational oil giants such as Exxon-Mobil offer thousands of dollars for reports aimed at disproving the UN theory, claiming this taints any opposing viewpoint as biased, and yet conveniently ignore the fact that it was the U.N. itself and Ted Turner, a man-made devotee and advocate of drastic population reduction to save the planet, who gifted the organization $1 Billion which in part funded the IPCC report. Is that not biased? Is that not a example of scientists being lavishly bankrolled to produce evidence that fits a pre-conceived outcome? Is the fact that a carbon tax fueled by fear of climate change that will go directly to assorted U.N. agencies itself a commentary on the U.N.'s role on hyping man-made global warming?

In addition, Greenpeace are recruiting "global warming field organizer's" whose job it is to lobby members of Congress to push the agenda for man-made global warming. So if you thought your donation was going to help save whales or protect the rainforest you're sorely mistaken - it's partly funding a PR assault that will eventually orbit right back to you in the form of a draconian carbon emissions tax that will do nothing to prevent global warming but will fill the pockets of global government and the U.N.

Not all scientists were prepared to sacrifice their impartiality to be in on the scam. Dr. Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in his own words because, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Landsea is one of many climate experts, meteorologists, geologists and others who have braved the scorn of the flat-earthers to point out that man-made advocates have utilized myopic and blinkered scientific trickery to make their case.

Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, recently penned an outstanding piece in which he detailed how the illusion is being played out and how skeptics of the farce are increasingly being made pariahs simply for having an opposing view. Ball puts it better than I ever could so I make no apologies for quoting his article at length.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

No one disagrees with the notion that global warming is occurring, but to discount the fact that it has anything to do with that giant flaming ball of fire in our sky that we can barely look at without being blinded is ignorance unparalleled.

How do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns? Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun and other celestial phenomena? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?

Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn, Triton and numerous other nooks and crannies throughout the solar system are experiencing warming trends and volatile weather patterns. How many SUV's are there on Jupiter?

The earth and its celestial counterparts are getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time in the past 1,000 years , according to a study undertaken by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany.

In addition, cosmic rays from exploding stars have now been found to contribute substantially to cloud formation and the greenhouse effect as the London Times reported yesterday.

The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one - long before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing are a walk in the park compared to the battering that our rugged planet has taken in the past.

This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or not.

Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth's atmosphere and slipped through a black hole to Triton?

Countless other heroes of science have put their reputation and careers on the line in the name of truth to expose the man-made fraud and challenge the creeping fascism being engendered by means of using political correctness to hijack the debate. They have bucked the orthodoxy and risked being stripped of their credentials, as the Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist would have it. Here are several insightful statements from these brave individuals.

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them. Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
ABC-TV Meteorologist James Spann.

"It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit."
MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.

"Climate keeps changing all the time. The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat."
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Atmospheric Physicist at George Mason University.
Man-made global warming feeds into humanity's arrogant self-importance in thinking that it has become the master and therefore the decider of the earth's destiny. On an individual level, it also helps a person stroke their ego and feel good about themselves for recycling a few beer cans or wine bottles in the belief that they're saving the planet, and also gives them the excuse to exercise their judgment against anyone who doesn't do likewise.

Fearmongering about an imminent climate doomsday also hogs news coverage and important environmental issues like GM food, mad scientist chimera cloning and the usurpation and abuse of corporations like Monsanto flies under the radar.

Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS satellite tracking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the gas pump.

The extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, characterized by people like Dr. Erik Pianka , advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the disease of humanity. Nazi-like genocidal population control measures and the environmental establishment have always held a close alliance.

The world is laboring under enforced adherence to a program of mass deception while scientists who attempt to blow the whistle on the fraud are silenced, tarred, ridiculed and fired. The biased control freaks at the United Nations and their intellectually spayed cheerleaders, whose goal it is to use the hysteria of climate change to impose draconian control measures on society and centralize world power, have declared "case closed" on the man-made origins of global warming. However, their foolish attempts to zealously mute mere expression of an opposing view betray the inherent flaws of their own mantra and will ultimately lead to its downfall.

ufo invasion?

2007-04-12T14:39:00.000-07:00

Counterfeit Foe - The Ultimate Hegelian Dialectic

Paul Joseph Watson

If you haven't recognised the following fact then I suggest you do a little research and deal with it. Government's, ruling oligarchies, dictatorships subtle and overt,

Slip of the Tongue

Henry Kissinger, a member of the Bilderberg Group, CFR and Trilateral Commission raised suspicions that the New World Order would play the fake 'alien card' in the future when he made the following statement at the 1991 Bilderberger conference held in Evians, France:

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops
entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

Years previous to this however, the premise of an ET menace that would bind civilization into accepting a one world government was raised, on more than one occasion, by President Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan's Universal Enemy

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, was conceived in the Nixon administration. The Carter administration further developed the program but it didn't really get teeth until Reagan stepped into office. From 1982-84 Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil defence preparations. Details of these plans emerged during the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal. They included executive orders providing for suspension of the constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA in the event of a national crisis.

In April 1984, President Reagan signed Presidential Directive Number 54 that allowed FEMA to engage in a secret national "readiness exercise" under the code name of REX 84. The exercise was to test FEMA’s readiness to assume military authority in the event of a "State of Domestic National Emergency" concurrent with the launching of a direct United States military operation in Central America. This much desired emergency never came, despite several provocations.

Reagan was instrumental in creating the framework for a police state. However, one could never be realized without the added ingredient of a hostile universal threat.

This potential (as in potential to be created) threat was identified by Reagan on no less than four public occasions. On September 21st, 1987, Reagan told the United Nations General Assembly:

"In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world." [Click here for an MP3 sample]

Reagan repeated these sentiments to reporters as he left the White House for Chicago on May 5th, 1988:

"But, I've often wondered what if all of us in the world discovered that we were threatened by an outer--a power from another planet. Wouldn't we all of a sudden find that we didn't have any differences between us at all, we were all human beings, citizens of the world and wouldn't we come together to fight that particular threat?"
We have to recall that Reagan was the ultimate puppet for the New World Order, especially after he was kept under wraps by way of the assassination attempt on his life. Who was writing the autocue and for what purpose? Was this to further condition Americans of the reality of a future manufactured alien threat?

Cosmic deception: Let the citizen be aware

Dr. Steven Greer is the director of the Disclosure Project, a nonprofit research project working to fully disclose the facts about UFOs, extraterrestrial intelligence, and classified advanced energy and propulsion systems. In a June 2002 article he warns of how a phoney UFO invasion would be presented to the public so they would willingly sacrifice their liberty and rally round the government in opposition to the nefarious ET's. Greer describes the ultimate trump card - a hoaxed threat from space:

"Since 1992 I have seen this script unveiled to me by at least a dozen well-placed insiders. Of course, initially I laughed, thinking this just too absurd and far-fetched. Dr. Rosin gave her testimony to the Disclosure Project before 9/11. And yet others told me explicitly that things that looked like UFOs but that are built and under the control of deeply secretive 'black' projects, were being used to simulate - hoax - ET-appearing events, including some abductions and cattle mutilations, to sow the early seeds of cultural fear regarding life in outer space. Like the movie Independence Day, an attempt to unite the world through militarism would unfold using ET as the new cosmic scapegoat (think Jews during the Third Reich).

After a period of terrorism - a period during which the detonation of nuclear devices will be threatened and possibly actuated, thus justifying expanding the weaponization of space - an effort will ramp up to present the public with information about a threat from outer space. Not just asteroids hitting the Earth, but other threats. An extraterrestrial threat. I write this now because I have recently been contacted by several highly placed media and intelligence sources that have made it clear to me that hoaxed events and story-lines are imminent that will attempt to further ramp up the fear machine regarding UFOs and ETs. After all, to have an enemy, you must make the people hate and fear a person, a group of people, or in this case an entire category of beings.

This hogwash, already the stuff of countless books, videos, movies, documentaries and the like, will attempt to glom onto the facts, evidence and first-hand insider testimony of The Disclosure Project, and on its coattails, deliver to the world the cosmic deception that falsely portrays ETs as a threat from space. Do not be deceived. By commingling fact with fiction, and by hoaxing UFO events that can look terrifying, the Plan is to eventually create a new, sustainable, off-planet enemy. And who will be the wiser?"

Greer is an expert in his field and far from seeking to debunk the UFO phenomenon; he has devoted his life to gathering the most credible observers and scientific data to prove actual ET contact, and not elite-sponsored psy-ops fakery. We need to heed his warning and look a little deeper.

On the record: military-industrial psy-ops has considered such programs before

Let's delve into the evidence of how technological deception has been considered before, as a means of misleading populations. The Kennedy era, anti-Castro covert action plan Operation Mongoose was designed to destabilize Cuban society and turn it against Fidel Castro. Under the umbrella of this strategy was a program dubbed 'Elimination by Illumination.' It is found in the Congressional Record, in "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, Interim Report of the Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities," November 20, 1975. The plan was developed by an American Intelligence military psy-op specialist named Edward Lansdale.

The operation was to have an American Submarine surface inside Havana harbor at night and project a movie of a Jesus-like figure on the underside of the low-lying clouds that form over the harbor at night. A plane with muffled motors was to have circled just above the clouds while another operative with a loudspeaker exhorted the Cubans below to overthrow "Godless Communism."

The plan was never put into action but was seriously considered and, as stated, remains in the Congressional Record to this day.

An almost exact replica of this proposal came to light in a June 2000 Sydney Morning Herald report.

In 1991 during the Gulf War, top brass of the US Air Force drew up plans to project a giant holographic image of Allah over Baghdad. The scale of the project dictated a mirror several kilometres across up in space. However, a more practical method was suggested. When warm air lies on top of cold air, the difference in density is enough to bend
light. At higher altitudes, a mirage can make whole landscapes appear in the sky. An artificial mirage could in theory be made by heating the atmosphere with radio waves or microwaves. The USAF then had the problem of making the image appear to speak. They postulated, "a pulse stream, an internal acoustic field of 5-15KHz can be created which is audible. Thus it may be possible to 'talk' to adversaries in a way which would be most disturbing to them."

The plan was abandoned when it was realized that images of Allah are forbidden in Islam. The Iraqi's wouldn't know what they were looking at. Also, the practical difficulties in microwave transmission were described as formidable. A consistent and believable method of voice projection was considered highly improbable. However, a cursory look at existing US patents suggests such technology was easily procurable:

3,629,521 – Hearing Systems, Jan. 8, 1970

3,766,331 – Hearing Aid for Producing Sensations in the Brain, Nov. 24,1971

4,858,612 – Hearing Device, Dec. 1983

5,159,703 – Silent Subliminal Presentation System, Dec. 28, 1989

Going back to the Sydney Morning Herald piece, technologies perfect for staging a UFO threat are described:

"The military certainly appears to believe in the potential use of holograms. A USAF think-tank has devised uses ranging from deceptive holographic imaging to the Star Trek-sounding distortion field projector. These are
It won't take an Independence Day style show to convince people of this new alien threat. If 'official sources' say there is a threat and present limited evidence, the people will still lap it up. You'll either be with the government or with the aliens.

Just glance back to the information regarding heating the atmosphere to produce an artificial mirage. Such an application is entirely plausible using HAARP technology. Is this a facet of HAARP's agenda currently being conducted in Alaska?

To act as an atmospheric conduit when it's time for those phoney ET's to appear? Certainly this would fit the bill of Project ARM, a subsidiary of HAARP. ARM (Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program) utilizes a sophisticated array of lasers and microwave devices, surrounded by so-called RASS units that will send sound waves booming skyward over huge outdoor loudspeakers for at least ten minutes every hour. A draft DOE Environmental Assessment, issued December 1996, conceded that the units could generate sound loud enough to be heard as far away as 2,000 meters (6,900 feet). Furthermore, ARM employs laser-radar units known as LIDAR.

Steven Spielberg - the Bilderberg Group's Culture Change Agent

Every year since 1954, the secretive Bilderberg Group (named after the hotel they first met in the Netherlands), comprising elite powerbrokers from Europe and North America, has met to discuss, and influence, the changing global, political, economic and social landscape. Dotted amongst the usual suspects of Rockefeller, Kissinger and Soros etc. we see the presence of renowned Hollywood filmmaker Steven Spielberg. Spielberg attended the 1999 Bilderberg meeting held at Sintra, Portugal. What business does Spielberg, a chieftain of the 'entertainment' industry have secretly mingling with international bankers, military intelligence and world political leaders?

Since the 1970's, Spielberg has directed or produced seven of the top twenty grossing films of all time. Throughout his career we see an obsession with the alien/UFO/space theme. From the 1977 Close Encounters of the Third Kind to ET in 1982, to Deep Impact in 1998. All depict an invasion from outer space. Even the movie Jaws is littered with shooting stars and strange lights in the sky.

In February 1997 a leading light in the British film industry leaked the story that Spielberg and executives of his company DreamWorks had secretly met with senior Pentagon officials in Los Angeles. The officials told Spielberg to "stop everything" and produce a movie whose subject matter involved meteors and/or comets. One year later Deep Impact was in the can. The film describes a comet hurtling towards earth and the fight for who has the privilege of access to an underground bunker.

Who were these Pentagon officials and why were they so eager for Bilderberg asset Spielberg to produce a movie about a threat from outer space?

Commencing in December 2002, the SciFi Channel will screen Taken, Spielberg's 20 hour mini-series focusing on alien abduction. The cost of this production was a staggering $120 million - making it the most expensive mini-series in television history. You'd think Spielberg would by now have tired of the genre, but his elite controllers are really zealous to implant this alien paradigm in the minds of the masses.
Furthermore, Ray Santilli's infamous 1995 'Alien Autopsy' footage now widely accepted as a hoax can again be traced back to Spielberg. The film became all the rage in the international UFO community, with half the specialised publications featuring Santilli's alien corpse on their front covers. However, Santilli now appears to be just the front man for the real owner of the film. Santilli admitted in a BBC interview that the money behind the film came from Germany. French network TF1 subsequently reported that the film originated from an individual by the name of 'Herr Volker Spielberg.' TF1 tried to track this man down but he proved elusive.

Spielberg is clearly a tool of the elite. His work in Hollywood propagates the reality of an alien presence that has been imbedded in the body politic. This has been a success. Recent Roper polls tell us that 80% of the American population believe in UFO's.

In conclusion, consider the comments of UFO researcher Jacques Vallee:

"When I met Stephen Spielberg, I argued with him that the subject [of UFOs] was even more interesting if it wasn't extraterrestrials. If it was real, physical, but not ET. So he said, 'You're probably right, but that's not what the public is expecting - this is Hollywood and I want to give people something that's close to what they expect.'"

Why are the Rockefellers funding the UFO movement?

The Rockefeller family played pivotal roles in establishing the quasi-secret globalist Bilderberg, CFR, and Trilateral Commission groups. They represent the apex of elite monopoly capitalism. The Rockefellers have a penchant for controlling so-called radical 'anti-establishment' minorities.

Thirty years ago when the radical student movement was gaining momentum in North America, the Rockefeller dynasty was surprisingly quick to offer funds. A student leader James Simon Kunen, in his book entitled The Strawberry Incident, tells about the 1968 Students for a Democratic Society convention in which, "men from Business International Roundtables,... tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world's industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered ESSO (Rockefeller) money."

The Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver warned that the mega rich were buying themselves a revolution. He wrote:

"There is a danger to the healthy development of the American Revolution in the fact that often revolutions are manipulated by the ruling class to appear to be a bigger threat than they really are."

Consider this comment by Frank Capell in the U.S. Review of the News:

"Of course, we know that these radical students are not going to take over the government. What they are going to do is provide the excuse for the government to take over the people, by passing more and more repressive laws to 'keep things under control'."

In March 1993 Laurance Rockefeller, assisted by former naval intelligence officer Cdr Scott Jones met with then President Bill Clinton's Science Adviser Dr. John Gibbons and presented an ominous sounding 'Matrix of UFO Belief' study. On the weekend of 19-20th
August 1995 Rockefeller met with Clinton himself at his Wyoming Ranch to further discuss the UFO issue.

On December 18th, 1995, the New York Daily News reported that billionaire Laurance Rockefeller was funding a 150 page UFO report entitled 'The Best Available Evidence' which would subsequently be sent to Bill Clinton and other world leaders. The report was distributed widely, but Rockefeller received no response. The reasons are two-fold. Either Rockefeller wasn't in the loop about the fact that the UFO issue had been co-opted as a psy-op tool or the report was actually a cover for a sensitive briefing on the development of this very same psychological operation.

Rockefeller has also channelled money into the research of Dr. John Mack, the Harvard psychiatrist who has written several books claiming the validity of the alien abduction phenomenon. From 1993-95 Rockefeller's 'donation' was estimated to be $500,000 in total.

Rockefeller paid for at least two meeting sessions of the Starlight Coalition, a group said to be made up of former intelligence officers and military men interested in UFOs. At one time Rockefeller funded a plan to establish contact with aliens, not using the SETI method (by radio
telescope), but by signalling them with banks of powerful halogen lamps. In May 1999 the BBC reported that Rockefeller was funding the UK's largest ever scientific study of crop circles, often linked to UFO activity by researchers. Rockefeller has also funded numerous new age groups seeking to usher in a 'spiritual transformation' and new ways of thinking. His money also percolates through the environmental movement, which is controlled at the top and used by the elite to foster neo-feudalism and continental land grabs.

The Counterfeit Foe

Just take a look at history. The most successful way of legitimizing what would otherwise be a clear abuse of power is to create monsters in the minds of the public. They will always choose the lesser of two evils. There is clearly a program afoot to present a hoaxed and hostile alien presence as real. Let's take a look at two examples of how the litmus test for this deception was carried out.

Obviously, a well known example is Orson Welles' staged and updated dramatization of H.G. Well's The War of the Worlds. On October 30, 1938 CBS Radio was broadcasting the music of Ramon Raquello and his orchestra live from the Meridian Room at the Park Plaza in New York City. Suddenly a reporter from Intercontinental Radio News interrupted the broadcast to deliver an important announcement. Astronomers had just detected enormous blue flames shooting up from the surface of Mars.

The broadcast returned to the music of Ramon Raquello, but soon it was interrupted again with more news. Now a strange meteor had fallen to earth, impacting violently on a farm near Grovers Mill, New Jersey. A reporter was soon on hand to describe the eerie scene around the meteor crater, and the broadcast now switched over to continuous coverage of this rapidly unfolding event.

To the dismay of the terrified audience listening to the broadcast, the events around the Grovers Mill meteor crater rapidly escalated from the merely strange to the positively ominous. It turned out that the meteor was not a meteor. It was, in fact, some kind of spaceship from which a tentacled creature, presumably a Martian, soon emerged and blasted the on-lookers with a deadly heat-ray. Homes were evacuated and a state of martial law was declared. [Real Player file of original broadcast]

Original estimates depicted a reaction of total panic amongst one million of the six million listeners. Although this was later scaled down, hundreds of thousands of people thought the play was real, despite announcements before, during and after the show indicating that it was just a dramatization. People stocked up cars, stashed food, drove hundreds of miles to loved ones.

Obviously, people are (a little) more sophisticated today. However, so is the psy-op intelligence and technology to believably hoax a hostile alien threat. The War of the Worlds broadcast was unlikely to have been a vast conspiracy to test the psychosomatic reaction of the American people to a
hoaxed alien invasion. However, in hindsight it proved to be a very useful case study.

Our second example is a Walt Disney telecast on the weekend of March 18-19 1995. The documentary featured another elite operative, CEO Michael Eisner, and announced that intelligent contact with alien beings had occurred. The show presented a history of UFO sightings and crashed saucers. Eisner uttered the telling line:

"For governments determined to maintain their authority, extra-terrestrial contact is pure dynamite."

The broadcast was unannounced and was patently a test as to how the public would react to the declaration of an off-planet threat.

We have been and are being conditioned. It's no strange coincidence that top lieutenants of the Trilateral Commission like Laurance Rockefeller and Bilderberg placemen like Steven Spielberg are funding and fomenting this alien paradigm. That is not to say the entire UFO research field is controlled, but the stranglehold at the top represents elite manipulation and social steering. The technology to pull off this hoax is in place, the historical precedents are documented. It will only take one declaration from the President, one staged attack on a US city, to convince the people of a universal threat. Only a centralized one world government will be able to protect us.

The ultimate Hegelian Dialectic has been carefully constructed. Upon the conclusion of the war on terrorism, the counterfeit foe awaits.

Grassroots groups fight land grabs

2007-04-12T14:32:00.000-07:00

Grassroots groups fight land grabs
Revised confiscations being battled by churches, homeowners nationwide

World Net Daily | August 17 2006

Like popcorn spilling over, the cases of abuse of eminent domain have been multiplying ever since the U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled that it is okay to confiscate property from one private owner and give it to another to redevelop.

Now, however, a cleanup move has begun. It will be highlighted at a conference in Chicago this weekend, where the Americans for Limited Government will feature speakers including Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., National Taxpayers Union chief John Berthoud, Rev. Roosevelt Gildon Jr. of the new group called Protect Our Homes and Churches and Susan Kelo, the plaintiff in the high court's Kelo V. New London case.

The Kelo case concluded with the U.S. Supreme Court allowing governments to use the power of eminent domain to seize private homes, schools or churches – and then give those assets away to a developer to build a casino, resort or apartment building.

The 2006 Action Conference, at Chicago's Intercontinental Hotel starting Thursday, will bring activists, campaign veterans and others to talk about strategies for making a more limited and accountable government reality.

It's already starting to happen, with organizations at the local and state level assembling all across the country – Arizona, California, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Washington just to start.

Gildon's group, Protect Our Homes and Churches, is relatively new, being supported in its startup by Americans for Limited Government.

Gildon is an expert in the area, having – so far – battled back against a redevelopment plan by the city of Sand Springs, Okla., that would have demolished the seven-year-old building used by Centennial Baptist Church.

He's had help from ALG as well as the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and so far, the church has lost a parking lot but also has seen other demolition and construction work go on around its worship facility.

"Now the city has backed off," Heather Wilhelm, a spokeswoman with ALG, told WorldNetDaily. "We're very, very happy."

But she said the church's pastor is concerned because "he knows this is happening to other churches across the country."

Another case was developing in Long Beach, Calif., where bulldozers have retreated at least temporarily from the front door of Filipino Baptist Fellowship Church.

Sand Springs' goal was a strip shopping center that did cost people their homes, and two other church structures whose members had agreed to a buyout.

"It turns out that one of the churches that made a deal with the city is about to be evicted, and they have no place to go," Wilhelm said. "That's what can happen."

"Most of the time the victims are the kind of people who don’t have the resources to fight back."

Wilhelm said the course is clear, but long and arduous. At least the eight states listed – Arizona, California, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Washington – already have coalitions assembling ballot initiatives that would redefine eminent domain to prevent governments from taking private property just to transfer it to another private owner.

The original use of eminent domain – taking property for public facilities such as roads – would remain.

The weight of court opinion also seems to be shifting, although a retraction of the Kelo opinion could take years to accomplish. Just last month the Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously that cities may not use eminent domain powers to take private property if the only purpose is "economic development."

The court said because property rights were believed "to be derived fundamentally from a higher authority and natural law," they are "so sacred that they could not be entrusted lightly to the uncertain virtue of those who govern."

The opinion said the right to hold property "existed independently of and before (constitutional) recognition, and which no government can destroy."

The Becket Fund's brief in that case had noted that churches are economically vulnerable because they are tax-exempt, and local governments "will always be particularly eager to replace properties with for-profit, tax-generating businesses."

"The U.S. Supreme Court is not as wise as Ohio's Supreme Court on the issue," said Jared N. Leland, legal counsel for The Becket Fund.

Those who are battling the precedent note that religious exercise is "virtually impossible" without a physical house of worship. But contemporary planning styles exclude churches from downtown areas because they don't attract traffic and generate taxes, from residential areas for creating too much traffic, and from agricultural and other areas for being "incompatible."

The Becket Fund also is working on its "Sacred Spaces" project to raise awareness of the fundamental rights that are being threatened. It also argues cases under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, signed by President Clinton, which protects those who want to use land owned by religious organizations from discrimination and excessive burdens.

The Becket Fund was the group that last winter wrote the City of Sand Springs on behalf of Centennial Baptist, noting the church property was not, is not, and will not be for sale "and any attempt by the City to seize the Church's property through eminent domain will be challenged by immediate legal action."

Gildon also is involved with gathering signatures for the "Protect Our Homes" initiative in Oklahoma, which also is slated to appear on the November ballot.

WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine devoted its April edition to "THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY." The investigate report takes readers on a jarring visit to America – a land where bureaucrats can decide to take away your home and give it to someone else – for no other reason than that it will result in higher tax revenues.

The magazine reports that in America today more than 10,000 properties have been condemned or threatened with condemnation, solely for the benefit of private parties.

Susan Kelo was among several residents of New London, Conn., who sued after city officials announced plans to destroy their homes, and instead give the land to a developer who wanted a riverfront hotel and health club.

In the Supreme Court's opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor disagreed with the majority, saying the result of the decision will be that beneficiaries will be "citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process."

Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion noted that the city wanted to raise its tax revenue.

extremely thorough and well organized blogspot of 9/11

2007-04-12T14:15:00.001-07:00

http://debunking-bbc.blogspot.com/2007/02/debunking-bbcs-9-11-conspiracy-files.html

pearl harbour background and coverup

2007-04-11T20:46:00.000-07:00

PEARL HARBOR
MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACIES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944
President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.

FDR blinded the commanders at Pearl Harbor and set them up by -

denying intelligence to Hawaii (HI)
on Nov 27, misleading the commanders into thinking negotiations with Japan were continuing to prevent them from realizing the war was on
having false information sent to HI about the location of the Japanese carrier fleet.
BACKGROUND
1904 - The Japanese destroyed the Russian navy in a surprise attack in undeclared war.
1932 - In The Grand Joint Army Navy Exercises the attacker, Admiral Yarnell, attacked with 152 planes a half-hour before dawn 40 miles NE of Kahuku Point and caught the defenders of Pearl Harbor completely by surprise. It was a Sunday.
1938 - Admiral Ernst King led a carrier-born airstrike from the USS Saratoga successfully against Pearl Harbor in another exercise.
1940 - FDR ordered the fleet transferred from the West Coast to its exposed position in Hawaii and ordered the fleet remain stationed at Pearl Harbor over complaints by its commander Admiral Richardson that there was inadequate protection from air attack and no protection from torpedo attack. Richardson felt so strongly that he twice disobeyed orders to berth his fleet there and he raised the issue personally with FDR in October and he was soon after replaced. His successor, Admiral Kimmel, also brought up the same issues with FDR in June 1941.
7 Oct 1940 - Navy IQ analyst McCollum wrote an 8 point memo on how to force Japan into war with US. Beginning the next day FDR began to put them into effect and all 8 were eventually accomplished.
11 November 1940 - 21 aged British planes destroyed the Italian fleet, including 3 battleships, at their homeport in the harbor of Taranto in Southern Italy by using technically innovative shallow-draft torpedoes.
11 February 1941 - FDR proposed sacrificing 6 cruisers and 2 carriers at Manila to get into war. Navy Chief Stark objected: "I have previously opposed this and you have concurred as to its unwisdom. Particularly do I recall your remark in a previous conference when Mr. Hull suggested (more forces to Manila) and the question arose as to getting them out and your 100% reply, from my standpoint, was that you might not mind losing one or two cruisers, but that you did not want to take a chance on losing 5 or 6." (Charles Beard PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND THE COMING OF WAR 1941, p 424)
March 1941 - FDR sold munitions and convoyed them to belligerents in Europe -- both acts of war and both violations of international law -- the Lend-Lease Act.
23 Jun 1941 - Advisor Harold Ickes wrote FDR a memo the day after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, "There might develop from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it not only possible but easy to get into this war in an effective way. And if we should thus indirectly be brought in, we would avoid the criticism that we had gone in as an ally of communistic Russia." FDR was pleased with Admiral Richmond Turner's report read July 22: "It is generally believed that shutting off the American supply of petroleum will lead promptly to the invasion of Netherland East Indies...it seems certain she would also include military action against the Philippine Islands, which would immediately involve us in a Pacific war." On July 24 FDR told the Volunteer Participation Committee, "If we had cut off the oil off, they probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had war." The next day FDR froze all Japanese assets in US cutting off their main supply of oil and forcing them into war with the US. Intelligence information was withheld from Hawaii from this point forward.
14 August - At the Atlantic Conference, Churchill noted the "astonishing depth of Roosevelt's intense desire for war." Churchill cabled his cabinet "(FDR) obviously was very determined that they should come in."
18 October - diary entry by Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CODES
Purple Code - the top Japanese diplomatic machine cipher which used automatic telephone switches to separately and differently encipher each character sent. It was cracked by the Army Signal Intelligence Service (331 men).
J-19 was the main Japanese diplomatic code book. This columnar code was cracked.
Coral Machine Cipher or JNA-20 was a simplified version of Purple used by Naval attaches. Only one message deciphered prior to Pearl Harbor has been declassified.
JN-25 - The Japanese Fleet's Cryptographic System, a.k.a. 5 number code (Sample). JN stands for Japanese Navy, introduced 1 June 1939. This was a very simple old-type code book system used by the American Army and Navy in 1898 and abandoned in 1917 because it was insecure. Version A has a dictionary of 5,600 numbers, words and phrases, each given as a five figure number. These were super-enciphered by addition to random numbers contained in a second code book. The dictionary was only changed once before PH on Dec 1, 1940, to a slightly larger version B but the random book was changed every 3 to 6 months- last on Aug 1. The Japanese blundered away the code when they introduced JN25-B by continuing to use, for 2 months, random books that had been previously solved by the Allies. That was the equivalent of handing over the JN-25B codebook. It was child's play for the Navy group OP-20-G (738 men whose primary responsibility was Japanese naval codes) to reconstruct the exposed dictionary. We recovered the whole thing immediately - in 1994 the NSA published that JN-25B was completely cracked in December 1940. In January 1941 the US gave Britain two JN-25B code books with keys and techniques for deciphering. The entire Pearl Harbor scheme was laid out in this code. The official US Navy statement on JN-25B is the NAVAL SECURITY GROUP HISTORY TO WORLD WAR II prepared by Captain J. Holtwick in June 1971, page 398: "By 1 December 1941 we had the code solved to a readable extent." Churchill wrote "From the end of 1940 the Americans had pierced the vital Japanese ciphers, and were decoding large numbers of their military and diplomatic telegrams."(GRAND ALLIANCE p 598) Chief of Navy codebreaking Safford reported that during 1941 "The Navy COMINT team did a thorough job on the Japanese Navy with no help from the Army."(SRH-149) The first paragraph of the Congressional Report Exhibit 151 says the US was "currently" (instantly) reading JN-25B and exchanging the "translations" with the British prior to Pearl Harbor.
The Chief Navy codebreaker wrote in Cryptologia, July 1982: "So far as inherent security was concerned, JN-25B was little better than the ciphers used by Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar. The vocabulary was in Japanese - supplemented by Chinese characters - and the difficulties of written Japanese afforded more security and occasioned more difficulty than the crypto-system."
In 1979 the NSA released 2,413 JN-25 orders of the 26,581 intercepted by US between Sept 1 and Dec 4, 1941. The NSA says "We know now that they contained important details concerning the existence, organization, objective, and even the whereabouts of the Pearl Harbor Strike Force." (Parker p 21) Of the over thousand radio messages sent by Tokyo to the attack fleet, only 20 are in the National Archives. All messages to the attack fleet were sent several times, at least one message was sent every odd hour of the day and each had a special serial number. Starting in early November 1941 when the attack fleet assembled and started receiving radio messages, OP-20-G stayed open 24 hours a day and the "First Team" of codebreakers worked on JN-25. In November and early December 1941, OP-20-G spent 85 percent of its effort reading Japanese Navy traffic, 12 percent on Japanese diplomatic traffic and 3 percent on German naval codes. FDR was personally briefed twice a day on JN-25 traffic by his aide, Captain John Beardell, and demanded to see the original raw messages in English. The US Government refuses to identify or declassify any pre-Dec 7, 1941 decrypts of JN-25 on the basis of national security, a half-century after the war.

AD or Administrative Code wrongly called Admiralty Code was an old four character transposition code used for personnel matters. No important messages were sent in this weak code. Introduced Nov 1938, it was seldom used after Dec 1940.
Magic - the security designation given to all decoded Japanese diplomatic messages. It's hard not to conclude with historians like Charles Bateson that "Magic standing alone points so irresistibly to the Pearl Harbor attack that it is inconceivable anybody could have failed to forecast the Japanese move." The NSA reached the same conclusion in 1955.
Ultra - the security designation for decoded military messages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WARNINGS
Warnings do no harm and might do inexpressible good
27 January 1941, Dr. Ricardo Shreiber, the Peruvian envoy in Tokyo told Max Bishop, third secretary of the US embassy that he had just learned from his intelligence sources that there was a war plan involving a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. This information was sent to the State Department and Naval Intelligence and to Admiral Kimmel at Hawaii.
31 March 1941 - A Navy report by Bellinger and Martin predicted that if Japan made war on the US, they would strike Pearl Harbor without warning at dawn with aircraft from a maximum of 6 carriers. For years Navy planners had assumed that Japan, on the outbreak of war, would strike the American fleet wherever it was. The fleet was the only threat to Japan's plans. Logically, Japan couldn't engage in any major operation with the American fleet on its flank. The strategic options for the Japanese were not unlimited.
10 July - US Military Attache Smith-Hutton at Tokyo reported Japanese Navy secretly practicing aircraft torpedo attacks against capital ships in Ariake Bay. The bay closely resembles Pearl Harbor.
July - The US Military Attache in Mexico forwarded a report that the Japanese were constructing special small submarines for attacking the American fleet in Pearl Harbor, and that a training program then under way included towing them from Japan to positions off the Hawaiian Islands, where they practiced surfacing and submerging.
10 August 1941, the top British agent, code named "Tricycle", Dusko Popov, told the FBI of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor and that it would be soon. The FBI told him that his information was "too precise, too complete to be believed. The questionnaire plus the other information you brought spell out in detail exactly where, when, how, and by whom we are to be attacked. If anything, it sounds like a trap." He also reported that a senior Japanese naval person had gone to Taranto to collect all secret data on the attack there and that it was of utmost importance to them. The info was given to Naval IQ.
Early in the Fall, Kilsoo Haan, an agent for the Sino-Korean People's League, told Eric Severeid of CBS that the Korean underground in Korea and Japan had positive proof that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor before Christmas. Among other things, one Korean had actually seen the plans. In late October, Haan finally convinced US Senator Guy Gillette that the Japanese were planning to attack in December or January. Gillette alerted the State Department, Army and Navy Intelligence and FDR personally.
24 September 1941, the " bomb plot" message in J-19 code from Japan Naval Intelligence to Japan' s consul general in Honolulu requesting grid of exact locations of ships pinpointed for the benefit of bombardiers and torpedo pilots was deciphered. There was no reason to know the EXACT location of ships in harbor, unless to attack them - it was a dead giveaway. Chief of War Plans Turner and Chief of Naval Operations Stark repeatedly kept it and warnings based on it prepared by Safford and others from being passed to Hawaii. The chief of Naval Intelligence Captain Kirk was replaced because he insisted on warning HI. It was lack of information like this that lead to the exoneration of the Hawaii commanders and the blaming of Washington for unpreparedness for the attack by the Army Board and Navy Court. At no time did the Japanese ever ask for a similar bomb plot for any other American military installation. Why the Roosevelt administration allowed flagrant Japanese spying on PH has never been explained, but they blocked 2 Congressional investigations in the fall of 1941 to allow it to continue. The bomb plots were addressed to "Chief of 3rd Bureau, Naval General Staff", marked Secret Intelligence message, and given special serial numbers, so their significance couldn't be missed. There were about 95 ships in port. The text was:

"Strictly secret.

"Henceforth, we would like to have you make reports concerning vessels
along the following lines insofar as possible:

"1. The waters (of Pearl Harbor) are to be divided roughly into five
subareas (We have no objections to your abbreviating as much as you
like.)

"Area A. Waters between Ford Island and the Arsenal.
"Area B. Waters adjacent to the Island south and west of Ford Island.
(This area is on the opposite side of the Island from Area A.)
"Area C. East Loch.
"Area D. Middle Loch.
"Area E. West Loch and the communication water routes.

"2. With regard to warships and aircraft carriers, we would like to have
you report on those at anchor (these are not so important) tied up at
wharves, buoys and in docks. (Designate types and classes briefly. If
possible we would like to have you make mention of the fact when
there are two or more vessels along side the same wharf.)"

Simple traffic analysis of the accelerated frequency of messages from various Japanese consuls gave a another identification of war preparations, from Aug-Dec there were 6 messages from Seattle, 18 from Panama, 55 from Manila and 68 from Hawaii.
Oct. - Soviet top spy Richard Sorge, the greatest spy in history, informed Kremlin that Pearl Harbor would be attacked within 60 days. Moscow informed him that this was passed to the US. Interestingly, all references to Pearl Harbor in the War Department's copy of Sorge's 32,000 word confession to the Japanese were deleted. NY Daily News, 17 May 1951.
16 Oct. - FDR grossly humiliated Japan's Ambassador and refused to meet with Premier Konoye to engineer the war party, lead by General Tojo, into power in Japan.
1 Nov. - JN-25 Order to continue drills against anchored capital ships to prepare to "ambush and completely destroy the US enemy." The message included references to armor-piercing bombs and 'near surface torpedoes.'
13 Nov. - The German Ambassador to US, Dr. Thomsen an anti-Nazi, told US IQ that Pearl Harbor would be attacked.
14 Nov. - Japanese Merchant Marine was alerted that wartime recognition signals would be in effect Dec 1.
22 Nov. - Tokyo said to Ambassador Nomura in Washington about extending the deadline for negotiations to November 29: "...this time we mean it, that the deadline absolutely cannot be changed. After that things are automatically going to happen."
CIA Director Allen Dulles told people that US was warned in mid-November that the Japanese Fleet had sailed east past Tokyo Bay and was going to attack Pearl Harbor. CIA FOIA
23 Nov. - JN25 order - "The first air attack has been set for 0330 hours on X-day." (Tokyo time or 8 A.M. Honolulu time)
25 Nov. - British decrypted the Winds setup message sent Nov. 19. The US decoded it Nov. 28. It was a J-19 Code message that there would be an attack and that the signal would come over Radio Tokyo as a weather report - rain meaning war, east (Higashi) meaning US.
25 Nov. - Secretary of War Stimson noted in his diary "FDR stated that we were likely to be attacked perhaps as soon as next Monday." FDR asked: "the question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves. In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors."
25 Nov. - Navy Department ordered all US trans-Pacific shipping to take the southern route. PHH 12:317 (PHH = 1946 Congressional Report, vol. 12, page 317) ADM Turner testified "We sent the traffic down to the Torres Straight, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic." PHH 4:1942
25 Nov. - Yamamoto radioed this order in JN-25: " (a) The task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters and upon the very opening of hostilities, shall attack the main force of the United States Fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow. The raid is planned for dawn on X-day -- exact date to be given by later order. (b) Should the negotiations with the US prove successful, the task force shall hold itself in readiness forthwith to return and reassemble. (c) The task force will move out of Hitokappu Wan on the morning of 26 November and advance to the standing-by position on the afternoon of 4 December and speedily complete refueling." ( Order to sail - scan from the PHA Congressional Hearings Report, vol 1 p 180, transcript p 437-8) This was decoded by the British on November 25 and the Dutch on November 27. When it was decoded by the US is a national secret, however, on November 26 Naval Intelligence reported the concentration of units of the Japanese fleet at an unknown port ready for offensive action.
26 Nov. 3 A.M. - Churchill sent an urgent secret message to FDR, probably containing above message. This message caused the greatest agitation in DC. Of Churchill's voluminous correspondence with FDR, this is the only message that has not been released (on the grounds that it would damage national security). Stark testified that "On November 26 there was received specific evidence of the Japanese intention to wage offensive war against Great Britain and the United States." C.I.A. Director William Casey, who was in the OSS in 1941, in his book THE SECRET WAR AGAINST HITLER, p 7, wrote "The British had sent word that a Japanese fleet was steaming east toward Hawaii." Washington, in an order of Nov 26 as a result of the "first shot" meeting the day before, ordered both US aircraft carriers, the Enterprise and the Lexington out of Pearl Harbor "as soon as practicable." This order included stripping Pearl of 50 planes or 40 percent of its already inadequate fighter protection. In response to Churchill's message, FDR secretly cabled him that afternoon - "Negotiations off. Services expect action within two weeks." Note that the only way FDR could have linked negotiations with service action, let alone have known the timing of the action, was if he had the message to sail. In other words, the only service action contingent on negotiations was Pearl Harbor.
26 Nov. - the "most fateful document " was Hull's ultimatum that Japan must withdraw from Indochina and all China. FDR's Ambassador to Japan called this "The document that touched the button that started the war."
27 Nov. - Secretary of War Stimson sent a confused and confusing hostile action possible or DO-DON'T warning. The Navy Court found this message directed attention away from Pearl Harbor, rather than toward it. One purpose of the message was to mislead HI into believing negotiations were continuing. The Army which could not do reconnaissance was ordered to and the Navy which could was ordered not to. The Army was ordered on sabotage alert, which specifically precluded attention to outside threat. Navy attention was misdirected 5000 miles from HI. DC repeated, no less than three times as a direct instruction of the President, "The US desires that Japan commit the first overt act Period." It was unusual that FDR directed this warning, a routine matter, to Hawaii which is proof that he knew other warnings were not sent. A simple question--what Japanese "overt act" was FDR expecting at Pearl Harbor? He ordered sabotage prevented and subs couldn't enter, that leaves air attack. The words "overt act" disclose FDR's intent - not just that Japan be allowed to attack but that they inflict damage on the fleet. This FDR order to allow a Japanese attack was aid to the enemy - explicit treason.
29 Nov.- Hull sat in Layfayette Park across from the White House with ace United Press reporter Joe Leib and showed him a message stating that Pearl Harbor would be attacked on December 7. This could well have been the Nov. 26 message from Churchill. The New York Times in its 12/8/41 PH report on page 13 under the headline "Attack Was Expected" stated the US had known that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked the week before. Perhaps Leib wasn't the only reporter Hull told.
29 Nov. - The FBI embassy tap made an intercept of an uncoded plain-text Japanese telephone conversation in which

an Embassy functionary (Kurusu) asked 'Tell me, what zero hour is. Otherwise, I won't be able to carry on diplomacy.' The voice from Tokyo (K. Yamamoto) said softly, 'Well then, I will tell you. Zero hour is December 8 (Tokyo time, ie, December 7 US time) at Pearl Harbor.' (US Navy translation 29 Nov 41)
30 Nov. US Time (or 1 Dec. Tokyo time) - The Japanese fleet was radioed this Imperial Naval Order (JN-25): "JAPAN, UNDER THE NECESSITY OF HER SELF-PRESERVATION AND SELF-DEFENSE, HAS REACHED A POSITION TO DECLARE WAR ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." (Congress Appendix D, p 415). US ally China also recovered it in plain text from a shot-down Japanese Army plane near Canton that evening. This caused an emergency Imperial Conference because they knew the Chinese would give the information to GB and US. In a related J-19 message the next day, the US translated elaborate instructions from Japan dealing in precise detail with the method of internment of American nationals in Asia "on the outbreak of war with England and the United States"
1 Dec. - Office of Naval Intelligence, ONI, Twelfth Naval District in San Francisco found the missing Japanese fleet by correlating reports from the four wireless news services and several shipping companies that they were getting strange signals west of Hawaii. The Soviet Union also knew the exact location of the Japanese fleet because they asked the Japanese in advance to let one of their ships pass (Layton p 261). This info was most likely given to them by US because Sorge's spy ring was rolled up November 14. All long-range PBY patrols from the Aleutians were ordered stopped on Dec 6 to prevent contact.
1 Dec. - Foreign Minister Togo cabled Washington Ambassador Nomura to continue negotiations "to prevent the U.S. from becoming unduly suspicious."
1 Dec. - The tanker Shiriya, which had been added to the Striking Force in an order intercepted Nov 14, radioed "proceeding to a position 30.00 N, 154.20 E. Expect to arrive at that point on 3 December." (near HI) The fact that this message is in the National Archives destroys the myth that the attack fleet maintained radio silence. They were not ordered to (Order 820). Serial numbers prove that the Striking Force sent over 663 radio messages between Nov 16 and Dec 7 or about 1 per hour. The NSA has not released all raw intercepts because the headers would prove that the Striking Force did not maintain radio silence. On Nov 29 the Hiyei sent one message to the Commander of the 3rd fleet; on Nov 30 the Akagi sent several messages to its tankers - see page 474 of the Hewitt Report. Stinnett in DAY OF DECEIT (p 209) found over 100 messages from the Striking Force in the National Archives. All Direction Finding reports from HI have been crudely cut out. Reports from Dec 5 show messages sent from the Striking Force picked up by Station Cast, P.I.
From traffic analysis, HI reported that the carrier force was at sea and in the North. THE MOST AMAZING FACT is that in reply to that report, MacArthur's command sent a series of three messages, Nov 26, 29, Dec 2, to HI lying about the location of the carrier fleet - saying it was in the South China Sea. This false information, which the NSA calls inexplicable, was the true reason that HI was caught unawares. Duane Whitlock, who is still alive in Iowa, sent those messages.
There were a large number of other messages that gave the location of the Striking Force by alluding to the Aleutians, the North Pacific and various weather systems near HI.
1 Dec. - FDR cut short his scheduled ten day vacation after 1 day to meet with Hull and Stark. The result of this meeting was reported on 2 Dec. by the Washington Post: "President Roosevelt yesterday assumed direct command of diplomatic and military moves relating to Japan." This politically damaging move was necessary to prevent the mutiny of conspirators.
1 Dec. 3:30 P.M. FDR read Foreign Minister Togo's message to his ambassador to Germany: "Say very secretly to them that there is extreme danger between Japan & Anglo-Saxon nations through some clash of arms, add that the time of this war may come quicker than anyone dreams." This was in response to extreme German pressure on November 29 for Japan to strike the US and promises to join with Japan in war against the US. The second of its three parts has never been released. The message says it contains the plan of campaign. This is 1 of only 3 known DIPLOMATIC intercepts that specified PH as target. It was so interesting, FDR kept a copy.
2 Dec. 2200 Tokyo time- Here is a typical JN-25 ships-in-harbor report sent to attack fleet, words in parenthesis were in the original: "Striking Force telegram No. 994. Two battleships (Oklahoma, Nevada), 1 aircraft carrier (Enterprise) 2 heavy cruisers, 12 destroyers sailed. The force that sailed on 22 November returned to port. Ships at anchor Pearl Harbor p.m. 28 November were 6 battleships (2 Maryland class, 2 California class, 2 Pennsylvania class), 1 aircraft carrier (Lexington), 9 heavy cruisers (5 San Francisco class, 3 Chicago class, 1 Salt Lake class), 5 light cruisers (4 Honolulu class, 1 Omaha class)"
2 Dec. - Commander of the Combined Imperial Fleet Yamamoto radioed the attack fleet in plain (uncoded) Japanese Climb Niitakayama 1208 (Dec 8 Japanese time, Dec 7 our time). Thus the US knew EXACTLY when the war would start. Mount Niitaka was the highest mountain in the Japanese Empire - 13,113 feet.
2 Dec. - General Hein Ter Poorten, the commander of the Netherlands East Indies Army gave the Winds setup message to the US War Department. The Australians had a center in Melbourne and the Chinese also broke JN-25. A Dutch sub had visually tracked the attack fleet to the Kurile Islands in early November and this info was passed to DC, but DC did not give it to HI. The intercepts the Dutch gave the US are still classified in RG 38, Box 792.
2 Dec - Japanese order No. 902 specified that old JN-25 additive tables version 7 would continue to be used alongside version 8 when the latter was introduced on December 4. This means the US read all messages to the Striking Force through the attack.
4 Dec. - In the early hours, Ralph Briggs at the Navy's East Coast Intercept station, received the "East Winds, Rain" message, the Winds Execute, which meant war. He put it on the TWX circuit immediately and called his commander. This message was deleted from the files. One of the main coverups of Pearl Harbor was to make this message disappear. Japanese Dispatch # 7001. In response to the Winds Execute, the Office of US Naval IQ had all Far Eastern stations (Hawaii not informed) destroy their codes and classified documents including the Tokyo Embassy.
4 Dec. - The Dutch invoked the ADB joint defense agreement when the Japanese crossed the magic line of 100 East and 10 North. The U.S. was at war with Japan 3 days before they were at war with us.
4 Dec. - General Ter Poorten sent all the details of the Winds Execute command to Colonel Weijerman, the Dutch military attache' in Washington to pass on to the highest military circles. Weijerman personally gave it to Marshall, Chief of Staff of the War Department.
4 Dec - US General Thorpe at Java sent four messages warning of the PH attack. DC ordered him to stop sending warnings.
5 Dec. - All Japanese international shipping had returned to home port.
5 December - In the morning FDR dictated a letter to Wendell Wilkie for the Australian Prime Minister, "There is always the Japanese to consider. The situation is definitely serious and there might be an armed clash at any moment...Perhaps the next four or five days will decide the matters."
5 Dec. - At a Cabinet meeting, Secretary of the Navy Knox said, "Well, you know Mr. President, we know where the Japanese fleet is?" "Yes, I know" said FDR. " I think we ought to tell everybody just how ticklish the situation is. We have information as Knox just mentioned...Well, you tell them what it is, Frank." Knox became very excited and said, "Well, we have very secret information that the Japanese fleet is out at sea. Our information is..." and then a scowling FDR cut him off. (Infamy, Toland, 1982, ch 14 sec 5)
5 Dec. - Washington Star reporter Constantine Brown quotes a friend in his book The Coming of the Whirlwind p 291, "This is it! The Japs are ready to attack. We've broken their code, and we've read their ORDERS."
5 Dec. - Lt. Howard Brown of Station Cast in the Philippines received urgent request from Washington to listen for a short message from Tokyo which ended with the English word "stop". He heard the message at 11:30 PM Hawaiian time Dec 6. This is the Hidden Word Code set up in a message of November 27 (e.g. in code, Roosevelt=Miss Kimiko). The message was: "Relations between Japan and the following countries are on the brink of catastrophe: Britain and the United States."
6 December - This 18 November J19 message was translated by the Army:
"1. The warships at anchor in the Harbor on the 15th were as I told you in my No.219 on that day. Area A -- A battleship of the Oklahoma class entered and one tanker left port. Area C -- 3 warships of the heavy cruiser class were at anchor.
2. On the 17th the Saratoga was not in harbor. The carrier Enterprise, or some other vessel was in Area C. Two heavy cruisers of the Chicago class, one of the Pensacola class were tied up at docks 'KS'. 4 merchant vessels were at anchor in area D.
3. At 10:00 A.M. on the morning of the 17th, 8 destroyers were observed entering the Harbor..." Of course this information was not passed to HI.
6 Dec. - A Dec 2 request from Tokyo to HI for information about the absence of barrage balloons, anti-torpedo nets and air recon was translated by the Army.
6 Dec. - at 9:30 P.M FDR read the first 13 parts of the decoded Japanese diplomatic declaration of war and said "This means war." What kind of President would do nothing? When he returned to his 34 dinner guests he said, "The war starts tomorrow."
6 Dec. - the war cabinet: FDR, top advisor Hopkins, Stimson, Marshall, Secretary of the Navy Knox, with aides John McCrea and Frank Beatty "deliberately sat through the night of 6 December 1941 waiting for the Japs to strike." (Infamy ch 16 sec 2)
7 December - A message from the Japanese Consul in Budapest to Tokyo:
"On the 6th, the American Minister presented to the Government of this country a British Government communique to the effect that a state of war would break out on the 7th." The communique was the Dec 5th War Alert from the British Admiralty. It has disappeared. This triple priority alert was delivered to FDR personally. The Mid-East British Air Marshall told Col. Bonner Fellers on Saturday that he had received a secret signal that America was coming into the war in 24 hours. Churchill summarized the message in GRAND ALLIANCE page 601 as listing the two fleets attacking British targets and "Other Japanese fleets...also at sea on other tasks." There only were three other fleets- for Guam, the Philippines and HI. 2 paragraphs of the alert, British targets only, are printed in AT DAWN WE SLEPT, Prange, p 464. There is no innocent purpose for our government to hide this document.
7 December 1941 very early Washington time, there were two Marines, an emergency special detail, stationed outside the Japanese Naval Attache's door. 9:30 AM Aides begged Stark to send a warning to Hawaii. He did not. 10 AM FDR read the 14th part, 11 A.M. FDR read the 15th part setting the time for the declaration of war to be delivered to the State Department at 1 PM, about dawn Pearl Harbor time, and did nothing. Navy Secretary Knox was given the 15th part at 11:15 A.M. with this note from the Office of Naval IQ: "This means a sunrise attack on Pearl Harbor today." Naval IQ also transmitted this prediction to Hull and about 8 others, including the White House (PHH 36:532). At 10:30 AM Bratton informed Marshall that he had a most important message (the 15th part) and would bring it to Marshall's quarters but Marshall said he would take it at his office. At 11:25 Marshall reached his office according to Bratton. Marshall testified that he had been riding horses that morning but he was contradicted by Harrison, McCollum, and Deane. Marshall who had read the first 13 parts by 10 PM the prior night, perjured himself by denying that he had even received them. Marshall, in the face of his aides' urgent supplications that he warn Hawaii, made strange delays including reading and re-reading all of the 10 minute long 14 Part Message (and some parts several times) which took an hour and refused to use the scrambler phone on his desk, refused to send a warning by the fast, more secure Navy system but sent Bratton three times to inquire how long it would take to send his watered down warning - when informed it would take 30 or 40 minutes by Army radio, he was satisfied (that meant he had delayed enough so the warning wouldn't reach Pearl Harbor until after the 1 PM Washington time deadline). The warning was in fact sent commercial without priority identification and arrived 6 hours late. This message reached all other addressees, like the Philippines and Canal Zone, in a timely manner.
7 December - 7:55 A.M. Hawaii time AIR RAID PEARL HARBOR. THIS IS NOT DRILL.
7 December - 1:50 P.M. Washington time. Harry Hopkins, who was the only person with FDR when he received the news of the attack by telephone from Knox, wrote that FDR was unsurprised and expressed "great relief." Eleanor Roosevelt wrote about December 7th in This I Remember p 233, that FDR became "in a way more serene." In the NY Times Magazine of October 8, 1944 she wrote: "December 7 was...far from the shock it proved to the country in general. We had expected something of the sort for a long time."
7 December - 3:00 PM "The (war cabinet) conference met in not too tense an atmosphere because I think that all of us believed that in the last analysis the enemy was Hitler...and that Japan had given us an opportunity." Harry Hopkins (top KGB agent and FDR's alter ego), Dec. 7 Memo (Roosevelt and Hopkins R Sherwood, p. 431)
7 December - 9 hours later, MacArthur's entire air force was caught by surprise and wiped out in the Philippines. His reaction to the news of Pearl Harbor was quite unusual - he locked himself in his room all morning and refused to meet with his air commander General Brereton, and refused to attack Japanese forces on Formosa even under orders from the War Department. MacArthur gave three conflicting orders that ensured the planes were on the ground most of the morning. MacArthur used radar tracking of the Japanese planes at 140, 100, 80, 60, down to 20 miles to time his final order and ensure his planes were on the ground. Strategically, the destruction of half of all US heavy bombers in the world was more important than naval damage in Pearl Harbor. Either MacArthur had committed the greatest blunder in military history or he was under orders to allow his forces to be destroyed. If it were the greatest blunder in history, it is remarkable how he escaped any reprimand, kept his command and got his fourth star and Congressional Medal of Honor shortly later. Prange argued, "How could the President ensure a successful Japanese attack unless he confided in the commanders and persuaded them to allow the enemy to proceed unhindered?"
7 December - 8:30 PM, FDR said to his cabinet, "We have reason to believe that the Germans have told the Japanese that if Japan declares war, they will too. In other words, a declaration of war by Japan automatically brings..." at which point he was interrupted, but his expectation and focus is clear. Mrs. Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor, observed later about FDR: "I had a deep emotional feeling that something was wrong, that this situation was not all it appeared to be." Mrs. Perkins was obsessed by Roosevelt's strange reactions that night and remarked particularly on the expression he had:" In other words, there have been times when I associated that expression with a kind of evasiveness."
FDR met with CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow at midnight. Murrow, who had seen many statesmen in crises, was surprised at FDR's calm reaction. After chatting about London, they reviewed the latest news from PH and then FDR tested Murrow's news instincts with these 2 bizarre giveaway questions: "Did this surprise you?" Murrow said yes. FDR: "Maybe you think it didn't surprise us?" FDR gave the impression that the attack itself was not unwelcome. This is the same high-strung FDR that got polio when convicted of perjury; the same FDR that was bedridden for a month when he learned Russia was to be attacked; the same FDR who couldn't eat or drink when he got the Japanese order to sail.
8 December - In a conversation with his speech writer Rosenman, FDR "emphasized that Hitler was still the first target, but he feared that a great many Americans would insist that we make the war in the Pacific at least equally important with the war against Hitler."
Later, Jonathan Daniels, administrative assistant and press secretary to FDR said, "The blow was heavier than he had hoped it would necessarily be...But the risks paid off; even the loss was worth the price..."
FDR reminisced with Stalin at Tehran on November 30, 1943, saying "if the Japanese had not attacked the US he doubted very much if it would have been possible to send any American forces to Europe." Compare this statement with what FDR said at the Atlantic Conference 4 months before Pearl: "Everything was to be done to force an 'incident' to justify hostilities." Given that a Japanese attack was the only possible incident, then FDR had said he would do it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information Known in Washington and Hawaii

October 9-December 7, 1941

Date Item Washington Kimmel Short

Oct. 9 "Bombplot" message X
Nov. 26-28 "Winds" setup message X X [1]
Nov. 26 Location of carriers X
Dec. 1 Japanese declaration of war X
Dec. 2-6 Code destruction X [2] X X
Dec. 4 "Winds execute" message X X[3]
Dec. 4 US at war with Japan via ADB X
Dec. 5 British Admiralty War Alert X
Dec. 6-7 "14 Part" message X
Dec. 7 "One o'clock" message X

[1] Admiral Kimmel learned of the "winds" code in a Nov. 28th
dispatch to him from the US Asiatic Fleet. JCC, p. 470.
[2] DC informed HI that codes were being burned world-wide so when they
learned the local consulate burned codes they would not go on alert.
[3] General Short was given the Winds Execute by British IQ.

Note that none of the 3 diplomatic messages or the many naval messages
identifying Pearl as the target were forwarded (not to mention human intelligence).
Only 5 of the 74 Navy IQ packets delivered to FDR in the 2 weeks before
Dec 7 can be found.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSIONS AND COVERUP
Two and only two courts of law have decided the issue of whether FDR and Washington or the commanders in Hawaii were responsible for the Pearl Harbor disaster. Both the Navy Court and the Army Board found Washington guilty.
NAVY Court of Inquiry
!!!Top Secret ARMY Board Report!!! (30K), Oct, 1944, "Now let us turn to the fateful period between November 27 and December 6, 1941. In this period numerous pieces of information came to our State, War, and Navy Departments in all of their Top ranks indicating precisely the intentions of the Japanese including the probable exact hour and date of the attack. " In response to this report, Marshall offered his resignation - the sign of a guilty conscience. Marshall testified at the MacArthur hearings that he considered loyalty to his chief superior to loyalty to his country.
JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, Nov 15, 1945 to May 31, 1946, proved that there had been so much reversion of testimony, coverup and outright lies that the truth would have to wait until all Pearl Harbor records were declassified.
Most of the conspirators were military men, all men of FDR's own choice, men who only followed orders and FDR never delegated authority. Stark, in answer to charges that he denied IQ to Hawaii, publicly offered a Nuremberg defense in August 1945 that everything he did pre-Dec 7, 1941 was on FDR's orders. The handful of military men in DC responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor were directly under the control of FDR and were later promoted and protected from investigation; promoted with FDR's full knowledge that they were responsible for not warning Hawaii. On the record, Intelligence tried to warn HI scores of times but were prevented by FDR's men.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATISTICS - ROOSEVELT WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING:
American
Deaths: 2403; Wounded 1,178.
Eighteen ships were sunk or seriously damaged including 5 battleships (USS Arizona photo).

188 planes were destroyed and 162 were damaged.

Japanese
Out of an attack force of 31 ships and 353 raiding planes the Japanese lost:
64 deaths,
29 planes,
5 midget submarines.
CONCLUSION - ROOSEVELT WAS A TRAITOR
The US was warned by, at least, the governments of Britain, Netherlands, Australia, Peru, Korea and the Soviet Union that a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was coming. All important Japanese codes were broken. FDR and Marshall and others knew the attack was coming, allowed it and covered up their knowledge. It's significant that both the the chief of OP-20-G Safford and Friedman of Army SIS, the two people in the world that knew what we decoded, said that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.

Pearl Harbor was not about war with Japan -
It was about war with GERMANY
Most important was the promise FDR had made to the American people - solemnly given and repeated--not to send their sons into foreign war unless attacked (audio). He did not mind violating that pledge. He merely feared the political effect of the violation. Alsop and Kintner, White House columnist pets, had written a short time before that "He (Roosevelt) does not feel he can openly violate them (his pledges). But he can get around them the smart way." They explained this meant getting the Germans to shoot first. Then he could shoot back. But it was clear to him by November that the Germans were not going to shoot first. But FDR knew that he could force the Japanese to do so.
HITLER WOULD NOT DECLARE WAR IF U.S. UNBEATABLE
OBJECTIVE: War with Germany. How do you bait Hitler to declare war on you? You don't get it by looking unbeatable!
Direct provocation in Atlantic had failed - Hitler didn't bite.
FDR knew from magic that if Japan attacked, Germany would declare war.
Therefore: the problem was how to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot or make the first overt act.
Japan must succeed or Hitler would renege.
War with Japan was a given because they had to attack the Philippines. If Japan's fleet were destroyed, it would defeat the purpose. It would have been obvious suicide for Hitler to declare war if Japan were crippled - it would allow the US to attack him without even the possibility of a two-front war. That was what he had just been avoiding for months. The plan could only work if Japan's attack succeeded. The lure of a weakened US in a two-front war focused on Japan seemed to make a German war declaration cost-free. But it was all a trap - FDR was always going to ignore Japan and go after Hitler, for his ultimate goal was to save his beloved Soviet Communism.

In November FDR ordered the Red Cross Disaster Relief director to secretly prepare for massive casualties at Pearl Harbor because he was going to let it be attacked. When he protested to the President, President Roosevelt told him that "the American people would never agree to enter the war in Europe unless they were attack [sic] within their own borders." See U.S. Naval Institute - Naval History - Advance Warning? The Red Cross Connection by Daryl S. Borgquist
CHURCHILL wrote FDR KNEW. Did FDR know that Pearl Harbor was a Japanese target? Answer: FDR planned Pearl Harbor to be their target. He ordered the ships in and the carriers out. Co-conspirator Churchill wrote about the Pearl Harbor attack that FDR and his top advisers "knew the full and immediate purpose of their enemy." (GRAND ALLIANCE p 603) Churchill's entire discussion of Pearl Harbor was a justification of treason, e.g.: "A Japanese attack upon the U.S. was a vast simplification of (FDR's and advisors') problems and their duty. How can we wonder that they regarded the actual form of the attack, or even its scale, as incomparably less important than the fact that the whole American nation would be united...?"

J. Edgar Hoover told his friends in early 1942 that FDR had known about the Pearl Harbor plan since the early fall. It was totally in character for FDR to concoct such a plan. Not only had the US Senate already censured FDR for utterly lacking moral perspective, but as Walter Lippmann wrote: "his purposes are not simple and his methods are not direct."

WHY SACRIFICE OLD, SLOW SHIPS?
FDR had to do it to get into the war, as he himself later told Stalin. He needed massive public outrage and that required big sacrifice.
Would he do it? Did he "love the Navy too much?" He was sacrificing ships in the Atlantic for the same purpose. Of course he would do it - he was doing it.
He saved all the important elements of the fleet. In the spring he had sent many ships to the Atlantic. He kept the aircraft carrier Saratoga on the West Coast. And his sending of the two carrier groups out of harbor meant that not only they but also their fast escort ships would be saved - all the new ships stationed at Pearl Harbor were saved. Only WWI junk was left in harbor. Here is a list of all the ships saved - Ships saved at Pearl December 7
FDR's attitude is best summed up by co-conspirator Admiral Bloch's testimony to Congress, "The Japanese only destroyed a lot of old hardware. In a sense they did us a favor."
This was obviously FDR's view as well, because on 7 December at 2:15 PM, minutes after hearing of the attack and before any damage reports were in, FDR called Lord Halifax at the British Embassy and told him "Most of the fleet was at sea...none of their newer ships were in harbour." He had protected the new ships, the important elements of the fleet, and that fact was at the forefront of his mind in relation to the attack. First, it means FDR didn't care about the old ships. Secondly, it means he knew before the attack that only old ships were in harbor for the attack. Therefore, Pearl Harbor was "the first shot without too much danger to ourselves" he sought. FDR was the architect of the attack plot from the oil embargo to the ultimatum to the final touches of deciding who would live and who would die.
COVERUP BY SECRECY. Why does the government refuse to release all the messages to the attack fleet, or any JN-25 messages decoded before Dec 7? There is absolutely nothing about national security to hide in JN-25. It is a trivial and worthless 19th century code. The techniques for cracking it had been published world-wide in 1931. The US government has proudly showed how they used JN-25 decrypts after December 8 to win the Battle of Midway which occurred 7 months after Pearl Harbor. Therefore, there is nothing intrinsic about the code itself, the means of cracking it, or the fact that we cracked it, that has any national security implications of any nature. What is the difference between decrypts from the Purple machine and decrypts from JN-25? The answer is simply that the JN-25 messages contained the final operational details of the Pearl Harbor attack, whereas the Purple did not.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? Why won't they let the truth out? Such secrecy breeds mistrust in government. The only thing that is left to hide are JN-25 decrypts and worksheets showing that the US and Britain monitored the Japanese attack fleet all the way to Pearl Harbor. That is the scandal. That is the big secret. It raises the issue of whether the NSA is accessory after the fact to treason. However, the secrecy and misdirection by the NSA about our capabilities with JN-25B and pre-war messages proves there is something very wrong. The NSA has systematically lied about the size of the JN25 books by a factor of 4 and about how many codebreakers worked on the code in 1941 by a factor of 22. The NSA refuses to release Registered Intelligence Publication 79, the complete JN-25B codebook the US Navy published 11 July 1941 because it would destroy their lies. The NSA is an evil Gestapo that is committed neither to truth nor open government nor the rule of law. We live an Orwellian history in which treason is honored, in which FDR's murder of thousands of young innocent men is good. In a word, we are no different from the tyranny we decry. A self-governing people must have truth to make proper decisions. By subverting the truth, the National Security Agency is subverting our Democracy.

He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past. - Orwell
Tokyo had to send the daily bomb-plots, cabled from its Honolulu consulate, to the attack fleet by JN-25 radio messages. The pilots had to get their target information. "The news of the position of enemy ships in Pearl Harbor comes again and again." - Lt. Cmdr. Chigusa, executive officer of the attack fleet's Akigumo in his diary, December 4, 1941 (At Dawn We Slept, G. Prange, page 453). FDR got it, too. FDR knew the Japanese pilots' targets as well as they did, because he got their bomb-plots when they did. He had their specific targets, ship by ship, in his hands at the White House. These messages would prove absolutely that FDR knew that the attack fleet's target was Pearl Harbor and therefore are not released. The unnecessary and illogical secrecy about pre-December 7, 1941, JN-25 decoding is conclusive evidence that there was wrongdoing at the highest levels.

FDR was a traitor for maneuvering Japan into war with US - and that is known and admitted - FDR was a traitor for sacrificing American lives, for putting America in danger, for usurping the Constitutional power of Congress to make war. Day of infamy, indeed; he chose his words precisely with a hidden double-meaning. Four days before the attack, FDR could have sent telegrams of condolence to the families of the sailors he was going to allow to be killed. Even today there is a coverup, based on a transparently bogus excuse of national security, that shows that our government cannot face the truth about what happened a half-century ago. Truth we owe the men of Pearl Harbor. Until we tell the full truth, we dishonor them and every soldier and sailor who gave their life for their country. Should their lives have been sacrificed for treason and no one know, they had died in vain. If their honor cover treason - we are not a nation of law. The Air Corps in the Philippines and the Navy at Pearl were FDR's bait, the oil embargo was his stick, the end of negotiations was the tripwire in FDR's game of shame - a game of death for so many. Roosevelt aided and abetted the murder of thousands of Americans.

LINKS
Pearl Harbor, Mother of All Conspiracies, the book <--click here to buy paperback (424 explosive pages) or ebook. You have read the webpage - now get the whole story! This webpage is about 10 percent of the first chapter with many of the most startling revelations only in the book.
"Mother of All Conspiracies is a sensational book that will change the face of America!"
Professor Robert Kelso

"Very late on a cold, dark night in December, a British emissary was driven through the dreary streets of Washington. Inside his diplomatic pouch he carried a secret message marked Most Urgent Personal and Secret to the President. It was a triple priority message from the British Admiralty in London that the United States of America was going to be attacked at Pearl Harbor on December 7th. Lord Halifax was swiftly shown in to the White House and conferred with Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt's hopes soared; his long-laid plans were about to be fulfilled. It was December 5th, 1941."
From the Introduction
This definitive Revisionist Bible presents incontrovertible proof that the United States read the main Japanese fleet code JN-25 prior to Pearl Harbor. It shows exactly how it was broken. This book by far has more recent documents, more secret documents, and more important secret documents (including several that were not supposed to be released) than any book on Pearl Harbor ever written. It is the best book on the event that changed history, the most important public crime of modern times, our entry into World War II. This resulted in the immediate loss of over thirty million lives, an ultimate cost of more than fifteen trillion dollars, incredible suffering, and a military-scientific-technological-industrial aftermath which may wipe out the human race.

Revelations from Pearl Harbor Mother of All Conspiracies:
The publication for the first time of the pre-attack Navy intelligence analysis proving Washington knew the Japanese carrier fleet was going to attack Pearl Harbor.
Explosive disclosures from the most secret codebook never meant to be released.
For the first time, the publication of the previously blacked out portions of SRH-149 Communications Intelligence in the United States, A Brief History by Laurence F. Safford, the fundamental document of Pearl Harbor.

The scheme Washington used for confusing radar at Hawaii on December 7th.
The publication for the first time of more than a hundred JN-25B messages in their original 1941 pre-Pearl Harbor decryption.

The treason at the Battle Midway.
The details of how, when, and why Roosevelt sold out his country to be President for life.

Explosive used in bombs 'was of military origin'

2007-04-11T20:37:00.001-07:00

Explosive used in bombs 'was of military origin'

London Independent | July 12 2005

The bombs used in Thursday's terrorist attacks were of "military origin" , according to a senior French policeman sent to London to help in what has become the biggest criminal investigation in British history.

Christophe Chaboud, head of the French Anti-Terrorism Co-ordination Unit, told Le Monde newspaper that the explosives used in the bombings were of " military origin", which he described as "very worrying". " We're more used to cells making home-made explosives with chemicals," he said. "How did they get them? Either by trafficking, for example, in the Balkans, or they had someone on the inside who enabled them to get out of the military establishment."

He added that the victims' wounds suggested that the explosives, which were " not heavy but powerful", had been placed on the ground, perhaps underneath seats.

Up to 400 extra police are being drafted in to help with the bombing inquiry. Many of the additional officers will be helping with analysis of thousands of hours of video recordings from cameras on and around the Tube lines and bus struck by the terrorists. Police have so far taken 2,500 videotapes and are expected to examine many more during the inquiry.

Senior detectives said that the analysis of images from surveillance cameras was the biggest CCTV trawl ever. Scotland Yard was renting extra video suites to view the tapes. Detectives are hoping that among the tens of thousands of hours of footage will be pictures of the terrorists.

As well as examining cameras on the three Tube trains hit in the blasts, police have been recovering every camera in the stations that the trains travelled through, and cameras outside the entrance of every station. The Tube bombs were on the southbound Piccadilly line and the Circle line, which means that there were 40 Underground stations where the bombers could have got on board.

As well as examining cameras on shops, banks, and other businesses, the police will also look at speed cameras. The camera on board the No 30 bus that was blown up in Tavistock Square is thought to have been faulty.
A police source said of the CCTV task: "It is a massive job that is very time-consuming; it sounds impossible - but it's not." Between 200 and 400 extra officers from the Metropolitan Police are being deployed on the investigation. This comes on top of the 400 officers in the anti-terrorist branch and many of the 800 in the Met's Special Branch.

The important role that CCTV can play in a criminal investigation was highlighted in the case of David Copeland, the "nail bomber" who staged attacks in Soho, Brixton and Brick Lane, east London. A team of police officers had 26,000 hours of surveillance footage from the dozens of cameras in Brixton, south London. They spent 24 hours a day scrutinising busy street scenes in their effort to spot the attacker.

The first sighting of the bomber was made from cameras filming the doorway of an Iceland food store. Copeland was identified by his boss and a cab driver after police released an image taken on the day he planted his first bomb in April 1999.

Forensic science specialists and anti-terrorist officers were continuing yesterday to examine the four crime scenes for traces of the bomb and a possible suicide bomber. This includes X-raying bodies to see if any bomb parts or timing devices, which could be vital clues, are embedded in them. It remains unclear if a terrorist died in the bus bomb, which went off an hour after the Tube explosions.

Detectives are checking all the victims from the bomb scene. An anti-terrorist source said they had recovered useful pieces of evidence, but were keeping an open mind as to whether a suicide bomber had been involved. Sir Ian Blair, commissioner of the Met, described the areas of investigation as "the biggest crime scenes in English history".

James Hart, commissioner of the City of London Police, added: "We can't possibly assume that what happened on Thursday was the last of these events ...We have to be vigilant."

7/7 Mastermind was working for British Intelligence

2007-04-11T20:34:00.000-07:00

fox news video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9fYr_0whDQ

The Dud Bombers of 21/7, the patsies, have all been rounded up along with 18 others currently under questioning, yet the so called "mastermind" is allowed to go free and is protected time and time again by MI5, MI6, FBI and CIA. The same thing happened in 93 with the WTC bombing, 95 with the OKC bombing, 01 with 911 and its happening again, its the same type of operation EVERYTIME.

The July 29 edition of FOX News Channel's Day Side programme revealed that the so called mastermind of the 7/7 London Bombings, Haroon Rashid Aswat, is a British Intelligence Asset. Former Justice Dept. prosecutor and Terror expert John Loftus revealed that the so called Al-Muhajiroun group, based in London had formed during the Kosovo crisis, during which Fundamentalist Muslim Leaders (Or what is now referred to as Al Qaeda) were recruited by MI6 to fight in Kosovo.

Loftus stated that "...back in the late 1990s, the leaders all worked for British intelligence in Kosovo. Believe it or not, British intelligence actually hired some Al-Qaeda guys to help defend the Muslim rights in Albania and in Kosovo. That's when Al-Muhajiroun got started."

Former Justice Dept. prosecutor John Loftus on Fox's Day Side

We have previously revealed how former MI5 officer David Shayler has alleged, and French intel sources have corroborated, that the MI6 paid a Libyan al-Qa'ida cell £100,000 in 1995 to assassinate colonel Qaddafi. The use of the group that has come to be known as "Al Qaeda" as assets by Intelligence services the world over is well documented.

The London Independent also reported 2 days before the London Bombings how MI5 has previously used so called Al Qaeda operatives as informants, allowing them to be left alone as a trade off. This only came to light when Bisher al-Rawi was captured by the CIA and taken to the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay. The original Independent link has now mysteriously been removed.

John Loftus went on to spell out that British Intelligence and the US dept of Justice had protected Haroon Rashid Aswat: "Back in 1999 he came to America. The Justice Department wanted to indict him in Seattle because him and his buddy were trying to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon... we've just learned that the headquarters of the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors not to touch Aswat... , apparently Aswat was working for British intelligence"

Haroon Aswat, the so called mastermind of the London bombings with Radical cleric Abu Hamza al Masri in a London cab on Jan. 20, 1999.

This information is startling and again highlights how Al Qaeda exists as an organized body only where the intelligence services have created, funded and employed it. Loftus points out that several weeks before the London Bombings, Aswat was again located by the South African Intel agency but again allowed to slip away, this time to London:

"He was a British intelligence plant. So all of a sudden he disappears. He's in South Africa. We think he's dead; we don't know he's down there. Last month the South African Secret Service come across the guy. He's alive...the Brits know that the CIA wants to get a hold of Haroon. So what happens? He takes off again, goes right to London. He isn't arrested when he lands, he isn't arrested when he leaves... He's on the watch list. The only reason he could get away with that was if he was working for British intelligence. He was a wanted man."

Loftus' information is backed up by the New York Times and CNN who reported on this incident also.

We have seen this many times before and have continued to expose this kind of activity. Mr Aswat is not the only "Al Qaeda operative" who has been protected While in the US - the 19 9/11 hijackers and their associate Zaccharias Moussaoui seem to have been as well. FBI Agent Robert Wright blew the whistle on obstruction of counterterrorism investigations targeting Hamas and al-Qaeda before 911. The sabotage by the highest levels in the FBI of Coleen Rowley's desperate attempt to investigate Moussaoui, for instance, is a striking parallel to the "hands-off" order regarding Aswat, and it's far from being the only one. The CIA met with Bin Laden in July 2001 in a Dubai hospital where he was being treated for Kidney problems. They gleaned detailed information regarding possible massive terror attacks on the US, yet Bin Laden was allowed to slip away (either that or he passed away). Bin Laden is or was a known CIA Asset.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mysteriously arrested as the alleged mastermind behind the September 11 plot, was granted a visa to enter the US just six weeks before the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York. The American Al Qaeda operative, Iyman Faris, who planned to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge was also revealed to be an FBI operative. We also have several other reports staing how the men used as hijackers on the planes on 911 were monitored before the event and allowed to enter the US. They were even trained at US flight schools.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

After 911 these so called terrorists have been allowed to go on with business as usual, despite the "war on terror" and in many instances have been protected. It seems that the authorities find it more useful to restrict the liberties of law abiding citizens by introducing draconian restrictive laws such as the Patriot act and Free speech zoning, whilst allowing those they label as terrorists to go undetected.

Haroon Rashid Aswat allegedly left London for Pakistan on July 6, one day before the London bombing. He was then arrested in Pakistan, but released AGAIN within 24 hours. He reportedly traveled to Zimbabwe and then Zambia, where he may have been arrested again (conflicting reports). Why does the so called mastermind of 7/7 keep being released and allowed to slip away? It the same type of operation over and over again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9fYr_0whDQ)
FULL TRANSCRIPT: The July 29 edition of FOX News Channel's Day Side programme:

http://www.infowars.net/Pages/Aug05/020805Aswat.html

Terror Expert: London Bomber Was Working For MI5

2007-04-11T20:30:00.000-07:00

Terror Expert: London Bomber Was Working For MI5
Khan used as informant for security services

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | June 27 2006

A noted terror expert has told the BBC that Mohammed Siddique Khan, the alleged ringleader of the 7/7 London bombings, was working for British intelligence agency MI5 as an informant at the time of the attacks.

Charles Shoebridge is a 12-year veteran detective of the London Metropolitan Police, a former graduate of the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, and now a broadcaster and writer on terrorism in the UK.

Shoebridge told the BBC Newshour program that from the evidence little else can be assumed other than that Khan was working for British intelligence.

"The amount of information coming out and the quality of information coming out. The fact that that has been so consistently overlooked it would appear by the security service MI5, to me suggests really only one of two options."

"Either, a) we've got a level of incompetence that would be unusual even for the security services. But b) possibly, and this is a possibility, that this man Khan may even have been working as an informant for the security service."

"It is difficult otherwise to see how it can be that they've so covered his tracks in the interim."

(link to full audio interview) http://prisonplanet.com/audio/270606khan.mp3

During our coverage of the London bombings we outlined how the attack was most likely constructed, using the patsies, described as nice guys with families and good jobs, in the capacity of role players testing security on the London Underground.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Jones' new movie TerrorStorm exposes the real story behind the London bombings!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This meshes with the inconceivable coincidence of exercises which drilled the same targets being attacked at the same time being conducted by Visor Consultants and eyewitness reports suggesting the accused displayed no behavior conducive with suicide bombers.

The alleged bombers bought return train tickets, left pay-and-display valid tickets on their cars in Luton, and their movements captured on CCTV gave no indications that they were nervous about their imminent deaths. Even Metropolitan Police investigators now believe that the bombers were dupes set up by somebody else and didn't know they were carrying live explosives

Cheney makes plans to nuke Iran

2007-04-11T20:16:00.002-07:00

Cheney makes plans to nuke Iran

Cannon Fire | July 27 2005

The print edition of the American Conservative includes a startling passage -- one which my readers will find evocative and horrifying. According to the article, Dick Cheney has personally instructed the Pentagon...

(Wait. Let's stop right there and ponder for a moment. Can a veep command the Pentagon to do anything? Apparently so! And here, you always thought the President was the Commander in Chief...)

Back to our story: Dick Cheney has personally instructed the Pentagon to draw up plans to nuke Iran immediately after the next terror attack. And we all know that such an attack is inevitable.

Iran will fry even if that nation has nothing to do with the terrorism!

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

The lives of untold millions may be saved if those officers develop a conscience and go public.

We need to get the Democratic Party Leadership interested in this story. And the rank-and-file. And the media.