Færsluflokkur: Mannréttindi
Hvað veist þú um bólusetningar? Veistu að bólusetningar eru ekki skylda?
Veistu hvaða efnum er verið að dæla í börnin þín eða þig?
Viltu fræðast um bólusetningar?
Kanski ætti að kalla þetta bólusetningar "hræðslu" þar sem þú ert "hræddur" en ekki "fræddur"um hvað muni koma fyrir þig ef þú lætur ekki "skjóta" samblandi kemískra efna sem flest eru skráð á lista yfir eiturefni-ófrjósemisefni-og sæðisdrepandi efni inn í líkma barna þinna..og þinn.. Sem sé hræðslu-áróður en ekki fræðslu....
Afhverju ætli foreldrum sé ekki sendur bæklingur frá Landlæknisembættinu með upplýsingum um bóluefnin-hvað er í þeim- virk sem óvirk efni, eins og gert er með öllum öðrum lyfjum? Listi yfir aukaverkanir, vægar sem alvarlegar og líkur á dauðsföllum, og hvað ber að gera komi þær fram hjá barninu þínu.
Hver skyldi vera ástæða þess að bóluefnin eru einu lyfin sem almenningur fær ekki fylgiseðil með um leið og er bólusett eins og þegar viðkomandi fær önnur lyf sem eru lyfseðilsskyld?
Bóluefni eru nefnilega skráð sem lyf inni á Lyfjastofnun! En þau ættu kanski frekar að vera skráð í eiturefnaflokkinn þar sem þau innihalda taugaeiturefni samkvæmt efnafræðinni... eins og t.d kvikasilfur, ál og formaldehyde.
Afhverju sendir skólinn/Heilsugæslan á viðkomandi stað ekki upplýsingar um það hvenær eigi að bólusetja og ef að foreldri velur að láta ekki bólusetja, að þá séð það skráð í skólanum og á Heilsugæslunni ..?
Foreldrar bera jú ábyrgð á börnum sínum til 18 ára aldurs- þar sem einstaklingurinn er jú skráður sem „barn“ allavega þegar kemur að bólusetningum og þar af leiðandi hafa starfsmenn skóla og heilsugæslustöðva ekki rétt fyrir því að framkvæma þessar aðgerðir á dætrum og sonum þínum án leyfis foreldra!
Veistu að það er efni í kíghósta bóluefninu sem er notað á tilraunastofum til að framkalla HEILABÓLGU í tilraunadýrunum? Hvernig geta óbólusett börn verið ógn við heilsu barnanna bólusettu og óbólusett börnin fá ekki inngang í skóla x fylkjum í USA vegna þessa?
Þýðir það ekki að bólusetningarnar /bóluefnin virka ekki?
Bóluefni geta greinilega smitast þegar móður 2 ára stelpu sem var með hvítblæði var bannað að láta bólusetja bróður hennar þegar hann var 3 mán.. ( Hann fæddist 3 mánuðum eftir að systir hans greindist).
Ástæðan fyrir að ekki mætti bólusetja bróðir hennar, var sögð vera vegna þess að ónæmiskerfi hennar(stelpunnar) væri óvirkt vegna allra kemísku efnanna sem var verið að dæla í hana við hvítblæðinu, en öll hin svokölluðu krabbameinslyf slökkva á varnar og ónæmiskerfi líkmans.
Þýðir það þá ekki að bóluefni smitast?
Myndir þú/þið fyrirgefa mér ef ég segði ykkur ekki frá því að ég hefði fullt af upplýsingum um bólusetningar aðrar en það sem læknirinn segir þér frá? Myndir þú vilja að ég léti ykkur hafa þær upplýsingar áður en þú/þið létuð bólusetja barnið ykkar? Myndir þú/þið vera sátt við mig ef ég léti þig/ykkur hafa upplýsingar um bólusetningar eftir að barnið ykkar er orðið veikt?
Eða hefur dáið og dánarvottorðið segir vöggudauði (SIDS) til dæmis. Einkennileg „tilviljun“ að hinn svokallaði „vöggudauði“ (SIDS) á sér stað akkurat á þeim tímum sem barnið er bólusett-hér á landi frá 3 mánaða aldri til 18 mánaða.. (Í USA eru börnin bólusett einhverntíma á fyrsta sólhring æfinnar með Lifrarbólgubóluefni B og svo allar hinar frá 2 mánaða.)
Hefði ég sagt ykkur frá þessu áður en þið létuð bólusetja barnið ykkar.. þá væri það kanski lifandi... ekki í öndunarvél núna og/eða með einhvern undarlegan tauga/hrörnunar/rýrnunar sjálfsónæmissjúkdóm sem enginn af þessum svokölluðu sérfræðingum kann nein skil á.
Allt skeður bara svona af einhverri undarlegri "tilviljun" að viðkomandi fær einhvern sjúkdóm með einhverju óskiljanlegu nafni..þó kanski að eina "tilviljunin " sé að barnið var bólusett deginum áður en það deyr..
Eftir að hafa fengið upplýsingar frá bæði framleiðendum og óháðum rannsóknarstofum- þ.e rannsóknir frá þeim sem hafa ekki fjárhagsslegan ávinning af því að selja sem flest bóluefni.Hvað það sé nákvæmleg í bóluefnum. Eftir það ættu foreldrar síðan að getað valið um það hvort þeir velji að láta bólusetja eða ekki þar sem bólusetningar eru jú ekki skylda.
En okkur foreldrum er nefnilega ekki gefið þetta val.
En við foreldrar og börnin okkar sitjum uppi með afleiðingarnar af völdum bóluefnanna ef við erum í óheppna hópnum sem ég tel upp hér að ofan..
Myndir þú vilja að barnið þitt sé "beljan" sem er fórnað til að bjarga "hjörðinni"? (vísa í þetta svo kallaða „hjarðónæmi“)
En það er það sem læknar eru alltaf að segja að sé málið...sem sé að bólusetta barnið „verji“ óbólusettu börnin..
Veistu að tilraunarottur fyrir Gardasil HPV bóluefninu urðu ófrjóar? (svokallaða legháls krabbameins bóluefni) Bóluefnið inniheldur bæði ófrjósemis- og sæðisdrepandi efni.
Veistu að það er byrjað að bólusetja drengi með HPV bóluefni erlendis? Þessi bóluefni voru markaðssett sem bóluefni gegn leghálskrabbameini. Eru drengir með legháls? Nei, en þá er það kallað „kynfæra“vörtu bóluefni þegar drengir eru bólusettir.. Heitir þetta þá ekki bara mjög góð markaðsetning á bóluefnum?
Vísa í að þessi 2 bóluefni (CERVARIX & GARDASIL ) eru alltaf kölluð „legháls“krabbameins bóluefni...eru þau kanski að valda því við fáum leghálskrabba? Sumir læknar og vísindamenn halda því reyndar fram, út frá rannsóknum sem voru gerðar, en það hafa reyndar ekki farið neinar langtíma rannsóknir á þessum bóluefnum á fólki.
Byrjað að bólusetja árið 2006 með GARDASIL og 2007 með CERVARIX.
Veistu að ein sprauta af Cervarix (HPV) (þetta er það bóluefni sem notað er hé á landi) kostar rúm 23.000? Og margfaldaðu með 3..Það þarf að bólusetja 3x sinnum hverja stelpu. Það er það sem við skattborgararnir borgum lyfjaframleiðandum fyrir að fá að "skjóta" 12 ára dóttur þína..
Bóluefnin hafa ekki verið rannsökað á móti raunverulegri lyfleysu!
(Innskot.„Lyfleysan “ sem notuð var á móti Gardasil innihélt sömu álblöndu og bóluefnið sjálft!
Staðreyndin er sú að um 60% þeirra sem fengu Gardasil eða „aluminum“ /ál lyfleysuna fengu samskonar alvarlegar aukaverkanir! En „lyfleysan“ á móti CERVARIX var Hep. A (lifrarbolgubóluefni )sem sé annað bóluefni! Það sama kom fram þar en kanski skiljanlegt þegar að bóluefni er jú prófað á móti bóluefni og flest bóluefni innihalda sömu kemísku (eitur)efna blöndur..
Ef þetta kallast marktækar rannsóknir þá er eitthvað mikið að! Varla bara þessi 2 sem lyfleysan er svo bara alls ekki lyfleysa.
Afhverju láta læknar margir hverjir og starfsfólk í heilbrigðisgeiranum ekki bólusetja sín eigin börn ?
Ef bóluefni eru svona holl þér og þínum afkvæmum, ættu læknar og heilbrigðisstarfsfólk þá ekki að marsera í hópum inn með börn sín, barnabörn á undan „hjörðinni“ til þess að „verja“ nú afkomendur sína og vera þau fyrstu til að vera „skotin“ og með hinum lífs-bjargandi bóluefnum?
Ég veit um ýmsa innan heilbrigðisgeirans hér á landi ( nógar greinar til þar sem læknar og vísindamenn fordæma bólusetningar og segja t.d. ,, eina örugga bóluefnið er það sem aldrei er notað"!..)sem láta ekki bólusetja sín börn- en hversvegna ætti þeim þá að vera svona lítið umhugað um heilsu sinna barna ?
En vilja á sama tíma "vernda " þitt barn í bak og fyrir með þeim "bjargvætt" sem þér er jú sagt að bóluefnið sé... Ah..átti kanski að skrifast "böðull"?
Það er kominn tími til að sú starfstétt sýni í verki að orð þeirra séu meira en bara innihaldslaus frasi! Það er kominn tími til að sýna okkur að starfsfólkið framkvæmi það sem það fyrirskipar öllum öðrum! Það er kominn tími til að þið fylgið eigin fyrirmælum!
Ef þið gerið það ekki, þá eruð þið sem starfsfólk innan heilbrigðisgeirans engan veginn marktæk!
Þið séuð einungis málpípa fyrir bóluefnaframleiðendur og sértækir sölumenn bóluefna á launaskrá bóluefnaframleiðanda! Eruð jafnvel að fá „bónus“ fyrir hvert það barn sem þið bólusetjið.
Málskrúð ykkar um ágæti bóluefna og hjarðónæmi fellur dautt um sjálft sig.. „WALK THE TALK“ ekki bara „TALK THE TALK!“
FÉLAG ÁHUGAMENNA UM BÓLUSETNINGAR –KT-541011-0210
Virðingarfyllst Ingibjörg Gunnlaugsdóttir (Agný)
Mannréttindi | Breytt 13.10.2013 kl. 17:49 | Slóð | Facebook | Athugasemdir (0)
18.5.2013 | 06:27
BÓLUEFNIN -orsaka þann sjúkdóm sem þau áttu að koma í veg fyrir.
The Vaccines That Worry Parents Most
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/27/vaccines-that-worry-parents-most.aspx
Pro & Con Arguments: "Should any vaccines be required for children?"
Vaccines Causing the Very Diseases they are Given to Prevent
http://www.mercola.c...ing_illness.htm
Við þekkjum öll einhverja sem fengu flensusprautu og fengu flensuna, þá er öllu jafna sagt við fólk að það hafi verið bólusett of seint..
Viðkomandi hafi verið kominn með flensuna þegar hann bólusettur, eða að bóluefnin virki nú alls ekki eins á alla...eða einhvern sem var bólusettur við hettusótt og fékk svo hettusótt ( þó svo að læknarnir kalli það hettusóttar “eftirlíkingu”).
Það sem bólusetningingar ferlið gegnur út á, er hárfínt jafnvægi milli þess að fá sjúkdóminn eða verjast honum.
Ef við skoðum áhættu /versus ávinning, þá er ávinningurinn ekki hár fyrir bólefnin, því að við erum að hætta ónæmiskerfi okkar fyrir einn meinlausan sjúkdóm, en bjóða hættunni heim fyrir því að fá annan sjúkdóm sem er venjulega miklu verri sjúkdómur. Þessi skifti eru ekki góð.
Þegar bóluefnin eru að orsaka þann sjúkdóm sem þau ættu að hafa komið í veg fyrir, þá er nafninu á sjúkdómnum oft breytt, til þess að vernda bóluefnið... ( ekki barnið eða þig!...)
Eftir allt.. hvernig getur einhver virkilega verið að fá þann sjúkdóm sem var búið að bólusetja viðkomandi gegn ( eða “með”, ég verð ringlaður/uð..)
Það er að áætla að bóluefni séu jafnt (=) ónæmi, sem þau eru ekki!
Ef að barn fær sjúkdóm eftir að vera bólusett, þá áætla læknarnir að það geti ekki verið sjúkdómurinn sem barnið var bólusett gegn.
Við heyrum iðulega umsagnir um sjúkdóma sem eru kallaðir:
“ mislinga-bróðir”, “hettusóttar-eftirlíking”, “ annars flokks – mislingar”,eða “afbrigðilegir mislingar”, og “afbrigðileg hettusótt”.
Eða þeir hafa breytt nafninu algjörlega úr infantile paralysis (ungbarna lömun) í aseptic menengitis ("dauðhreinsuð " heilahimnubólga)einmitt þá eru einkennin eftir sem áður þau sömu!
Eða þá sjúkdómurinn eigi almennt að vera á -uppleið – eftir að búið er að bólusetja. Það eigi sko ekkert samband að vera þar á milli..bara "tilviljun" .
Storsaeter et al Svíþjóð (1988) skýrði frá því að “ fjögur bólusett börn létust ” eftir að hafa fengið cellular pertussis (frumukíghósta) bóluefni, þegar “ eitt dauðsfall var áætlað í þeim hóp barna sem bólusett voru”.
(Innskot þýðanda- kíghósta bóluefnið inniheldur efni sem notað er til að framkalla heilabólgu hjá tilraunadýrum á rannsóknarstofum!)
Það er merkilegt að læknar skuli áætla að eitt barn muni deyja af völdum bóluefnisins, en halda því samt um leið fram að bóluefni séu hættulaus!!
Þeir læknar sem eru fylgjandi bólusetningum skirrast enskis við að kalla sjúkdóma orsakaða af bólusetningum nýjum nöfnum..
Þeir munu sverja að bóluefnið hafi ekki valdið vandamálinu, það sé sko einungis "tilviljun"!
Þeir nota heiti sem hljóma eins og raunverulegur sjúkdómur; eins og t.d. BCG-itis, Atypical Mumps, Measels like disorder, Atypical Measels.
Allt verður þetta til að flækja málið enn meir, vegna þess að sjúklingurinn (foreldrarnir) vita að einkennin eru nákvæmlega þau sömu í hverjum sjúkdóm, hvort sem hann orsakast af bóluefninu eða náttúrulegu veirunni.
En fyrir rökrétt hugsandi manneskju, þá er veiran í bóluefninu, og í mörgum tilfellum inniheldur bóluefnið lifandi veiru, ekki dauða eða breytta á nokkur hátt, t.d. mislingaveiru bóluefnið.
Svo er málið flækt enn meir með nafnabreytingum, sem þjóna engum tilgangi né láta sjúkdóminn hverfa.
Það verður að fara að skoða samhengið á milli bóluefna og sjúkdóma, fórnalambanna/sjúklinganna vegna..
Þegar öllu er á botninn hvolft.. þá komu jú þessir einstaklinar til læknisins í þeim tilgangi að öðlast betri heilsu..ekki satt !!
Þýðandi Agný.
http://www.putchildrenfirst.org
ÉG MÆLI MEÐ AÐ ALLIR HORFI Á ÞETTA VIDEO MEÐ OPNUM HUGA - OG HUGSI KANSKI UM LEIÐ HVERSU MARGA VIÐKOMANDI ÞEKKIR- EINHVER Í HANS ÆTT ÞEKKIR EINS OG ÞAÐ SEM SGAT ER FRÁ OG SÝNT ÞARNA... FRÆÐSLA EN EKKI HRÆÐSLA ER MÁLIÐ !
EN FRÆÐAST ÞÁ LÍKA FRÁ ÞEIM SEM EKKI HAFA HAGSMUNAAÐ GÆTA AF ÞVÍ AÐ SELJA SEM MEST OG FLEST BÓLUEFNI - ÁSTÆÐAN GÆTI VERIÐ SÚ AÐ LÆKNIRINN ÞINN SEM ER MJÖG SVO ÁKVEÐINN Í ÞVÍ AÐ OG JAFNVEL HÓTAR ÞÉR Á JAFNVEL HLUTABRÉF Í BÓLUEFNA FRAMLEIÐSLU FYRIRTÆKJUM - (HEF LENT Í ÞVÍ SJÁLF) BARNAVERNDARNEFND EF ÞÚ LÆTUR EKKI BÓLUSETJA- EN NUMER EITT- BÓLUSETNINGAR ERU EKKI SKYLDA ! ÞAÐ ER LYGI NUMER 1 SEM ÞÉR ER SÖGÐ ...
ÉG -AGNÝ GRÆÐI EKKERT Á ÞVÍ EÐA HEF FJÁRHAGSLEGAN ÁVINNING AF ÞVÍ AÐ KOMA MEÐ HINAR ÝMSU UPPLÝSINGAR UM BÓLUEFNI - ( REYNDAR HEFUR ÞAÐ NÚ VERIÐ ÖFUGT )
EN ÉG Á SON SEM ERU MEÐ ASPERGER SYNDROME ( AUTISME/ EINHVERFA) - ALLIR MÍNIR SYNIR VEIKTUST Á SAMA TÍMA OG ÞEIR VORU BÓLUSETTIR -ASTMI- EYRNARBÓLGA OG EINN FÉKK T.D. EPSTEIN BARR SYNDROME ( EINKIRNINGSSÓTT) -
ÞESSI DRENGUR GREINDIST MEÐ VEFJAGIGT/FIBROMYALGIA 9 ÁRA GAMALL -REYNDAR 8 ÁRA OG ÞÁ MEÐ TENNISOLNBOGA LÍLKA - EN EKK SKRÁÐ Í SKÝRSLUR FYRR EN ÞEGAR HANN VAR 9 ÁRA AÐ HANN SÉ MEÐ VEFJAGIGT.
ÞETTA KEMUR FRAM Í LÆKNASKÝRSLUM ÞEIRRA..ALLTAF VEIKIR AF EINHVERJUM SKÍT FRÁ ÞVÍ ÞEIR URÐU 3 MÁNAÐA- TIL 18 MÁNAÐA- SKRÍTIN "TILVILJUN"? SAMI TÍMI OG BYRJAÐ ER AÐ BÓLUSETJA BÖRN HÉR Á LANDI...
ÞRÍR SYNIR MÍNIR FENGU HERPES VIRUSINN OG EKKERT SMÁ SÁR OG BLÖÐRUR Í MUNN- TANNGARÐ OG KOK..Á SAMA TÍMA OG ER VERIÐ VAR AÐ BÓLUESTJA ÞÁ -3-18 MÁN..
FRUNSUR- SEM FÓLK FÆR SÍÐAR Á ÆFINNI KANSKI TENGDAR ÞVÍ ?
ENN EIN "TILVILJUNIN"?
-----------------------------------------------------------
ÉG ER AÐ VÍSU MEÐ VEFJAGIGT / FIBROMYALGIA LÍKA EN SVO EINKENNILEGT ER AÐ ÉG FÓR 2
SINNUM I LÖMUNARVEIKI BÓLUSETNINGAR MEÐ 2 ÁRA MILLIBILI - JAMM ÞAÐ ER NEFNILEGA EKKI ÆFILANGT ÓNÆMI....
ÞESSVEGNA VAR ÉG MÖÖÖÖG SAMVISKUSÖM ÁÐUR EN ÉG VISSI BETUR 
- EN EINKENNILEG "TILVILJUN" AÐ ÞEGAR ÉG SKOÐA TIL BAKA AÐ ÞAÐ ER ÞÁ SEM ÉG FER AÐ FÁ HIN OG ÞESSI LÍKAMLEGU EINKENNI -SEM KEMUR SVO Í LJÓS AÐ ER VEFJAGIGT Á SAMA TÍMA OG GREINIST SVO 2-3 ÁRUM EFTIR SEINNI BÓLUSETNINGUNA.
ENN EIN "TILVILJUN" OG ÞAÐ ER EINKENNILEGT AÐ ÞAÐ SKULI BARA VERA SLÆMIR HLUTIR /ATBURÐIR SEM SKE FYRIR "TILVILJUN"
ALDREI GÓÐIR ATBURÐIR- ÞAÐ ER SVOLÍTIÐ EINKENNILEG " TILVILJUN" AÐ SVO SÉ 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERUM VIÐ AÐ FÁ ALLA ÞESSA SVO KÖLLUÐU SJÁLFS
ÓNÆMISSJÚKDÓMA FRÁ TAUGAEITRI SEM ER Í BÓLUEFNUM?
ALLAVEGA ERU KVIKASILFUR -ÁL -FORMALDEHYDE OG FROSTLÖGUR ÖLL SKRÁÐ SEM TAUGAEITUR OG ÖLL ERU ÞESSI EFNI Í BÓLUEFNUM !
SVO ER BÚIÐ AÐ BÆTA VIÐ EFNUM Í ÖLL NÝJUSTU BÓLUEFNI SEM FARIÐ ER AÐ NOTA/BÚIÐ AÐ BÆTA VIÐ BÓLUEFNA KOKTEILINN -
EN ÞAÐ ERU EFNI SEM ERU NOTUÐ TIL AÐ DREPA SÆÐISFRUMUR OG ÖNNUR SEM NOTUÐ ERU TIL AÐ VALDA ÓFRJÓSEMI HJÁ TILRAUNADÝRUM BÆÐI ÞESSI EFNI ERU Í HPV BÓLUEFNUNUM!
ERU BÖRNIN OKKAR TILRAUNADÝR?
ER VERIÐ AÐ VINNA Í ÞVÍ AÐ GERA NÆSTU KYNSLÓÐ STEINGELDA?
BÓLUEFNI SÉU SEM SÉ NOTUÐ SEM TÆKI TIL AÐ STJÓRNA FÓLKSFJÖLDA?
SVO SEGIR BILL GATES AÐ SÉ HÆGT AÐ GERA. Þ.E. MEÐ BÆTTRI HEILSUGÆSLU OG BÓLUSETNINGUM SÉ HÆGT AÐ HAFA HEMIL Á FÓLKSFJÖLGUN...
ÞETTA SAGÐI HANN Á FYRIRLESTRI- ÁN GRÍNS!
ÞANNIG - FRÆÐIST EN HRÆÐIST EI!
FÁFRÆÐIN GETUR DREPIÐ MANNESKJUNA EN FORVITNIN KÖTTINN...
FÖRUM MILLIVEGINN..
ÚT FRÁ UPPLÝSINGUM SEM VIÐ FÁUM, HVAÐAN SEM ÞÆR KOMA -SKOÐIÐ OG VEGIÐ OG METIÐ MEÐVITAÐ HVAÐ ÞIÐ VILJIÐ GERA...
LEITIÐ-SPYRJIST FYRIR-FRÆÐIST- LÆRIÐ !
SKOÐIÐ EKKI SÍST FJÁRHAGSLEGAR TENGINGAR VIÐ ÁKEFÐINA FYRIR ÞVÍ AÐ ÞÚ SÉRT BÓLUSETT/UR OG BARNIÐ ÞITT.. FYLGIÐ PENINGASLÓÐINN EF ÚT Í ÞAÐ ER FARIÐ..ÞIÐ ÞURFIÐ EKKI AÐ FARA LANGT...
ÞAÐ HEF ÉG GERT.. HÚN ENDAR ALLAVEGA Á STAÐ SEM AÐ ÉG VILDI EKKI- ÞVÍ MIÐUR OG KEMUR MÉR JAFNVEL Í HÆTTU-
ÞAÐ ERU ENGIR SMÁ FJÁRMUNIR SEM ÞARNA UM RÆÐIR!
AGNÝ -MEÐ FULLRI VIRÐINGU FYRIR FRÆÐSLU OG FÓLKI..
***********************************************************************
SJOKKERANDI VITNISBURÐUR UM BÓLUEFNI! -
RÁÐSTEFNA ÞAR SEM EINSTAKLINGAR SEM HAFA SKAÐAST AF VÖLDUM BÓLUEFNA-EIGA BÖRN SEM HAFA SKAÐAST/LÁTIST- LÆKNAR SEM TALA /ÞINGMENN - EN ÞETTA ER EKKI GLEÐILEGT EFNI AÐ HORFA Á 
THE POISONED NEEDLE
Suppressed Facts About Vaccination
http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean.html
Mannréttindi | Breytt 23.7.2015 kl. 02:32 | Slóð | Facebook | Athugasemdir (0)
Sterilize women without their knowledge, often abuse and caesarean section
Uzbekistan's policy of secretly sterilising women
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17612550
Secret Sterilization of Women in Uzbekistan for Population Control
April 21, 2012 By Leslie Carol Botha Leave a Comment
[Leslie Carol Botha:
Hneyksli- hversvegna ekki gelda menn?
Skera af þeim getnaðarliminn?
Stríð gegn konum heldur áfram að vera beint gegn þeim saklausu. Hversvegna eru það konur sem eru taldar sem búfénaður nú á dögum og á barneignar aldri?]
Læknar hafa tjáð BBC að Uzbekistan sé með leynilegt verkefni í gangi til að gera konur ófrjóar- og hefur talað við konur sem voru gerðar ófrjóar án þeirra vitundar.
LEYNILEG STEFNA STJÓRNVALDA Í UZBEKISTAN UM ÓFRJÓSEMISAÐGERÐIR Á KONUM
Adolat hefur sláandi útlit, hljóðláta rödd og leyndarmál sem hún skammast sín mjög mikið fyrir. Hún veit að það sem kom fyrir hana er ekki hennar sök, en hún getur ekki að því gert en að vera haldin sektarkennd.
Adolat kemur frá Uzbekistan, þar sem lífið snýst um börn og stórar fjölskyldur eru skilgreinging á persónulegum árangri. Adoalat lítur á sjálfa sem misheppnaða.
„ Hvað er ég eftir það sem kom fyrir mig?“ segir hún um leið og hún strýkur hár dóttur sinnar, stúlkunnar sem breytti lífi Adolat þegar hún fæddist.
„ Mig dreymdi alltaf um að eignast fjögur-tvær dætur og tvo syni- en eftir að ég eignaðist seinni dóttirina gat ég ekki orðið ófrísk,“ segir hún.
Hún fór til læknis og uppgötvaði að hún hafði verið gerð ófrjó eftir að yngri dóttir hennar var tekin með keisaraskurði. ,, Ég var í sjokki. Ég grét og spurði: ´En hversvegna? Hvernig gátu þeir gert þetta?´
Læknirinn svaraði: ,, Þetta eru lög í Uzbekistan.“
Opinberlega eru ófrjósemisaðgerðir ekki lög í Uzbekistan!
En sönnunargögn sem BBC hefur safnað gefa til kynna að stjórnvöld í Uzbekistan séu búin að vera með áætlun í það minnsta 2 ár um að gera konur ófrjóar vítt og breytt um landið, oft án þeirrar vitundar.
Erlendir fréttamenn eru ekki velkomnir í Uzbekistan, og seint í Febrúar á þessu ári vísuðu stjórnvöld mér burtu úr landinu.
Ég hitti Adolat og margar aðrar konur frá Uzbekistan í Kazakhastan nágrannalandi þeirra, í nokkuð öruggu umhverfi. Ég safnaði einnig gögnum símleiðis og gegnum email, og í upptökum kom ég þeim út úr landinum með hraðboða.
Engin kvennanna vildi gefa upp þeirra raunverulega nafn, en þær komu frá ólíkum stöðum í Uzbekistan og sögur þeirra eru í samræmi við það sem læknarnir og heilbrigðisstéttin í landinu sögðu mér.
„ Ár hvert er okkur kynnt áætlun. Öllum læknum er sagt hversu mörgum konum er ætlast til að við látum hafa getnaðarvarnir og hversu margar það eru sem á að gera ófrjóar.“ sagði kvensjúkdómalæknir frá höfuðborg Uzbekistan, Tashkent.
,, ÖLLUM LÆKNUM ER SAGT HVERSU MARGAR KONUR EIGI AÐ GERA ÓFRJÓAR- ÞAÐ ER KVÓTI „ segir kvensjúkdómalæknir í Uzbekistan.
Eins og allir læknar sem ég talaði við, kom hún fram undir nafnleynd.
Það að tala við erlendan réttamann gæti þýtt fangelsisdóm, í landi þar sem pyntingar í gæsluvarðhaldi eru algengar.
,, Það er kvóti, Minn kvóti er 4 konur á mánuði ,“ ´sagði hún.
Tvær aðrar lækna heimildir gefa til kynna að þrýstingurinn sé sérstaklega mikill á lækna í dreifbýlasta hluta Uzbekistan, þar sem ætlast er til af sumum kvensjúkdómalæknum að framkvæma allt að 8 ófrjósemisaðgerðir á konum í hverri viku.
„ Einu sinni eða tvisvar í mánuði, stundum oftar, kemur hjúkrunarkona frá heilsugæslu staðarins heim til mín til að reyna að fá mig til að fara í þessa aðgerð“,
segir þriggja barna móðir í Jizzakh sem er svæði í Uzbekistan
„ Núna er þessi aðgerð ókeypis, en seinna muntu þurfa að borga fyrir hana, svo að þú ættir að fara í hana núna“,
sagði hjúkrunarkonan við móðurina. Önnur móðir segir að hún hafi haft undarlega verki og miklar blæðingar í marga mánuði eftir að hún átti son sinn. Þegar hún fór í sónarskoðun uppgötvaðist það að móðurlíf hennar hafði verið fjarlægt.
„ Þau sögðu bara við mig, ´Hvað hefur þú með fleiri börn að gera? Þú átt nú þegar tvö,“ sagði hún. BBC safnaði svipuðum vitnisburði frá Ferghana Valley í Bukhara héraðinu og tveimur þorpum nálægt höfuðborginni Tashkent.
Samkvæmt upplýsingum frá Heilbrigðisráðuneytinu, er ófrjósemis aðgerðar áætlunin ætluð til að stjórna vaxandi íbúafjölda í Uzbekistan, sem opinberlega er talinn vera um 28 miljónir. Sumir lýðfræðingar eru efins, vísa þó í þann mikla fjölda fólks sem hefur flutts til landsins síðan í síðustu talningu árið 1989, þegar íbúarnir voru í kringum 20 miljónir.
„ Við erum að tala um tugir þúsunda af konum sem er verið að gera ófrjóar vítt og breitt um landið,“ segir Sukhrob Ismailov, sem rekur vinnuhóp sérfræðinga (Expert Working Group), eina af mjög fáum óháðum stofnunum (ekki ríkisrekin) sem reknar eru í Uzbekistan
Árið 2010, stjórnaði vinnuhópur stofnunarinnar sjö-mánaða langri könnun fagólks, og safnaði sönnunargögnum um 80.000 ófrjósemisaðgerðir á því tíabili, en það er engin leið til þess að sannreyna þær tölur, sumar aðgerðirnar voru jú framkvæmdar án vitundar sjúklingsins.
Frá fyrstu tilfellum þvingunar ófrjósemisaðgerðanna er skýrt frá árið 2005, af Gulbakhor Turaeva- meinafræðingi sem vann í borginni Andijan, sem tók eftir því að komið var með leg ungra heilbrigðra kvenna í líkhúsið þar sem hún vann.
Eftir að hafa safnað sönnunum um 200 ófrjósemisaðgerðir sem gerðar voru án leyfis, leitaði hún þær konur uppi sem legið hafði verið fjarlægt úr, og fór í fjölmiðlana með uppgötvanir sínar og krafði yfirmann sinn um útskýringar. Í staðinn ráku þeir hana.
Árið 2007 var Turaeva fangelsuð, sökuð um að smygla andstöðu bókmenntum inn í landið. Eins og svo margir aðrir, þá neitaði hún að koma í viðtal fyrir þessa tilkynningu vegna ótta um öryggi sitt og barna sinna.
Árið 2007 skýrði einnig nefnd á vegum Sameinuðu þjóðanna sem vinnur gegn pyntingum, (United Nations Committee Against Torture ) frá nauðungar ófrjósemisaðgerðum og legnámi í Uzbekistan, og fjöldi tilfellanna leit út fyrir að lækka.
En samkvæmt heimildum frá fagólki, gáfu stjórnvöld í Uzbekistan út beina tilskipun árin 2009 og 2010 til heilsugæslustöðva um að vera með þann tækjabúnað til staðar til að geta framkvæmt umbeðnar ófrjósemis skurðaraðgerðir ..
Árið 2009, voru læknar frá höfuðborginni einnig sendir til dreifbýlanna til að auka/kynna framboð ófrjósemisaðgerðar“þjónustunnar“...
Það eru sannanir fyrir því að þá hafi fjöldi ófrjósemisaðgerðanna aukist aftur..
„ Samkvæmt pappírunum þá á ófrjósemisaðgerð að vera gerð með vilja konunnar, en konur eiga í rauninni ekkert val,“ sagði eldri læknir frá sjúkrahúsi héraðsins, sem bað um nafnleynd.
„ Það er mjög auðvelt að ráðskast með konu, sérstaklega ef að hún er fátæk. Þú getur sagt henni að heilsu hennar muni hraka ef að hún eignist fleiri börn. Þú getur sagt henni að ófrjósemisaðgerð sé best fyrir hana. Eða þú getur bara framkvæmt aðgerðina.“ (Innskot Agný. Án hennar vitundar?)
Fjöldi lækna sem ég talaði við sögðu að á síðustu 2 árum hafi orðið mikil aukning keisarafæðingum, sem veitir læknum auðveldlega tækifæri til að gera móðurina ófrjóa. Þessir læknar vefengja opinberar yfirlýsingar um að það séu aðeins 6.8% kvenna eignist barn með keisaraskurði.
„ Reglur um keisaraskurð voru vanar að vera mjög strangar, en núna tel ég að um 80% kvenna fæði með keisarskurð. Þetta auðveldar mjög að framkvæma ófrjósemisaðgerð og binda fyrir eggjaleiðarana,“
sagði yfirskurðlæknir á sjúkrahúsi nálægt höfuðborginni Tashkent.
Fjöldi lækna og fagfólks segja að þvingunar ófrjósemisaðgerðir séu ekki einungis ætluð til fólksfjölgunar stjórnunar, heldur einnig undarleg fljótaleið til þess að lækka dánartíðni móður og ungbarna.
„ Þetta er einföld formúla- færri konur sem eignast börn,- færri af þeim deyja,“ sagði skurðlæknirinn.
Niðurstaðan er sú að þetta sé gert til að bæta röðun landsins alþjóðlega í sambandi við dánartíðni mæðra og ungbarna.
„ Uzbekistan virðist vera með þráhyggju í sambandi við tölur og alþjóðlega stöðu segir Steve Swerdlow, stjórnandi Mið Asíu deildar Human Rights Watch.
„ Ég tel að þetta sé dæmigert fyrir einræðisherra sem þarf að byggja frásögn á einhverju öðru en sannleikanum.“
Swerdlow telur að erlend stjórnvöld gætu gert meira.
Þar til nýlega var forseti Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov úrhrak í augum vestrænna ríkja, en síðastliðin ár hafa bæði US og Evrópusambandið aflétt viðurlögum, þar á meðal US aflétt banni á sölu vopna.
Þetta er augljóslegaa tengt við versnandi samband Bandaríkjanna við Pakistan og aukinnar notkunar Nato á leiðum í gegnum Mið Asiu, þar á meðal Uzbekistan, til þess að geta komið vistum og hermönnum inn og út úr Aghanistan.
Fjöldi Vestrænna hefðarmanna hafa heimsótt Uzbekistan á síðast liðnum mánuðum, en fáir hafa gefið opinberlegar yfirlýsingar um stöðu mannréttinda í landinu.
„ Karimov hefur tekist að koma ár sinni þannig fyrir borð í sambandi við Vesturlöndin, þar sem að það eru engar afleiðingar fyrir hans agerðir og brot á mannréttindum.“
segir Swerdlow. „Það er alger þögn þegar kemur að mannrétindum. Skýrslur um þvingunar ófrjósemisaðgerðir sýna að brýn þörf er á að rjúfa þögnina.“
Í skriflegu svari við fyrirspurnir BBC um athugasemdir, hefur stjórn Uzbek sagt að ásakanirnar um þvingunar ófrjósemisaðgerðar áætlunina væru lastmæli, og ættu ekkert skilt við raunveruleikann.
Stjórnin sagði einnig að skuraraðgerðar getnaðarvarnir væru ekki algengar og væru einungis gerðar að ósk viðkomandi, etir ráðgjöf við sérfræðing og með undirskrift beggja foreldra.
Stjórn Uzbek ítrekaði það að skrá Uzbekistan í að vernda mæður og börn væri frábær og væri hægt að taka hana sem fyrirmynd fyrir lönd um allan heim.
(Innskot Agný... Skyldu þeir vera að meina að önnur lönd ættu nota Uzbekistan sem fordæmi með því hvernig eigi að fækka fólki í heiminum?)
Hvað sem því líður, þá er Nigora á meðal þeirra mörgu sem þvingunar ófrjósemisaðgerð er staðreynd hjá.
Hún þurfti að fara í bráðakeisara.
Degi síðar er henni sagt að það hafi verið gerð ófrjósemisaðgerð á henni. Á þeim sama degi dó hennar nýfædda barn. Nigora er 24 ára og mun aldrei eignast börn.
ÞÝÐANDI AGNÝ
Mannréttindi | Breytt 10.9.2024 kl. 11:39 | Slóð | Facebook | Athugasemdir (0)
9.10.2010 | 00:44
OBAMA SKRIFAÐI UNDIR CODEX ALIMENTARIUS LÖG SEM GERA FÆÐUBÓTAEFNI OG ÓHEFÐBUNDNAR HEILSUREMEDÍUR ÓLÖGLEGAR!
· 
It's not health Obama is promoting, it's profit - he is negating his pre-election promises.
Það er ekki heilsa sem Obama er að framfylgja, það er gróði- hann hefur gert að engu kosninga loforðin..!
Þegar allra augu beindust að olíuslysinu , þá laumaðist Barack Obama á bak við tjöldin til að skrifa undir lög sem veita Bandarískum stjórnvöldum leyfi til að utrýma fæðubótaefnum og óhefðbundnum heilsumeðferðum.
Það sem það þýðir er að fæðubótaefnin sem þú tekur og meðferðirnar sem þú notar til að halda líkama þínum heilbrigðum, getur núna verið gert ólölegt af hálfu (CDC) Sjúkdómsvarnarstofnuninnar (sem er nú eiginlega ekki mikið marktæk þar sem þeir sem sitja í því ráði eiga margir hverjir hlutabréf í lyfjafyrirtækjum og bóluefnaframleiðslu) og Heilbrigðis og þjónustustofunar Bandaríkjanna.. (HHS)
Obama veitti CODEX Alimentarius þegjandi og hljóðalaust – sem er áætlun Sameinuðu þjóðanna (UN)á heimsvísu um fæðustaðla- til að taka gildi í Bandaríkjunum með
Executive Order 13544 of June 10, 2010.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-16/pdf/2010-14613.pdf
Ákvörðun forsetans skapaði hóp „sérfræðinga“ alþjóðlegra forvarna, almennt heilbrigðis- og heilsuráð, til að framfylgja hverju því sem Obama ákveður að sé við hæfi.
BANDARÍKIN TAKA UPP CODEX ALIMENTARIUS REGLUGERÐINA..
The US Is Adopting Codex Alimentarius
http://rense.com/general92/adopt.htm
Now, with a stroke of a pen, and quietly behind the scenes when everyone was focused on the Gulf Oil Spill, he effectively launched Codex Alimentarius in the US, which is intended to bring ALL vitamin and mineral supplements and natural health remedies and technologies to an end.
The CDC and the HHS *can now make illegal*, all alternative health remedies and technologies. This bill renders all alternative health remedies "unscientific" and not provable by the FDA.
Samkvæmt grein hér á www.rense.com eftir 5 ára baráttu gegn þessu frumvarpi innan þingsins, hefur Obama ákveðið að drepa niður fæðubóta - og óhefðbundna heilsuiðnaðinn, allar óhefðbundnar heilsu remedíur geta verið dæmdar „óvísindalegar“ og ekki samþykktar af FDA, sem getur orðið til þess ð þær verði bannaðar.
Það þýðir að fæðubótaefni geta verið tekin úr sölu fyrir fullt og allt, eða að það magn sem þú mátt neyta af þeim verði lækkað óeðlilega mikið niður, það mikið að þau verði svo gott sem gagnslaus. Þetta sama skeði í Evrópu fyrir nokkrum árum..
Að lokum, þessi lög, undirskrifuð af þeim eina og sama manni sem frægur varð fyrir þessa fullyrðingu:
“ BREYTINGA ER ÞÖRF“ og BREYTINGUM GETIÐ ÞIÐ TREYST Á“
Hefur þessi áhrif:
1) AFNEMUR RÉTTINDI ÞÍN TIL AÐ GETA VALIÐ UM AÐ NOTA FÆÐUBÓTAEFNI OG ÓHEFÐBUNDNAR MEÐFERÐIR;
2) KOMIÐ Í VEG FYRIR AÐ ÞÚ GETIR HUGSAÐ UM HEILSU ÞÍNA Á NÁTTÚRULEGAN HÁTT – ÞÚ ERT NEYDD/UR TIL AÐ STÓLA Á LÆKNA/LYFJA IÐNAÐINN, SEM HEFUR HÁMARKS GRÓÐA AÐ AÐALMARKMIÐI, OG AÐ HALDA ÞÉR ÁFRAM SJÚKUM, SVO ÞEIR GETI HALDIÐ ÞÉR FÖSTUM / HÁÐUM ÞEIRRA AFURÐUM/VÖRUM;
3) MUN NEYÐA ÞIG TIL ÞESS AÐ STÓLA Á LÉLEG, GERFI FÆÐUBÓTAEFNI FRAMLEIDD AF LYFJAFYRIRTÆKJUNUM.
4) EÐA NEYÐA ÞIG TIL AÐ KAUPA HÁU VERÐI , RX, HÁ-STYRKS GERFI FÆÐUBÓTAEFNI FRAMLEIDD AF BILLJÓN DOLLARA LYFJAFRAMLEIÐSLU FYRIRTÆKJUM.
Ef þú lest tilskipunina þá hljómar hún mjög svo jákvætt.
Hvað sem því líður, á bak við þessu „mildu“ orð er margþætt afl sem er tilbúið til að gera hvað sem Sameinuðu þjóðirnar og Obama vilja, þar á meðal upptöku laga sem banna meðferðir og fæðubótaefni.
Kaust þú forseta sem myndi fjarlægja réttindi þín til þess að velja og hafna?Ætlar þú bara að sitja aðgerðarlaus og leyfa þessu að ske?
ALMENNINGUR BLEKKTUR - ÞETTA SNÝST EKKI UM VAL..
The Public Plan Deception - It's Not About Choice
Staðreynda könnun: Obama skiftir um tón í sambandi við heilbrigðismál.
Er Obama virkilega umhugað um heilsufar almennings , eða er hann að ganga á bak við orð sín ?
ÞÝÐANDI AGNÝ.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_fact_check
By ERICA WERNER and CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writers –Fri Sep 10,4:09 pm ET
Mannréttindi | Breytt 5.1.2017 kl. 02:50 | Slóð | Facebook | Athugasemdir (12)
26.6.2010 | 15:18
ZIONISTA ELITE VILL HEFTA FRELSI INTERNETSINS! The Coming Jewish Lock-Down Of The Internet !
Ef þetta er það sem koma skal þá erum við endanlega komin með lögreglu/fasista/zionista ríki!
Við Íslendingar höfum nú í gegnum áratugina elt kanann sem þægur rakki...og það þarf eitthvað stórt að ske hér á landi svo það verði ekki eins í þessu máli!
En fjölmiðlafrumvarpið svokallaða var nú bara akkurat þetta!
Set hér
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=515
Hið sanna lögregluríki/POLICE STATE verður þá orðið virkt!
Elítan er sem sé búin að fatta það að máttur orsins er mikill og ekki síst að fólk geti notað þennan miðil sem internetið er til að koma á framfæri upplýsingum og ná í upplýsingar sem ekki var hægt áður..
Þeim líkar ekki að við hinn almenni borgari hafi tæki og tækni til að fylgjast með gjörðum þeirra...
En ég er alveg viss um eitt að hefði internetið ekki verið komið til sögunnar þegar 9/11 átti sér stað, þá hefði elítan komist upp með þessar 4 "tilviljanir" á einum degi...
Þeir voru greinilega ekki búnir að átta sig á því hversu sterkt netið og almenn notkun þess var orðin..En hvaða plott/catastrofe eru þeir núna að fara að skella á okkur sem gerir það að verkum að þeir eru alveg ólmir í að loka á almenna netnotkun?
Það er pottþétt enn stærra en 911 dæmið, ja og morðið á JFK... (morðið á JFK er má segja sé 911 number 1 svo kemur turna dæmið..og ekki hefur gengið nógu vel að fá okkur "börnin" til að vera þæg og góð og hlýða "terrorism" /hryðjuverka grýlunni ..komma grýlan var jú dauð þannig að nja sameiginlega ógn þurfti elítan...
Ég held við þurfum að fara að standa vörð um net frelsið því það er í raun stærsti miðill okkar almenns borgar í dag til tjáskifta ..
Ef það verður tekið af okkur þá má segja að sé búið að afnema rit/tjáninga frelsi sem hin svo kölluðu lýðræðisríki kenna sig svo fjálglega við..Það er í raun grunnur af lýðræðisríki að hafa tjáninga og ritfrelsi...
***************************************************************************
ALLT SEM ER BLÁTT Á LITINN HÉR Í GREININNI ERU LINKAR INN Á AÐRAR SÍÐUR/GREINAR..
The Coming Jewish Lock-Down Of The Internet
Jewish Agenda Articles, Internet Articles, Homeland Security Articles, Congress/Jews Articles
THE COMING JEWISH LOCK-DOWN
OF THE INTERNET
By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2010
Articles May Be Reproduced Only With Authorship of Br Nathanael Kapner
& Link To Real Zionist News (SM)
Support Brother Nathanael! HERE
Or Send Your Contribution To:
Brother Nathanael Kapner; PO Box 1242; Frisco CO 80443
E-mail: bronathanael@yahoo.com
For The Best Alternative News CLICK: Rense.com Here
______________
A JEWISH-LED SENATE COMMITTEE
approved legislation that would “fundamentally reshape” the way the government ‘protects’ public AND private sector cyber networks.
The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, led by Chairman Joe Lieberman, a freedom-hating, Talmudic Jew, is the sponsor of this bill which would create a Cyberspace Policy Office within the White House.
The bill, Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, maliciously crafted by Lieberman, would also create a new center within Homeland Security, (Talmudic Jew Lieberman at the head), which would implement cyber-security policies.
This new agency within the Department of Homeland Security will be named, The National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC).
Any private company reliant on the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the US information infrastructure, will be “subject to command” by the NCCC and be required to engage in “information sharing” with the agency.
AND a Jew, that is, a Talmudic Jew, Joe Lieberman, will be the arbiter.
A provision of the legislation that will give the Jews ultimate control of the Internet — given their rule over every sphere of US political life — is that which will give the president the power to “authorize emergency measures to protect the nation if a cyber vulnerability is about to be exploited.”
The language is obviously vague, thanks to the Jewish-intrigues of Lieberman, thus giving the president an “Internet kill switch” that would effectively allow him to turn off the Web (when Jews tell him to) in a so-called emergency.
Indeed, earlier this month, Lieberman was prepping the bill that would allow the government to take over civilian networks in a crisis. Thus, Internet advocacy groups are up in arms that the legislation would give the president the authority to conduct e-surveillance and monitor private networks.
In light of this vehement opposition, Lieberman was granted a spot on Bronfman’s CNN to refute the kill switch criticism. “If China can disconnect the Internet,” protested Lieberman, “we need to have that here too.”
Bíddu nú við..síðan hvenær vill svokallað lýðræðisríki USA kenna sig á einn eða annan hát við Maoista Kína og stefnu þeirra svona heilt yfir?
What does China, a COMMUNIST country, which FORBIDS Freedom of Speech, have in common with Lieberman and his Bill?
HVAÐ Á KÍNA, KOMMUNISTA LAND SEM BANNAR MÁLFRELSI, SAMEIGINLEGT MEÐ LIBERMAN OG FRUMVARPI HANS?
Everything, my dear fellow Americans. Lieberman, a Zionist Jew, FEARS Freedom of Speech, just like Communist China, in order to CENSURE all criticism of Jews and their quest to take over the executive office.
LIBERMAN, ZIONISTA GYÐINGUR (ZIONISTI ER EKKI ÞAÐ SAMA OG HINN ALMENNI GYÐINGUR..) ÓTTAST MÁLFRELSI , ALVEG EINS OG KOMMUNISTA KÍNA, Í ÞEIM TILGANGI AÐ RIT SKOÐA ALLA GAGNRÝNI Á HENDUR ZIONISTA/GYÐINGA ELÍTUNNAR OG HAFA YFIR STJÓRNINA Á ÞVÍ SEM VIÐ HINN ALMENNI BORGARI LÆTUR FRÁ SÉR FARA..RÉTTARA... MUN VERA LEYFT AÐ LÁTA FRÁ OKKUR Í RITUÐU MÁLI HÉR Á NETINU....
*****************************************************************
(EKKI NEMA VON AÐ BLOGGIÐ MITT HAFI KOMIÐ UPP MEÐ ALgERT KJAFTÆÐI EFTIR AÐ
ÉG BIRTI Í 3 HLUTUM UM ÞAÐ HVERJIR STÆÐU Í RAUN Á BAK VIÐ ELLEFTA SEPTEMBER..
ég komst ekki inn á forsíðuna nema með því að smella annað hvort "hér" eða "þar" í svotil gerða glugga..ja hefði ég farið eftir því...Hversvegna átti mitt eigið blogg að vera ógn við mína tölvu og útaf vissum link sem ég birti inni á þessum 3 færslum?( JA ÉGFÓR SKO BEINT INN Á ÞANN LINK OG EKKERT SKEÐI...ÞANNIG AÐ ÞAÐ VAR GREINILEGT AÐ EINHVER VAR EKKI HRIFINN AF MÍNUM FÆRSLUM ) Þar fyrir utan ekki að meika sens að allur veggurinn var rauður með risa stóru Alert yfir þetta rauða og allt á Ensku...fyrir það fyrsta ef að þeim sem eiga blog.is líkar ekki mín skrif þá myndu þeir trúlega ekki birta þetta á Ensku...Hvað um það..ég varaði mína vini um a smella á þessa flipa á meðan ég kannaði hvað væri í gangi...Þá kom svolítið skrítið upp..allir mínir vinir sáu ekki það sama og ég á forsíðunni á blogginu..bara ég..allir komust inn á færslurnar í gegnum forsíðuna bara ekki ég...haha..góðir þessir idiotar..ég náði bara í slóð beint inn á sjórnborðið og tók link á einhverri færslu og opnaði þann glugga og þá komst ég út um allt..en bara ekki í gegnum forsíðuna...Þessi ALERT melding blasti við mér á veggnum ca 2-3 vikur þá gáfust þeir upp.. )
EN ÞETTA SEM ER VERIÐ AÐ GERA ER EINMITT LIÐUR NÚMER 8 AF 12 SEM ERU MERKI UM FASÍSKT STJÓRNUNARFAR...EN ÞAÐ ER UM FJÖLMIÐLAFRELSI..
FASCISMA / POLICE STATE /RÍKIÐ ÍSLAND...ER ÞAÐ SEM SKEÐI Í DAG EKKI AKKÚRAT SÝNISHORN AF ÞVÍ?
http://agny.blog.is/blog/agny/entry/517349/
8. Fjölmiðlum stjórnað. Eftirlit með fjölmiðlum
Stundum er fjölmiðlum stýrt beint af ríkisstjórninni af klaufalegum undirtyllum.
Á öðrum tímum eru það viðkunnalegir innanfélagsmenn sameiginlegs fjölmiðils sem að mótar stefnuna óbeint og þess vegna faglegri.
Reglulega eru ímyndanir/myndir spunnar upp sem “fréttir” og eru kynntar með öndina í hálsinum og með leiftrandi fyrirsögnum.
Æfð þula af fastheldinni endurtekningu gerir jafnvel augljósustu lygi mjög ásættanlega með tímanum. Með ásetningi verður málfarið sjálft og starfsfólkið ákaflega samdauna og mun framfylgja því að ýta almennum skoðunum “ út úr aðal umræðunni”.
Allar umræður sem eftir eru, lúta skilmálum og eru naumlega útskýrðar, til hagsbóta fyrir stjórnina. Auðveldara verður að hafa yfirsýn með þeim sem eru ósammála og frábrugðnir. Ritskoðun og “sjálf-ritskoðun “,sérstaklega á stríðstímum er algeng.
*****************************************************************
And who controls the president of the United States? Jews.
OG HVERJIR ERU ÞAÐ SEM STJÓRNA FORSETA BANDARÍKJANNA? GYÐINGAR/ZIONISTAR
Who then will control the Internet and e-mails?
HVER MUN ÞÁ STJÓRNA INTERNETINU OG E-MAIL SKRIFUM?
Your educated guess is as good as mine. JEWS.
Do we really want a Jewish police state?
VILJUM VIÐ VIRKILEGA ZIONISTA LÖGREGLU RÍKI?
If your answer is no……then VOTE OUT THE JEWS!
___________________________________For More See: A Jewish Police State Is Coming Click Here
And: The Rise Of The US Surveillance State & The Jews Behind It Click Here
And: Homeland Security Targets ‘Anti-Semitic Extremists’ Click Here
And: How The Jews Took The White House Click Here
CLICK: Brother Nathanael! Street Evangelist!
Mannréttindi | Breytt 22.1.2012 kl. 09:20 | Slóð | Facebook | Athugasemdir (2)
31.3.2010 | 13:46
Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet, says John P. Holdren Obama´s science Car.
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=576
Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population
 |
 |
Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.
The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar.
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax.
No one in their right mind would say such things.
Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.
[UPDATE: Make sure to read the new statements issued by the White House and by John Holdren's office in response to the controversy raised by this essay -- you can see them below following the Ecoscience excerpts, or you can jump directly to the statements by clicking here.]
This report was originally inspired by this article in FrontPage magazine, which covers some of the same information given here. But that article, although it contained many shocking quotes from John Holdren, failed to make much of an impact on public opinion. Why not? Because, as I discovered when discussing the article with various friends, there was no proof that the quotes were accurate -- so most folks (even those opposed to Obama's policies) doubted their veracity, because the statements seemed too inflammatory to be true. In the modern era, it seems, journalists have lost all credibility, and so are presumed to be lying or exaggerating unless solid evidence is offered to back up the claims. Well, this report contains that evidence.
Of course, Holdren wrote these things in the framework of a book he co-authored about what he imagined at the time (late 1970s) was an apocalyptic crisis facing mankind: overpopulation. He felt extreme measures would be required to combat an extreme problem. Whether or not you think this provides him a valid "excuse" for having descended into a totalitarian fantasy is up to you: personally, I don't think it's a valid excuse at all, since the crisis he was in a panic over was mostly in his imagination. Totalitarian regimes and unhinged people almost always have what seems internally like a reasonable justification for actions which to the outside world seem incomprehensible.
Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience
Below you will find a series of ten short passages from Ecoscience. On the left in each case is a scanned image taken directly from the pages of the book itself; on the right is an exact transcription of each passage, with noteworthy sections highlighted. Below each quote is a short analysis by me.
Following these short quotes, I take a "step back" and provide the full extended passages from which each of the shorter quotes were excerpted, to provide the full context.
And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans (and photos) of the full pages from which all of these passages were taken, to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are absolutely real, and to forestall any claims that the quotes were taken "out of context."
Ready? Brace yourself. And prepare to be shocked.
Page 837:
Compulsory abortions would be legal
| Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. |
As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren "hides behind the passive voice" in this passage, by saying "it has been concluded." Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that's whom. What Holdren's really saying here is, "I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies."
And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there's no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for "compulsory population-control laws." In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that "the population crisis" has already become "sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
Page 786:
Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
| One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. |
Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what's especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals -- wrenching babies from their mothers' arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not -- but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don't be fooled by the innocuous and "level-headed" tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed.
Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.
This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I'm reminded of the phrase "banality of evil."
Not that it matters, but I myself am "pro-choice" -- i.e. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion -- I don't particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that choice -- to force women to have abortions. One doesn't need to be a "pro-life" activist to see the horror of this proposal -- people on all sides of the political spectrum should be outraged. My objection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a medical procedure against her will. And not just any medical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my views) may find particularly immoral or traumatic.
There's a bumper sticker that's popular in liberal areas which says: "Against abortion? Then don't have one." Well, John Holdren wants to MAKE you have one, whether you're against it or not.
Page 787-8:
Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock
| Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. |
OK, John, now you're really starting to scare me.
Putting sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise that this suggestion "seems to horrify people more than most proposals," you apparently are not among those people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterlization of the population is that it ought to affect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize all the humans safely without hurting the livestock, that'd be peachy! The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement) is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the government.
Page 786-7:
The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
| Involuntary fertility control A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. |
Note well the phrase "with official permission" in the above quote. Johh Holdren envisions a society in which the government implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then must apply for official permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes all women once they have two children. Do you want to live in such a society? Because I sure as hell don't.
Page 838:
The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children
| If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection. |
To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book -- and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their babies. Proper, decent people will be left alone -- but those who "contribute to social deterioration" could be "forced to exercise reproductive responsibility" which could only mean one thing -- compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilization. What other alternative would there be to "force" people to not have children? Will government monitors be stationed in irresponsible people's bedrooms to ensure they use condoms? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No -- the only way to "force" people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions.
But what manner of insanity is this? "Social deterioration"? Is Holdren seriously suggesting that "some" people contribute to social deterioriation more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind? Isn't that eugenics, plain and simple?
And isn't eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquely evil practice?
We've already been down this road before. In one of the most shameful episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck against her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was "feeble-minded" and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Nowadays, of course, we look back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concept has been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity.
The italicized phrase at the end ("providing they are not denied equal protection"), which Holdren seems to think gets him off the eugenics hook, refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version of this passage quoted below), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn't be racially based or discriminatory -- merely based on the whim and assessments of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not an undesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren's America determines that you are "contributing to social deterioration" by being promiscuous or pregnant or both, will government agents break down your door and and haul you off kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people.
No no, you say, Holdren isn't claiming that some kind of people contribute to social deterioration more than others; rather, he's stating that anyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and needs to be stopped from having more.
If so -- how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this through, because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who commit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization centers? Or -- most disturbingly of all -- perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this book.
Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among us hasn't looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don't you just get your tubes tied already? But it's a different matter when the Science Czar of the United States suggests the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being a harmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it could become government policy. And then it's not so funny anymore.
Page 838:
Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
| In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? |
Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
Why?
I'll tell you why, John. Because the the principle of habeas corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual's body from detention or interference, until that person has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting that, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime?
I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holgren is even less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.
Page 942-3:
A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
| Toward a Planetary Regime Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, andincluding all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. |
In case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it'll be the "Planetary Regime"! Of course! I should have seen that one coming.
The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all the things the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring to it, doesn't it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will have total power over the global economy, since according to Holdren this Planetary Regime will control "all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable" (which basically means all goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and any rivers "that discharge into the oceans" (i.e. 99% of all navigable rivers). What's left? Not much.
Page 917:
We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
| If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involvespartial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. |
The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to an international organization (the "Planetary Regime," presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rules this armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, and all economic activity.
It would be laughable if Holdren weren't so deadly serious. Do you want this man to be in charge of science and technology in the United States? Because he already is in charge.
Page 749:
Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
| Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the "tragedy of the commons," wherein the "commons" is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint. |
This passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the inclusion of the odd phrase "pronatalist attitude," which Holdren spends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a "pronatalist attitude"? Basically it means the urge to have children, and to like babies. If only we could suppress people's natural urge to want children and start families, we could solve all our problems!
What's disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and culturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting like he has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they should allow themselves to go extinct or at least not increase their populations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that there were simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop breeding immediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnic group in the world to John Holdren's proposal would be: Cram it, John. Stop telling us what to do.
Page 944
As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
| Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny.Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world. |
This is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his "scientific" projections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed to survive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed. Yes, there still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the "solutions" which John Holdren wanted us to adopt.
I actually don't disagree with everything Holdren says. I agree with him that overpopulation is a problem, and that much of the environmental degradation that has happened is due in large part to overpopulation (mostly in the developing world). Where we disagree is in the solution. While Holdren does occasionally advocate for milder solutions elsewhere in the book, his basic premise is that the population explosion has gotten so out of control that only the most oppressive and totalitarian measures can possibly stop humanity from stripping the planet bare and causing a catastrophe beyond our imagining. Holdren has (apparently) no problem saying we should force people to not have children, by any means necessary. And that is where we part ways. I draw the line at even the hint of compulsory compliance to draconian laws about pregnancy and abortion; Holdren does not hesitate to cross that line without a second thought.
My solution would be to adopt social policies that are known to lead to voluntary and non-coercive trends toward a lower birth rate: increased education for girls in poor countries, better access to (voluntarily adopted) birth control, higher standards of living. In fact, population trends since 1977 have started to level off in the crisis areas of Asia and Latin America, primarily due to better standards of living and better education, which are known to decrease population growth. These non-oppressive policies appear to be sufficient to control the population -- and Holdren's decades-long panic attack seems to be unfounded.
Now, consider all the recommendations by Holdren given above, and then note that at his Senate confirmation hearing he said he would "keep policy free from politics" if confirmed. In fact Holdren has repeatedly said that science should not be be tainted by politics, telling the BBC just a few days ago that "he wanted to take the politics out of scientific advice." But have you ever seen more politicized science-policy recommendations than those given in Ecoscience?
For the doubters and the naysayers...
There are five possible counter-claims which you might make against this report:
1. I'm lying, Holdren wrote no such thing, and this whole page is one big hoax.
2. He may have said those things, but I'm taking them out of context.
3. He was just the co-author -- he probably didn't write these particular passages, nor did he agree with them.
4. What he said really isn't that egregious: in fact, it seems pretty reasonable.
5. He wrote all this a long time ago -- he's probably changed his views by now.
I'll address each in turn:
1. I'm lying, Holdren wrote no such thing, and this whole page is one big hoax.
Scroll to the bottom of this page, and look at the photos of the book -- especially the last two photos, showing the book opened to pages quoted in this report. Then look at the full-page scans directly above those photos, showing each page mentioned here in full, unaltered. What more proof do you need? If you're still not convinced, go to any large library and check out the book yourself, and you'll see: everything I claim here is true.
If you don't have the patience to go to a library, you can always view the actual contents of the book online for free for a brief trial period.
2. He may have said those things, but I'm taking them out of context.
Some have argued that the FrontPage article "takes quotes out of context," which is the very reason why I went and investigated the original book itself. Turns out that not only are the quotes not out of context, but the additional paragraphs on either side of each passage only serve to make Holdren's ideas appear even more sinister. You want context? Be careful what you ask for, because the context makes things worse.
But yes, to satisfy the curious and the doubters, the "extended passages" and full-page scans given below provide more than sufficient context for the quotes.
In truth, I weary of the "context game" in which every controversial statement is always claimed to be "out of context," and no matter how much context is then given, it's never enough, until one must present every single word someone has ever written -- at which point the reader becomes overwhelmed and loses interest. Which is the whole point of the context game to begin with.
3. He was just the co-author -- he probably didn't write these particular passages, nor did he agree with them.
First of all: If you are a co-author of a book, you are signing your name to it, and you must take responsibility for everything that is in that book. This is true for John Holdren and every other author.
But there's plenty more evidence than that. Most significantly, Holdren has held similar views for years and frequently wrote about them under his own name. It's not like these quotes are unexpected and came out of the blue -- they fit into a pattern of other Holdren writings and viewpoints.
Lastly, below I present full-page scans of the "Acknowledgments" pages in Ecoscience, and in those Acknowledgments pages are dozens of thank-yous to people at U.C. Berkeley -- where Holdren was a professor at the time. In fact, there are more acknowledgments involving Berkeley than anywhere else, and since Holdren was the only one of the three authors with a connection to Berkeley, they must be histhank-yous -- indicating that he wrote a substantial portion of the book. Even his wife is thanked.
I have no way of knowing if Holdren himself typed the exact words quoted on this page, but he certainly at a minimum edited them and gave them his stamp of approval.
4. What he said really isn't that egregious: in fact, it seems pretty reasonable.
Well, if you believe that, then I guess this page holds no interest for you, and you are thereby free to ignore it. But I have a suspicion that the vast majority of Americans find the views expressed by Holdren to be alarming and abhorrent.
5. He wrote all this a long time ago -- he's probably changed his views by now.
You might argue that this book was written in a different era, during which time a certain clique of radical scientists (including Holdren) were in a frenzy over what they thought was a crisis so severe it threatened the whole planet: overpopulation. But, you could say, all that is in the past, an embarrassing episode which Holdren might wish everyone would now forget. I mean, people change their opinions all the time. Senator Robert Byrd was once in the KKK, after all, but by now he has renounced those views. Perhaps in a similar vein John Holdren no longer believes any of the things he wrote in Ecoscience, so we can't hold them against him any more.
The White House gets involved:
Recent statements byHoldren and the Ehrlichs in response
to this controversy
When I originally wrote and published this essay on July 10, I said:
"Unfortunately, as far as I've been able to discover, Holdren has never disavowed the views he held in the 1970s and spelled out in Ecoscience and other books."
However, that is no longer entirely true. On July 15, both the White House and John Holdren's office issued statements on this controversy after prodding from reporters at both the Washington Times and the Catholic News Agency.
According to this article by Amanda Carpenter in the Washington Times, Holdren and his co-authors have now distanced themselves from the words published in Ecoscience 32 years ago. From the article:
When asked whether Mr. Holdren's thoughts on population control have changed over the years, his staff gave The Washington Times a statement that said, "This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization."
...
The White House also passed along a statement from the Ehrlichs that said, in part, "anybody who actually wants to know what we and/or Professor Holdren believe and recommend about these matters would presumably read some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times, rather than going back a third of a century to find some formulations in an encyclopedic textbook where description can be misrepresented as endorsement."
(The second quote above is from page 2 of the article.)
The Catholic News Agency also reported on July 15,
In Tuesday e-mails to CNA, Rick Weiss, the Office of Science and Technology Policy's Director of Strategic Communications, said the material at issue was from "a three-decade-old, three-author textbook used in colleges to teach energy policy."
He could "easily dismiss" fears that Dr. Holdren favors government control over population growth.
"He made that quite clear in his confirmation hearing," Weiss said.
He then quoted a section of the confirmation transcript in which Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) asked Holdren whether he thinks "determining optimal population is a proper role of government."
"No, Senator, I do not," was Holdren's reply, according to Weiss and a transcript of the proceedings.
In other remarks at the confirmation hearing, not cited by Weiss, Holdren told Sen. Vitter he no longer thinks it is "productive" to focus on the "optimum population" for the United States. "I don't think any of us know what the right answer is."
According to Weiss, Holdren "made clear that he did not believe in coercive means of population control" and is not an advocate for measures expressed in the book "and they are certainly not endorsed by this administration in any way."
Weiss also provided CNA with a statement from the book's other two authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich.
The Ehrlichs said they had been "shocked" at what they called the "serious misrepresentation" of their and Holdren's views.
"We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described -- but not recommended -- in the book's 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator."
Describing "Ecoscience" as a "textbook," they said its descriptions can be "misrepresented as endorsement."
In my original report, I challenged Holdren "to publicly renounce and disavow the opinions and recommendations he made in the book Ecoscience."
I ask my readers: Do you think these two articles count as the renunciation and disavowal I requested?
I'm not so sure. First of all, the disavowals were made by a spokesman and by his co-authors -- as of this writing, Holdren himself has never renounced and disavowed the contents of Ecoscience. Unless you want to count the one-sentence answer he gave during the confirmation hearing.
Under questioning from Senator David Vitter, Holdren did backpedal a bit concerning a different statement he made in the '70s about government-controlled population levels. Does this single sentence count as an across-the-board disavowal of every single specific recommendation he made in Ecoscience as well as in many other books and articles? My opinion is Not really, but as usual I'll provide the full evidence and the full context and I'll let you decide for yourself.
You can view the video of the confirmation hearings here (introductory page here), but be warned that it is an extremely long streaming video that doesn't work in all browsers, and the answer in question doesn't come until the 120th minute.
Because most people won't or can't view the entire video, here's a transcript of the relevant part, and you can decide for yourself whether his statement counts as a disavowal of his quotes cited in this report:
[Starting at 120:30]
Senator David Vitter: In 1973, you encouraged "a decline in fertility well below replacement" in the United States because "280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many." What would your number for the right population in the US be today?
John Holdren: I no longer think it's productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population of the United States. I don't think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, uh, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States faced appeared to be being made more difficult by the greater population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities; it's a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period.
Vitter then asked, "You think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?" To which Holdren replied, "No, Senator, I do not."
(If you want the full context of this exchange between Vitter and Holdren, a complete transcript of their entire question-and-answer session can be found posted here.)
I'm not sure just how seriously we should take a statement made by someone during what is essentially a job interview. A few words spent reassuring the interviewer that you don't really believe all those things you spent thirty years elaborating in detail -- what else should we expect? That Holdren would say, Yes, I think the government should lower the U.S. population down to 280 million? Of course he wouldn't say that during the interview, despite what he may or may not really believe internally.
But let's spend a moment looking at these answers more closely. Both of them referred to determining a specific number of people that should be allowed as the population of the United States. First he said it was "no longer productive" to set a hard-and-fast exact number for the population of the U.S., and then said he doesn't think we should "determine the optimal population." But that still leaves the door open for the notion that the population should be lowered by whatever means in general without a specific numerical goal in mind. Holdren still did not say that he's against population control as a concept -- only that he thinks we shouldn't set specific numeric targets.
And more importantly in the context of this essay, he did not disavow any of the specific proposals quoted here -- forced abortion, "Planetary Regime," etc.
Rather than a fairly vague blanket disavowal given in response to a question on a slightly different topic during the confirmation hearings, and rather than a statement given by someone in his office, and rather than a statement issued by his co-authors, I still would like to see a specific disavowal by Holdren himself. And so I repeat,
I challenge John Holdren himself to publicly renounce and disavow the opinions and specific recommendations he made in the book Ecoscience; and until he does so, I will hold him responsible for those statements.
Columnist David Harsanyi, who received a similar semi-disavowal from Holdren's office, dismantles it quite effectively in an excellent piece he published on July 15 in the Denver Post, Reason Online and elsewhere.
And who wants to take up the challenge from the Ehrlichs issued by the White House to look into "some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times" to uncover "what we and/or Professor Holdren believe"? Seems like territory ripe for exploration. Post any research you uncover either here in the comments section at zomblog, or on your own blog. Anything that John Holdren or the Ehrlichs have written since 1977 is fair game -- according to the Ehrlichs themselves.
Before you read any further...
If you accept the self-evident veracity of these quotations, and are outraged enough already, then you can stop reading here. Very little new information is presented below.
(And if you'd like to comment on this report, you can do so HERE at zomblog.)
But if you still harbor doubts that the United States Science Czar could possibly harbor such views, and want more proof, then read on for longer and fuller citations, and full-page scans of the pages in the book, as well as photographs of the book itself. And if by chance you are a Holdren or Obama supporter, and want to falsely claim that I have taken Holdren's statements out of context, then you'd better stop reading here too, because if you go any further then you'll see that I have given full context for the quotes and conclusive evidence that they're Holdren's -- removing any basis by which you could have questioned this report.
More Context: Complete extended passages from which the quotes above were taken
For most of these, I will present the following extended passages without further commentary -- judge for yourself if you think the context mitigates Holdren's intent, or only worsens the impression that he's completely serious about all this.
Page 837 full-length extended quote:
| To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however. |
Let it be noted that John Holdren himself is among the few who "consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion" -- in fact, that's the entire thrust of Ecoscience, to convince everyone that overpopulation is a catastrophic crisis which requires immediate and extreme solutions. So although the final sentence of the extended passage seems at first to mollify the extreme nature of his speculation, in reality Holdren is only speaking of all the unaware masses who don't see things his way.
Page 786 full-length extended quote:
| Social pressures on both men and women to marry and have children must be removed. As former Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall observed, "All lives are not enhanced by marital union; parenthood is not necessarily a fulfillment for every married couple." If society were convinced of the need for low birth rates, no doubt the stigma that has customarily been assigned to bachelors, spinsters, and childless couples would soon disappear. But alternative lifestyles should be open to single people, and perhaps the institution of an informal, easily dissolved "marriage" for the childless is one possibility. Indeed, many DC societies now seem to be evolving in this direction as women's liberation gains momentum. It is possible that fully developed societies may produce such arrangements naturally, and their association with lower fertility is becoming increasingly clear. In LDCs a childless or single lifestyle might be encouraged deliberately as the status of women approaches parity with that of men. Although free and easy association of the sexes might be tolerated in such a society, responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even he possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. Somewhat more repressive measures for discouraging large families have also been proposed, such as assigning public housing without regard for family size and removing dependency allowances from student grants or military pay. Some of these have been implemented in crowded Singapore, whose population program has been counted as one of the most successful. |
In the final sentence of this passage, Holdren speaks approvingly of Singapore's infamous totalitarian micromanaging of people's daily lives.
But to me, the most bizarre and disturbing aspect of the quote given here is that Holgren seems to think that economic disincentives to have large families are more repressive and extreme than taking away basic bodily rights. To Holdren, "removing dependency allowances from student grants" is more repressive than compelling women to have abortions against their will. A very peculiar and twisted view of the world, I must say.
Page 787-8 full-length extended quote:
| Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. Physiologist Melvin Ketchel, of the Tufts University School of Medicine, suggested that a sterilant could be developed that had a very specific action—for example, preventing implantation of the fertilized ovum. He proposed that it be used to reduce fertility levels by adjustable amounts, anywhere from five to 75 percent, rather than to sterilize the whole population completely. In this way, fertility could be adjusted from time to time to meet a society's changing needs, and there would be no need to provide an antidote. Contraceptives would still be needed for couples who were highly motivated to have small families. Subfertile and functionally sterile couples who strongly desired children would be medically assisted, as they are now, or encouraged to adopt. Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children. Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great). Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries. |
Page 786-7 full-length extended quote:
| Involuntary fertility control The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birthrates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measure suggested. ... A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. This of course would be feasible only in countries where the majority of births are medically assisted. Unfortunately, such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries (although in China, mothers of three children are commonly "expected" to undergo sterilization). The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. No capsule that would last that long (30 years or more) has yet been developed, but it is technically within the realm of possibility. |
Page 838 full-length extended quote:
| It is accepted that the law has as its proper function the protection of each person and each group of people. A legal restriction on the right to have more than a given number of children could easily be based on the needs of the first children. Studies have indicated that the larger the family, the less healthy the children are likely to be and the less likely they are to realize their potential levels of achievement. Certainly there is no question that children of a small family can be cared for better and can be educated better than children of a large family, income and other things being equal. The law could properly say to a mother that, in order to protect the children she already has, she could have no more. (Presumably, regulations on the sizes of adopted families would have to be the same.) A legal restriction on the right to have children could also be based on the right not to be disadvantaged by excessive numbers of children produced by others. Differing rates of reproduction among groups can give rise to serious social problems. For example, differential rates of reproduction between ethnic, racial, religious, or economic groups might result in increased competition for resources and political power and thereby undermine social order. If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection. |
Study this whole extended passage carefully for an extremely unsettling view into the legal brain of John Holdren. Some of the sentiments he expresses here are beyond the pale, and his legal reasoning boggles the mind.
Page 838 full-length extended quote:
| Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinating interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted. It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? |
This extended passage is a perfect example of how the "full context" of a short quote only makes it worse; once you see Holdren's complete elaboration on the idea, you realize it's not some flippant notion he tossed off, but something he feels deeply about.
Page 942-3 full-length extended quote:
| Toward a Planetary Regime ... Should a Law of the Sea be successfully established, it could serve as a model for a future Law of the Atmosphere to regulate the use of airspace, to monitor climate change, and to control atmospheric pollution. Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits. As with the Law of the Sea an other international agreements, all agreements for regulating population sizes, resource development, and pollution should be subject to revision and modification in accordance with changing conditions. The Planetary Regime might have the advantage over earlier proposed world government schemes in not being primarily political in its emphasis—even though politics would inevitably be a part of all discussions, implicitly or explicitly. Since most of the areas the Regime would control are not now being regulated or controlled by nations or anyone else, establishment of the Regime would involve far less surrendering of national power. Nevertheless it might function powerfully to suppress international conflict simply because the interrelated global resource-environment structure would not permit such an outdated luxury. |
Page 917 full-length extended quote:
| If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. But it seems probable that, as long as most people fail to comprehend the magnitude of the danger, that step will be impossible. |
Full Context: High-res scans of all pages cited in this report
Click on each of the images below to see the full-size scans of the pages mentioned in this report:
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Photographs of Ecoscience, inside and out
Any finally, for the final proof that this is a real book co-authored by John Holdren --
and that these are real quotes from that book -- and not some elaborate hoax, here are some photographs (as opposed to scans) of the book itself: 
If you'd like to comment on this report, you can do so HERE at zomblog.
Mannréttindi | Breytt 21.5.2017 kl. 10:19 | Slóð | Facebook | Athugasemdir (1)
23.3.2010 | 03:32
Brzezinski’s Lament - ‘Jewish Lobby Controls Obama’
Brzezinski’s Lament - ‘Jewish Lobby Controls Obama’
Jewish Lobby Articles, ObamaNation Articles
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=483
http://www.realzionistnews.com/
BRZEZINSKI’S LAMENT
‘JEWISH LOBBY CONTROLS OBAMA’
By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2010
Articles May Be Reproduced Only With Authorship of Br Nathanael Kapner
& Link To Real Zionist News (SM)
Support Brother Nathanael! HERE
Or Send Your Contribution To:
Brother Nathanael Kapner; PO Box 1242; Frisco CO 80443
E-mail: bronathanael@yahoo.com
For The Best Alternative News CLICK: Rense.com Here
____________
SEEKING A GLOBAL SHOWDOWN with Russia and China, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is recognized and feared by Zionist Jews as Obama’s foreign policy adviser, is intenton bringing Iran back into the Western orbit. In Brzezinski’s world view, Iran could be a valuable US asset to be played against Russia and China.
Even with his protege at Defense, Robert Gates, and his reputation as a global strategist, Brzezinski has all but admitted that he simply does not possess the influence to override the power the Jewish lobby wields over Obama’s decision-making in foreign affairs.
This has recently come to light in Brzezinski’s latest article for the Council of Foreign Relations, “From Hope To Audacity.”
Beginning his treatise with the premise that the US should not be at war with Islam, Brzezinski proceeds to take on the “Second Echelon” in Obama’s administration which includes Zionist Jews Dennis Ross, Special Adviser on Iran, Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff, and Zionist shill Hilary Clinton at State.
Ross, who enjoys close ties to Israel and a history of pushing hardline policies toward Iran, was recently promoted as a Senior Director of the National Security Council.
Opening himself in his article to further accusations of being an “Anti-Semite,” (Alan Dershowitz initiated the lie), Brzezinski challenges the Zionist status quo and adds insult to injury to his already stated position that Obama should negotiate with Hamas:
“It is not fashionable to say this, but much of the current hostility toward the US in the Middle East has been generated by the bloodshed and suffering produced by the prolonged Israeli-Arab conflict. Israel’s refusal to negotiate with the Palestinians in good faith compounds the problem.” View Entire Story Here.
Moving on in his essay to the “stalemate” in Obama’s policy regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Brzezinski goes toe to toe with the Jewish “insiders” at the White House:
“Obama’s two special advisers, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, participate in significant decision-making. Both of them sat in on the president’s critical September meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
As a result, Obama’s redefinition of US foreign policy is vulnerable to dilution by these upper-level officials who tend to yield to pressures from domestic interest groups.
This fosters a reluctance to plan for a firm follow-through on bold presidential initiatives should they encounter a foreign rebuff reinforced by powerful domestic lobbies. Netanyahu’s rejection of Obama’s demand that Israel halt the construction of settlements is a case in point.” View Entire Story Here.
In his concluding theme, “Domestic Impediments,” Brzezinski exposes the Jewish Lobby and their total control of Obama’s foreign policy decisions:
“Special interest lobbies have become overly influential in US politics. Thanks to their access to Congress, a variety of lobbies — some financially well endowed, some backed by foreign interests — have been promoting, to an unprecedented degree, legislative intervention in foreign-policy making.
Promoted by lobbies, Congress not only actively opposes foreign policy decisions but even imposes some on the president. The pending legislation on sanctions against Iran is but one example. Such congressional intervention makes it more difficult to ensure that US — not foreign — interests are the point of departure.” View Entire Story Here.
Congress JOINS Jewish Lobby In Anti-Iran Workshop
EVER SINCE CONGRESS CONDEMNED GOLDSTONE’S GAZA REPORT
last winter, demanding by a 344-36 vote that Obama “refuse to endorse” Goldstone’sfindings of Israeli war crimes, Congress has joined with the Jewish Lobby in its efforts to crank up hysteria regarding Iran’s nuclear energy program.
On January 17, 2009, The Israel Project and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington (and more than twenty similar Jewish Lobby groups of which there is NO end), hosted an anti-Iran workshop billed as, Israel Advocacy Training Institute: Spotlight Iran.
The event, held at the Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy in DC, focused on the “Iran threat,” emphasizing the “danger posed” by the country’s “aggressive pursuit of nuclear arms.” (Thus far, however, the world is only aware of Iran’s nuclear energy ambitions, but NO EVIDENCE of Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear arms” has emerged. So much for Jewish hysteria-hyping.)
Joining lead speaker Rabbi Jonah Layman, participants included not only the foreign government of Israel’s embassy ambassador, Dan Arbell, Deputy Chief of the Embassy of Israel in Washington DC, but a group of “Congressional legislative assistants” as well.
These Congressional staffers, led by Sarah Farhadian, Legislative Assistant for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, played a significant role in the workshop’s Congressional and Legislative Advocacy Session.
Farhadian, who has been the recipient of “private” Jewish money on at least two occasions in 2009, is known for her “partnership” with Chabad House, an ultra-religious/pro-Israel Jewish group. View Invitation, Schedule, & Pics Here & Here.
BRZEZINSKI & GATES CHALLENGE ZIONIST LINE ON IRAN
IN A RECENT ESSAY FOR CFR, entitled: “Iran: Time for a New Approach,”Brzezinski and co-author Robert Gates argue against the tenor of the Jewish-induced hysteria toward Iran, now being vomited by the Zionist screech owl, Elie Wiesel.
Rejecting Wiesel’s line that Iran is a threat to America’s security, Brzezinski and Gates contend that US interests would be better served by “selective engagement” with Tehran.
The following are excerpts from the essay and recent interviews with Brzezinski:
The use of military force against Iran would be extremely problematic given the dispersal of Iran’s nuclear sites throughout the country and their proximity to urban centers.
Since the US would be blamed for any Israeli strike, we should make it clear to Israel that American interests would be adversely affected by such a move.
Kremlin strategists would surely relish the thought of a US deeply bogged down in a war with Iran, which would trigger a dramatic spike in the price of oil, a commodity in plentiful supply in Russia.
Involving the Iranians in a military conflict would make our task in Afghanistan absolutely impossible. It would probably reignite the conflict in Iraq, would set the Persian Gulf ablaze, would increase the price of oil twofold, threefold, fourfold, and Americans will be paying five, six dollars a gallon at the gas stations. Europe will become even more dependent on Russia for energy.
So what is the benefit to us?
It will be a disaster for America in the short run and a fundamental disaster for Israel in the long run. If we are forced out of the region due to some sort of dynamic hatred that develops—and have no illusions about it, the conflict spreads—we’re going to be alone. The Russians are not going to be with us. They’re not suckers. Europe is not going to be with us either.
If we are finally driven out, how much would you bet on the survival of Israel for more than five to ten years after all that has happened?
Some criticize my straightforward stance calling me an ‘anti-Semite.’
Well, they’re entitled to their demagogy. But it will all end up as a geopolitical disaster for both America and Israel.
Rather than pursuing the current policy of confrontation and threats, Washington should work with Tehran to capitalize on both Iran’s potential economic influence due to its large endowment of energy resources and its unique position to advance the stability of its neighbors.
What is the alternative to negotiating? To go to war? – Is that a better solution?
Those who are making these arguments, the neo-conservatives, are doing it for their foreign patrons. They are afraid that we might negotiate with Iran peacefully whereas they would prefer us to go to war.
View Entire Story Here, Here, Here Here & Here.
BOTTOM LINE FOR BRZEZINSKI & ALL AMERICANS:
Not only is the White House and Capitol Hill owned by the Jews but the nations’ politicians have betrayed the will of their constituents by joining with and affirming the will of a tiny minority.
Who hijacked the democratic process in America?
Zionist Jews—whose influence calculated in billions of dollars have penetrated the offices, suites, and checking accounts of their treasonous puppets in Washington DC…
Mannréttindi | Breytt 23.8.2010 kl. 11:37 | Slóð | Facebook | Athugasemdir (4)
23.2.2010 | 15:40
IS ALEX JONES LINKED TO ZIONIST JEW BRONFMAN? Hvernig stendur á því að hann virðist aldrei gagnrýna Zionista/Israel?
Is Alex Jones Linked To Zionist-Jew Bronfman?
**Is Alex Jones A Zionist Shill?, *** IS ALEX JONES LINKED TO ZIONIST JEW BRONFMAN? ***
Alex Jones' Jewish Advertizers
IS ALEX JONES LINKED
TO ZIONIST-JEW BRONFMAN?
By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2009
Articles May Be Reproduced Only With Authorship of Br Nathanael Kapner
& Link To Real Zionist News (SM)
Brother Nathanael Kapner; PO Box 1242; Frisco CO 80443
E-mail: bronathanael@yahoo.com
Sources: The Alex Jones Machine, Lorie Kramer Here
Alex Jones’ Jewish Advertisers, The Information Underground Here
For The Best Alternative News Coverage CLICK: Rense.com Here
_____________________
THE CONTROVERSY OF ALEX ‘BULLHORN’ JONES
being an alleged Zionist shill has now expanded to his apparent Zionist-Jewish connections on his
1) Personal Staff
2) Website Advertisers
3) Link To Time Warner President, Edgar Bronfman Jr.
Jones’ seeming allegiance to Zionism, which explains why he virtually never targets Zionist Jews or the racist, Zionist rogue state of Israel when engaging in his notorious rants andattacks, may well stem from a Protestant-Zionist belief system,and the widely circulated reports that his wife is a Jew - - which makes his two children Jewish under Talmudic law and eligible for the Israeli Law Of Return.
In that Jones’ wife is of Jewish heritage, both she and the children would be automatic dual citizens…Alex would not qualify.
With additional information on Jones which this site is now providing, Alex Jones’ Zionist connections prompting his reticence to expose global Zionism, becomes ever more obvious.
And to add insult to injury, Jones recently interviewed a Zionist-Jew professor, a “Dr Jonathan Levy,” who railed in typical Jewish fashion against the Catholic Church as being part of the New World Order.
Yet, not a word from Jones and his Jewish guest about Zionist Jewry being the real driving force behind the NWO.
Beginning With His Personal Staff, Jones’ Key Employees Are Jews:
Jones’ cameraman. Jacobson also does film and video editing work for Alex Jones.
He does web-mastering and video work for Jones’ Websites, Infowars and Prisonplanet.
He hosts Jones’ radio show, The Alex Jones Show, when Jones is on vacation. Bermas recently attacked all critics of Jews, calling them, “Anti-Semites” and stating that they should all die.
Alex Jones Also Has An Abundance Of Jewish Advertisers Who ‘Pay His Way:’
President of EcoloBlue Life & Energy. Tieleman does live, on-air 10-minute commercials on Alex Jones’ radio show, and the regular recorded commercials are voiced by Alex Jones himself. Tieleman also has a large flash animation banner advertisement at the top right-hand corner of the main page of Alex Jones’ Prisonplanet Website.
Director of the Michael Stevens Group. Shenk advertises his subsidiary, eFoods Direct, on Alex Jones’ radio show. See Shenk On The Alex Jones Show Here.
Owner of Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. Schultz often uses an animated banner advertisement at the top right-hand side of the main page of Alex Jones’ Prisonplanet Website. View Jones’ Entire Jewish Advertisers Here.
A JONES-BRONFMAN LINK?
HOLLY BRONFMAN LEV IS Edgar Bronfman Jr’s sister.
As founder of the Bet Lev Foundation and 100% owner of Lev Group Ltd, Holly Bronfman’s legal affairs are conducted by the high-powered lawyer, Elizabeth Schurig, who also happens to handle the legal affairs of Alex Jones.
Schurig’s legal office is located at 100 Congress Avenue, 22nd Floor, Austin Texas 78701. Of particular note, on January 3, 2008, Schurig changed Jones Productions LLC to the same address as her legal firm, 100 Congress Avenue.
The “Governing Authority” of Jones’ Infowars LLC and his Jones Report LLC are also at the address of Schurig’s law offices.
The Alex Jones Machine Website puts it all like this — “So now Alex’s corporate addresses is a Bronfman’s lawyer’s address?” View Entire Story Here.
At the very least, the Jones revenue-streams from his Jewish sponsors present far too many obstacles for him to discuss world Zionism to any realistic degree. Sponsor revenues aside, Jones’ Jewish connections are, indeed, profound, wide-ranging and number far too many for him to dare report the facts and dynamics of the Zionist control, influence and subjugation of much of the planet…even if he wanted to.
Me thinks That Alex Jones Has WAY TOO MANY Jewish Connections
To Report The ‘Zionist’ Facts As They Really Are…
___________________________________
For More See: Is Alex Jones A Zionist Shill?..Controversy Swirls Click Here
And: Confessions Of An Anti-Zionist Journalist Click Here
CLICK: Brother Nathanael! Street Evangelist!
Mannréttindi | Breytt 23.8.2010 kl. 11:42 | Slóð | Facebook | Athugasemdir (0)
5.1.2010 | 04:00
33 samsæriskenningar sem reyndust vera sannar..33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True
33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True
What Every Person Should Know...
Core Of Corruption - In The Shadows
Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy.
However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.
To conspire means,
"to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end."
The term "conspiracy theory" is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at stealing power, money, or freedom, from "the people".
To many, conspiracy theories are just human nature. Not all people in this world are honest, hard working and forthcoming about their intentions. Certainly we can all agree on this.
So how did the term “conspiracy theory” get grouped in with fiction, fantasy and folklore? Maybe that’s a conspiracy, just kidding. Or am I?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_nwo102.htm
By Jonathan Elinoff, New World Order Report
http://www.newworldorderreport.com
After reading the article released by Cracked.com, I decided to update and revise their sloppy work. Their article had only 7. I can name 33 and I am planning on releasing a revised list soon with up to 50. The article I was insulted to read by the lack of information can be viewed here, but don't waste your time, all of that is in this article and more.
Most people can't resist getting the details on the latest conspiracy theories, no matter how far-fetched they may seem. At the same time, many people quickly denounce any conspiracy theory as untrue ... and sometimes as unpatriotic or just plain ridiculous. Lets not forget all of the thousands of conspiracies out of Wall Street like Bernie Madoff and many others to commit fraud and extortion, among many crimes of conspiracy.
USA Today reports that over 75% of personal ads in the paper and on craigslist are married couples posing as single for a one night affair. When someone knocks on your door to sell you a set of knives or phone cards, anything for that matter, do they have a profit motive? What is conspiracy other than just a scary way of saying “alternative agenda”? When 2 friends go to a bar and begin to plan their wingman approach on 2 girls they see at the bar, how often are they planning on lying to those girls? “I own a small business and am in town for a short while. Oh yeah, you look beautiful.”
Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.
To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." The term "conspiracy theory" is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at stealing power, money, or freedom, from "the people".
To many, conspiracy theories are just human nature. Not all people in this world are honest, hard working and forthcoming about their intentions. Certainly we can all agree on this. So how did the term “conspiracy theory” get grouped in with fiction, fantasy and folklore? Maybe that’s a conspiracy, just kidding. Or am I?
Skeptics are important in achieving an objective view of reality, however, skeptism is not the same as reinforcing the official storyline. In fact, a conspiracy theory can be argued as an alternative to the official or “mainstream” story of events.
Therefore, when skeptics attempt to ridicule a conspiracy theory by using the official story as a means of proving the conspiracy wrong, in effect, they are just reinforcing the original “mainstream” view of history, and actually not being skeptical.
This is not skeptism, it is just a convenient way for the establishment view of things to be seen as the correct version, all the time, every time. In fact, it is common for "hit pieces" or "debunking articles" to pick extremely fringe and not very populated conspiracy theories. This in turn makes all conspiracies on a subject matter look crazy. Skeptics magazine and Popular Mechanics, among many others, did this with 9/11.
They referred to less than 10% of the many different conspiracy theories about 9/11 and picked the less popular ones, in fact, they picked the fringe, highly improbable points that only a few people make. This was used as the "final investigation" for looking into the conspiracy theories. Convenient, huh?
In fact, if one were to look into conspiracy theories, they will largely find that thinking about a conspiracy is associated with lunacy and paranoia. Some websites suggest it as an illness. It is also not surprising to see so many people on the internet writing about conspiracy theories in a condescending tone, usually with the words "kool-aid," "crack pot," or "nut job" in their articulation. This must be obvious to anyone that emotionally writing about such serious matter insults the reader more than the conspiracy theorist because there is no need to resort to this kind of behavior. It is employed often with an "expert" who will say something along the lines of, "for these conspiracies to be true, you would need hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved. It's just not conceivable."
I find it extremely odd that the assumption is on thousands of participants in a conspiracy. I, for one, find it hard to believe any conspiracy involving more than a handful of people but the fact remains that there hae been conspiracies in our world, proven and not made up, that involved many hundreds of people. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
One more thing to consider, have you noticed that if the conspiracy is involving powerful interests with the ability to bribe, threaten or manipulate major institutions (like the mafia, big corporations or government) then don't you find it odd when people use one of those as the "credible" counter-argument?
What I mean is, if you are discussing a conspiracy about the mafia, and someone hands you a debunking article that was written by the mafia, it doesn't seem like it would take rocket science to look at that with serious criticism and credibility. This is the case with many conspiracies. In fact, I am handed debunking pieces all the time written in many cases by the conspirators in question.
Doesn't this seem odd to anybody else but me?
While intelligent cynicism certainly can be healthy, though, some of the greatest discoveries of all time were initially received (often with great vitriol) as blasphemous conspiracy theories -- think of the revelation that the earth was not the center of the universe, or that the world was not flat but actually round.
What follows are some of these most shocking modern conspiracy theories that turned out true after thorough investigation by our society. Some through congressional hearings, others through investigative journalism. Many of these, however, were just admitted to by those involved.
These are just 33 of them, and I still had a long list of others to add.
There are a total of 33 in this article. Many of these are listed with original and credible news clips on the matter, as well as documentaries.
1. The Dreyfus Affair: In the late 1800s in France, Jewish artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted of treason based on false government documents, and sentenced to life in prison. The French government did attempt to cover this up, but Dreyfus was eventually pardoned after the affair was made public (an act that is credited to writer Émile Zola).
2. The Mafia: This secret crime society was virtually unknown until the 1960s, when member Joe Valachi first revealed the society's secrets to law enforcement officials. What was known was that organized crime existed, but not that the extent of their control included working with the CIA, politicians and the biggest businesses in the world.
3. MK-ULTRA: In the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA ran a mind-control project aimed at finding a "truth serum" to use on communist spies. Test subjects were given LSD and other drugs, often without consent, and some were tortured. At least one man, civilian biochemist Frank Olson, who was working for the government, died as a result of the experiments. The project was finally exposed after investigations by the Rockefeller Commission.
A short video about MK-ULTRA from a documentary called Secrets of the CIA:
4. Operation Mockingbird: Also in the 1950s to '70s, the CIA paid a number of well-known domestic and foreign journalists (from big-name media outlets like Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS and others) to publish CIA propaganda. The CIA also reportedly funded at least one movie, the animated "Animal Farm," by George Orwell. The Church Committee finally exposed the activities in 1975.
5. Manhattan Project: The Manhattan Project was the codename for a project conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb. The project was led by the United States, and included participation from the United Kingdom and Canada. Formally designated as the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), it refers specifically to the period of the project from 1942–1946 under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the administration of General Leslie R. Groves. The scientific research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. The project's roots lay in scientists' fears since the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating nuclear weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program in 1939, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion ($22 billion in current value). It resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites that operated in secret. With the total involved, this makes it one of the largest conspiracies in history. Entire towns were built for short periods of time, employing people, all under secrecy and top national secrecy at that. The government never admitted to it, the media never reported on it, and people had no idea for over 25 years. Project research took place at over thirty sites across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at what is now the Hanford Site, the uranium-enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the weapons research and design laboratory now known as Los Alamos National Laboratory. The MED maintained control over U.S. weapons production until the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission in January 1947.
6. Asbestos: Between 1930 and 1960, manufacturers did all they could to prevent the link between asbestos and respiratory diseases, including cancer, becoming known, so they could avoid prosecution. American workers had in fact sued the Johns Manville company as far back as 1932, but it was not until 1962 that epidemiologists finally established beyond any doubt what company bosses had known for a long time – asbestos causes cancer.
7. Watergate: Republican officials spied on the Democratic National Headquarters from the Watergate Hotel in 1972. While conspiracy theories suggested underhanded dealings were taking place, it wasn't until 1974 that White House tape recordings linked President Nixon to the break-in and forced him to resign.
8. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The United States Public Health Service carried out this clinical study on 400 poor, African-American men with syphilis from 1932 to 1972. During the study the men were given false and sometimes dangerous treatments, and adequate treatment was intentionally withheld so the agency could learn more about the disease. While the study was initially supposed to last just six months, it continued for 40 years. Close to 200 of the men died from syphilis or related complications by the end of the study.
9. Operation Northwoods: In the early 1960s, American military leaders drafted plans to create public support for a war against Cuba, to oust Fidel Castro from power. The plans included committing acts of terrorism in U.S. cities, killing innocent people and U.S. soldiers, blowing up aU.S. ship, assassinating Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees, and hijacking planes. The plans were all approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but were reportedly rejected by the civilian leadership, then kept secret for nearly 40 years.
10. 1990 Testimony of Nayirah: A 15-year-old girl named “Nayirah” testified before the U.S. Congress that she had seen Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators, causing them to die. The testimony helped gain major public support for the 1991 Gulf War, but — despite protests that the dispute of this story was itself a conspiracy theory — it was later discovered that the testimony was false. The public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was in the employ of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, had arranged the testimony. It turned out that she had taken acting lessons on request of the CIA and was actually the niece of a major politician in Kuwait. Nayirah was later disclosed to be Nayirah al-Sabah, daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, Kuwaiti ambassador to the USA. The Congressional Human Rights Caucus, of which Congressman Tom Lantos was co-chairman, had been responsible for hosting Nurse Nayirah, and thereby popularizing her allegations. When the girl's account was later challenged by independent human rights monitors, Lantos replied, "The notion that any of the witnesses brought to the caucus through the Kuwaiti Embassy would not be credible did not cross my mind... I have no basis for assuming that her story is not true, but the point goes beyond that. If one hypothesizes that the woman's story is fictitious from A to Z, that in no way diminishes the avalanche of human rights violations." Nevertheless, the senior Republican on the Human Rights Caucus, John Edward Porter, responded to the revelations "by saying that if he had known the girl was the ambassador's daughter, he would not have allowed her to testify."
11. Counter Intelligence Programs Against Activists in the 60s: COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. The FBI used covert operations from its inception, however formal COINTELPRO operations took place between 1956 and 1971. The FBI's stated motivation at the time was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order." According to FBI records, 85% of COINTELPRO resources were expended on infiltrating, disrupting, marginalizing, and/or subverting groups suspected of being subversive, such as communist and socialist organizations; the women's rights movement; militant black nationalist groups, and the non-violent civil rights movement, including individuals such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Congress of Racial Equality, the American Indian Movement, and other civil rights groups; a broad range of organizations labeled "New Left", including Students for a Democratic Society, the National Lawyers Guild, the Weathermen, almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, and even individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation; and nationalist groups such as those "seeking independence for Puerto Rico." The other 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and subvert "white hate groups," including the Ku Klux Klan and National States' Rights Party. The directives governing COINTELPRO were issued by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who ordered FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of these movements and their leaders.
This is a documentary on COINTELPRO:
COINTELPRO: FBI's War On Black America **(HIGH QUALITY)**
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3729458480013375211&hl=en#
<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=3729458480013375211&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>
12. The Iran-Contra Affair: In 1985 and '86, the White House authorized government officials to secretly trade weapons with the Israeli government in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages in Iran. The plot was uncovered by Congress in 1987.
13. The BCCI Scandal: The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a major international bank founded in 1972 by Agha Hasan Abedi, a Pakistani financier. The Bank was registered in Luxembourg. Within a decade BCCI touched its peak, it operated in 78 countries, had over 400 branches, and had assets in excess of US$ 20 billion making it the 7th largest private bank in the world by assets. In the late 1980's BCCI became the target of a two year undercover operation conducted by the US Customs Service. This operation concluded with a fake wedding that was attended by BCCI officers and drug dealers from around the world who had established a personal friendship and working relationship with undercover Special Agent Robert Mazur. After a six month trial in Tampa, key bank officers were convicted and received lengthy prison sentences. Bank officers began cooperating with law enforcement authorities and that cooperation caused BCCI’s many crimes to be revealed. BCCI came under the scrutiny of regulatory bodies and intelligence agencies in the 1980s due to its perceived avoidance of falling under one regulatory banking authority, a fact that was later, after extensive investigations, proven to be false. BCCI became the focus of a massive regulatory battle in 1991 and was described as a "$20-billion-plus heist". Investigators in the U.S. and the UK revealed that BCCI had been "set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review, and operated extensively in bank secrecy jurisdictions. Its affairs were extraordinarily complex. Its officers were sophisticated international bankers whose apparent objective was to keep their affairs secret, to commit fraud on a massive scale, and to avoid detection."
This is a report from July 23, 1991 on the BCCI:
This is a report from July 8, 1991 on Connections between BCCI and the CIA:
This is a report from August 6, 1991 on how the BCCI funded Pakistan's
Nuclear Programs:
This is a report from March 4, 1991 on the BCCI:
14. CIA Drug Running in LA: Pulitzer Prize Award winning journalist Gary Webb exposed this alongside LAPD Narcotics Officer turned whislteblower and author Michael Ruppert, CIA Contract Pilot Terry Reed, and many others. In August 1996 the San Jose Mercury Newspublished Webb's "Dark Alliance", a 20,000 word, three-part investigative series which alleged that Nicaraguan drug traffickers had sold and distributed crack cocaine in Los Angeles during the 1980s, and that drug profits were used to fund the CIA-supported Nicaraguan Contras. Webb never asserted that the CIA directly aided drug dealers to raise money for the Contras, but he did document that the CIA was aware of the cocaine transactions and the large shipments of cocaine into the U.S. by the Contra personnel. "Dark Alliance" received national attention. At the height of the interest, the web version of it on San Jose Mercury News website received 1.3 million hits a day. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the series became "the most talked-about piece of journalism in 1996 and arguably the most famous—some would say infamous—set of articles of the decade."
April 6, 1987 Report on CIA Drug Running:
January 20, 1987 Report on CIA Drug Smuggling
November 19, 1993 Report on CIA Drug Running:
15. Gulf of Tonkin Never Happened: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964 two American destroyers engaged three North Vietnamese torpedo boats, resulting in the sinking of one of the torpedo boats. This was also the single most important reason for the escalation of the Vietnam War. After Kennedy was assassinated, the Gulf of Tonkin gave the country the sweeping support for aggressive military action against the North Vietnamese. The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese on August 2, but that there may not have been any North Vietnamese vessels present during the engagement of August 4. The report stated “It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night…” In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2. In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there." In 1981, Captain Herrick and journalist Robert Scheer re-examined Herrick's ship's log and determined that the first torpedo report from August 4, which Herrick had maintained had occurred—the "apparent ambush"—was in fact unfounded. In 1995, retired Vietnamese Defense Minister Vo Nguyen Giap, meeting with former Secretary of Defense McNamara, categorically denied that Vietnamese gunboats had attacked American destroyers on August 4, while admitting to the attack on August 2. In the Fall of 1999, retired senior CIA engineering executive S. Eugene Poteat wrote that he was asked in early August 1964 to determine if the radar operator's report showed a real torpedo boat attack or an imagined one. In October, 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the U.S. National Security Agency, had concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted the intelligence reports that it had passed on to policy-makers regarding the August 4, 1964 incident. He concluded that the motive was not political but was probably to cover up honest intelligence errors
November 9th, 1995 New Clip on Gulf of Tonkin:
16. The Business Plot: In 1933, group of wealthy businessmen that allegedly included the heads of Chase Bank, GM, Goodyear, Standard Oil, the DuPont family and Senator Prescott Bush tried to recruit Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler to lead a military coup against President FDR and install a fascist dictatorship in the United States. And yes, we're talking about the same Prescott Bush who fathered one US President and grandfathered another one. Smedley Butler was both a patriot and a vocal FDR supporter. Apparently none of these criminal masterminds noticed that their prospective point man had actively stumped for FDR in 1932. Smedley spilled the beans to a congressional committee in 1934. Everyone he accused of being a conspirator vehemently denied it, and none of them were brought up on criminal charges. Still, the House McCormack-Dickstein Committee did at least acknowledge the existence of the conspiracy, which ended up never getting past the initial planning stages. Though many of the people who had allegedly backed the Business Plot also maintained financial ties with Nazi Germany up through America's entry into World War II. In 1934, the Business Plot was publicly revealed by retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testifying to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee. In his testimony, Butler claimed that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the alleged plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations of the existence of the plot, but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten.
On July 17, 1932, thousands of World War I veterans converged on Washington, D.C., set up tent camps, and demanded immediate payment of bonuses due them according to the Adjusted Service Certificate Law of 1924. This "Bonus Army" was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant. The Army was encouraged by an appearance from retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, who had considerable influence over the veterans, being one of the most popular military figures of the time. A few days after Butler's arrival, President Herbert Hoover ordered the marchers removed, and their camps were destroyed by US Army cavalry troops under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Butler, although a self-described Republican, responded by supporting Roosevelt in that year's election. In a 1995 History Today article Clayton Cramer argued that the devastation of the Great Depression had caused many Americans to question the foundations of liberal democracy. "Many traditionalists, here and in Europe, toyed with the ideas of Fascism and National Socialism; many liberals dallied with Socialism and Communism." Cramer argues that this explains why some American business leaders viewed fascism as a viable system to both preserve their interests and end the economic woes of the Depression.
BBC - Whitehouse Coup (Part 1)
The Whitehouse Coup (1933) 2 of 3
The Whitehouse Coup (1933) 3 of 3
17. July 20, 1944 Conspiracy to Assassinate Hitler: Among another 20 some odd attempts, this one was one of the largest conspiracies involving hundreds of loyalists in the highest echelons of Hitler’s inner circle. Near the end of WWII, things were rapidly going south for Germany and the time seemed ripe for guilt-ridden Nazi officers to assassinate Hitler and overthrow his government. Colonel Henning von Tresckow recruited Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg to join the conspiracy in 1944. The plot to take out Hitler and then all of his loyal officers was called Operation Valkyrie. The plan was to use the Continuity of Government Proceedings during an assassination on Hitler’s life to take over full control of the government in Germany. The assassination would be blamed on the Nazi SS and therefore allow Stauffenberg to take full control of all aspects of the government. It almost worked. In July 1944, Stauffenberg was promoted so that he could now start attending military strategy meetings with Hitler himself. On more than one occasion Stauffenberg planned to kill Hitler at such a meeting with a briefcase bomb, but he always held off because he also wanted to take out Hitler's two right-hand men, Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler. On July 20, he went for it anyway and exploded a bomb inside Hitler's conference room with a remote detonator. Hitler survived only minor injuries.
18. Operation Ajax: For years, Britain had a spiffy trade deal with Iran regarding their prodigious oil fields. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was basically a giant money machine for the Anglo half, while the Iranian half got shafted. That all changed in 1951 when Iran nationalized the AIOC and the Iranian parliament elected Mohammed Mossadegh as Prime Minister. Mossadegh was relatively secular, something that pissed of Iranian clerics, but he was also very nationalistic. He was a democratically elected, pro American figure but the West saw his nationalizing of the oil fields a communist move(something Mossadegh thought was the right of the people to profit and pay for services in the country with). Those oil fields were under the control of British Petroleum, but unfortunately Mossadegh overruled this long standing business control. TheUnited States sent Kermit Roosevelt, FDR’s nephew and CIA coordinator in to figure out the mess. The best he could come up with was to confront Mossadegh and have him overthrown and this was accomplished by bringing in what the agency refers to as “jackals.” The United States backed the return of the Shah of Iran, one of the most brutal dictators the country had ever seen and intentionally overthrew years before with the democratic leader, Mossadegh. Until 1979, that is, when a pissed off Iranian populace finally revolted and replaced the monarchy with an anti-West Islamic Republic. The result was a violently anti-American revolution lead by the Ayatollah Khomeini which overthrew the Shah and took hostage US Embassy workers, many of whom were involved in the plot with Kermit Roosevelt that installed the Shah. The planning for the Coup took place largely in that embassy, but Americans were told this was due to the rise of radical Islam and rise of democracy hating Muslims, which of course was far from the truth.
Part 1 of a video done on Operation Ajax history:
Part 2 of the video:
19. Operation Snow White: Some time during the 1970s, the Church of Scientology decided that they'd had enough. Apparently, the Church of Scientology managed to perform the largest infiltration of the United States government in history. Ever. 5,000 of Scientology's crack commandos wiretapped and burglarized various agencies. They stole hundreds of documents, mainly from the IRS. No critic was spared, and in the end, 136 organizations, agencies and foreign embassies were infiltrated.
20. Operation Gladio: Gladio is a code name denoting the clandestine NATO "stay-behind" operation in Italy after World War II, intended to continue anti-communist resistance in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. Although Gladio specifically refers to the Italian branch of the NATO stay-behind organizations, "Operation Gladio" is used as an informal name for all stay-behind organizations, sometimes called "Super NATO". The role of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in sponsoring Gladio and the extent of its activities during the Cold War era, and its relationship to right-wing terrorist attacks perpetrated in Italy during the Years of Lead and other similar clandestine operations is the subject of ongoing debate and investigation.Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have had parliamentary inquiries into the matter. What can we prove about that role? Thousands of documents, depositions and testimony as well as recorded conversations and admission by the highest levels of government in Italy. That’s about as credible as it gets, regardless of the CIA’s adamant denial it ever happened. What took place? The shooting of innocent civilians, terrorism and assassinations all blamed on leftist communists were actually apart of well coordinated, “black operations.” Black operations are typically involving activities that are highly clandestine and, often, outside of standard military protocol.
“The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.” Black ops missions often fit into the deniable category, a situation in which there is no claim of responsibility for the action, and/or a false flag operation is used to give the appearance that another actor was responsible, or – most often – black operations involve extensive arrangements so as to be able to hide the fact that the black operation ever occurred. Black military operations, or paramilitary operations, can be used by various secret services to achieve or attempt to achieve an unusually sensitive goal. The methods used in black operations are also used in unconventional warfare. Depending on the precise situation in a given case, and the level of authoritarianism of the national government or other responsible party, some tasks will be conducted as black operations, while there are usually other activities that can be admitted openly. Black operations may include such things as assassination, sabotage, extortion, spying on allied countries or one's own citizens, kidnapping, supporting resistance movements, torture, use of fraud to obtain funds, use of child soldiers, human experimentation, trafficking in contraband items, etc. Since 9/11, many black operations and long time unethical standings have been approved for legality in the war on terror. In other words, since September 11th, 2001, it is no a longer conspiracy for any of this to occur, a simple decision by a top level military or CIA official is enough, without oversight or even one thread of admission by the Government or Private conspirators. Much of the Black operations today are performed by private contract companies like Blackwater (now Xe).
This is a documentary banned in teh United States that was allowed to air on BBC.
It was an investigation into Operation Gladio:
Timewatch:
Operation Gladio - Behind False Flag Terrorism & 9/11 (part3) 48:45
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3409375633223151728&hl=en#
21. The CIA Assassinates A Lot Of People (Church Committee): The Church Committee is the common term referring to the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church in 1975. A precursor to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee investigated intelligence gathering for illegality by the CIA and FBI after certain activities had been revealed by the Watergate affair. The Committee uncovered, among many other things, that the CIA had violated its charter to perform only gathering of intelligence. For example, the assassinations of Allende in Chile and Mossadegh in Iran. Assassinations against Central and South American leaders and revolutionaries, as well as Africa, Middle East and East Asia. The list was tremendous. They even declassified a “Heart Attack Gun” the Agency had made for the use of killing someone without it being detected. Cancer, car accidents, skiing accidents, suicide, boating accidents, heart attacks, and just plain being shot were common assassination methods. The hearings, although recorded in full in congressional record, the mainstream media and official policies, is still largely not taught in American schools on recent history. The American public still has no idea this was ever actually confirmed or even took place. It is common for people to still refer to any of these assassinations as a joke or made up conspiracy.
Watch the one-minute video below for the description of a former CIA secretary and Congressional testimony on this secret assassination weapon which caused heart attacks.
To watch the revealing 45-minute documentary from which the above clip was taken,
http://personalgrowthcourses.net/video/secrets_cia
22. The New World Order: This popular conspiracy theory claims that a small group of international elites controls and manipulates governments, industry and media organisations worldwide. The primary tool they use to dominate nations is the system of central banking. They are said to have funded and in some cases caused most of the major wars of the last 200 years, primarily through carrying out false flag attacks to manipulate populations into supporting them, and have a grip on the world economy, deliberately causing inflation and depressions at will. The people behind the New World Order are thought to be international bankers, in particular the owners of the private banks in the Federal Reserve System, Bank of England and other central banks, and members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. Now, although this conspiracy theory was ridiculed for years, it turns out that the Bilderberg does meet and requests no media coverage. They receive no media coverage. The world’s elite meet every year and it goes largely unreported, for what?
Discussions at the meetings include the economy, world affairs, war and in general, world policy. After the financial collapse, the Bilderberg played a key role in proposing that the world prepare for a new world order and have a standard world currency. This was propsed shortly after by almost all attendees of the Bilderberg meeting. During the 20th century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II. They all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic or liberal proposals for global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve. These proposals led to the creation of international organizations, such as the United Nations and N.A.T.O., and international regimes, such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power as well as regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism. In the aftermath of the two World Wars, progressives welcomed these new international organizations and regimes but argued they suffered from a democratic deficit and therefore were inadequate to not only prevent another global war but also foster global justice. American banker David Rockefeller joined the Council on Foreign Relations as its youngest-ever director in 1949 and subsequently became chairman of the board from 1970 to 1985; today he serves as honorary chairman.
In 2002, Rockefeller authored his autobiography Memoirs wherein,
on page 405, he wrote:
"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents ... to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Thus, activists around the globe formed a world federalist movement bent on creating a "real" new world order. A number of Fabian socialist intellectuals, such as British writer H. G. Wells in the 1940s, appropriated and redefined the term "new world order" as a synonym for the establishment of a full-fledged social democratic world government. In the 1960s, a great deal of right-wing conspiracist attention, by groups like the John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby, focused on the United Nations as the vehicle for creating the "One World Government", and contributed to a conservative movement for United States withdrawal from the U.N.. American writer Mary M. Davison, in her 1966 booklet The Profound Revolution, traced the alleged New World Order conspiracy to the creation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913 by international bankers, who she claimed later formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 as the shadow government. At the time the booklet was published, "international bankers" would have been interpreted by many readers as a reference to a postulated "international Jewish banking conspiracy" masterminded by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. American televangelist Pat Robertson with his 1991 best-selling book The New World Order became the most prominent Christian popularizer of conspiracy theories about recent American history as a theater in which Wall Street, the Federal Reserve System, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, and Trilateral Commission control the flow of events from behind the scenes, nudging us constantly and covertly in the direction of world government for the Antichrist.
After the turn of the century, specifically during the financial crisis of 2007–2009, many politicians and pundits, such as Gordon Brown, Henry Kissinger, and Barack Obama, used the term "new world order" in their advocacy for a Keynesian reform of the global financial system and their calls for a "New Bretton Woods", which takes into account emerging markets such as China and India. These declarations had the unintended consequence of providing fresh fodder for New World Order conspiracism, and culminated in former Clinton administration adviser Dick Morris and conservative talk show host Sean Hannity arguing on one of his Fox News Channel programs that "conspiracy theorists were right". In 2009, American film directors Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel released New World Order, a critically-acclaimed documentary film which explores the world of conspiracy theorists, such as American radio host Alex Jones, who are committed to exposing and vigorously opposing what they perceive to be an emerging New World Order.
May 24, 1992 Report on New World Order:
23. Kennedy Assassination - the 2nd Investigation by Congress Few People Know About, United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA): The HSCA was established in 1976 to investigate the John F. Kennedy assassination and the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination. The Committee investigated until 1978, and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated by a conspiracy involving the mob, and potentially the CIA. The House Select Committee on Assassinations undertook reinvestigations of the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1979, a single Report and twelve volumes of appendices on each assassination were published by the Congress. In the JFK case, the HSCA found that there was a "probable conspiracy," though it was unable to determine the nature of that conspiracy or its other participants (besides Oswald). This finding was based in part on acoustics evidence from a tape purported to record the shots, but was also based on other evidence including an investigation of Ruby's mafia connections and potential CIA and/or FBI connections to Oswald. To this day, many conspiracy deniers are unaware that the Congressional investigation into JFK’s assassination concluded beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was a conspiracy. What made them come to this conclusion? Aside from reading the report, many witnesses (some of whom were CIA agents and station chiefs in Dallas that morning) were killed the night before testifying. For example, George de Mohrenschildt was a petroleum geologist who befriended Lee Harvey Oswald during the months preceding the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. He also worked for the CIA. He also blew his brains out the night before he was to testify to the committee. The committee also uncovered, among many things, that Oswald left the marines where he learned how to speak fluent Russian (at the height of the cold war). He was given money by the State Department to travel to Russia where he stopped off in Japan at a top secret US Military facility. The Warren Commission even mentioned this part. What most people do not know is that he probably was working in the Cold War infiltrating the Russians as either a “dangle,” “double agent,” or “defector" of some kind. What is interesting is that upon his return he got more money from the State Department to buy a house and work with an ex FBI Chief and CIA officials in training anti-Castro Cubans for an invasion. In Louisiana, where he was working, the CIA was involved in Operation Mongoose, Where Oswald worked under CIA Agent David Ferrie, who killed himself before testifying in a trial on the Assassination as well. Operation Mongoose worked closely with Southern Mafia figures largely because , the casinos in Cuba, which were shut down after Fidel obtained control over the country, were epicenters for control on the island. The CIA even hired the mafia to assassinate Fidel on many occasions, 3 attempts which failed are common knowledge. What is funny is that figures who worked very close with Oswald either ended up dead (over 100 of them connected to the assassination died within a few years of unusual circumstances) or they ended up in other conspiracies.
February 201986 report on Mena Drug Smuggling:
For instance, E Howard Hunt (CIA Agent) confessed to being involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy on his deathbed. E Howard Hunt was one of the Watergate Burglars. Barry Seal, who worked with Oswald and Ferrie ended up being one of the largest cocaine smugglers in the United States during Iran Contra, as a key player for the agency and informant for the DEA. There is so much more to get into, but there just isn’t enough time. Oswald's tax returns are still classified top secret to this day. Why? Perhaps he was still getting $$ from the United States, which places him on the payroll. That money trail leads to figures, many of whom were murdered, that would have blown the story wide open. For 14 years, most didn't know this. The HSCA investigaitons by congress went against the findings of the Warren Commission and both reports are from the same source, Congressional Committees. Which is true? Why do we only teach one to our children in school?
December 30, 1978 Report on HSCA Findings:
24. 1919 World Series Conspiracy: The 1919 World Series (often referred to as the Black Sox Scandal) resulted in the most famous scandal in baseball history. Eight players from the Chicago White Sox (nicknamed the Black Sox) were accused of throwing the series against the Cincinnati Reds. Details of the scandal remain controversial, and the extent to which each player was involved varied. It was, however, front-page news across the country when the story was uncovered late in the 1920 season, and despite being acquitted of criminal charges (throwing baseball games was technically not a crime), the eight players were banned from organized baseball (i.e. the leagues subject to the National Agreement) for life. There are hundreds of other conspiracies involving throwing games, sporting matches and large scale entertainment events. It is common knowledge for many, this list would have to go into the thousands if we included all of them.
25. Karen Silkwood: Karen was an American labor union activist and chemical technician at the Kerr-McGee plant near Crescent, Oklahoma, United States. Silkwood's job was making plutonium pellets for nuclear reactor fuel rods. After being hired at Kerr-McGee, Silkwood joined the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union local and took part in a strike at the plant. After the strike ended, she was elected to the union's bargaining committee and assigned to investigate health and safety issues. She discovered what she believed to be numerous violations of health regulations, including exposure of workers to contamination, faulty respiratory equipment and improper storage of samples. She also believed the lack of sufficient shower facilities could increase the risk of employee contamination. In the summer of 1974, Silkwood testified to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) about these issues, alleging that safety standards had slipped because of a production speedup which resulted in employees being given tasks for which they were poorly trained. She also alleged that Kerr-McGee employees handled the fuel rods improperly and that the company falsified inspection records. On November 5, 1974, Silkwood performed a routine self-check and found almost 400 times the legal limit for plutonium contamination. She was decontaminated at the plant and sent home with a testing kit to collect urine and feces for further analysis. Oddly, though there was plutonium on the exterior surfaces (the ones she touched) of the gloves she had been using, the gloves did not have any holes.
This suggests the contamination did not come from inside the glove box, but from some other source, in other words, someone was trying to poison her. The next morning, as she headed to a union negotiation meeting, she again tested positive for plutonium. This was surprising because she had only performed paperwork duties that morning. She was given a more intense decontamination. The following day, November 7, 1974, as she entered the plant, she was found to be dangerously contaminated — even expelling contaminated air from her lungs. A health physics team accompanied her back to her home and found plutonium traces on several surfaces — especially in the bathroom and the refrigerator. The house was later stripped and decontaminated. Silkwood, her partner and housemate were sent to Los Alamos National Laboratory for in-depth testing to determine the extent of the contamination in their bodies. Later that evening, Silkwood's body was found in her car, which had run off the road and struck a culvert. The car contained no documents. She was pronounced dead at the scene from a "classic, one-car sleeping-driver accident".
26. CIA Drug Smuggling in Arkansas: August 23, 1987, in a rural community just south of Little Rock, police officers murdered two teenage boys because they witnessed a police-protected drug drop. The drop was part of a drug smuggling operation based at a small airport in Mena,Arkansas. The Mena operation was set up in the early 1980's by the notorious drug smuggler, Barry Seal. Facing prison after a drug conviction in Florida, Seal flew to Washington, D.C., where he put together a deal that allowed him to avoid prison by becoming an informant for the government. As a government informant against drug smugglers, Seal testified he worked for the CIA and the DEA. In one federal court case, he testified that his income from March 1984 to August 1985, was between $700,000 and $800,000. This period was AFTER making his deal with the government. Seal testified that nearly $600,000 of this came from smuggling drugs while working for -- and with the permission of the DEA. In addition to his duties as an informant, Seal was used by CIA operatives to help finance the Nicaraguan Contras. The CIA connection to the Mena operation was undeniable when a cargo plane given to Seal by the CIA was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of weapons. In spite of the evidence, every investigator who has tried to expose the crimes of Mena has been professionally destroyed, and those involved in drug smuggling operations have received continued protection from state and federal authorities.
February 20, 1986 report on Mena Drug Smuggling:
April 7, 1988 Report on CIA Drug Running:
Iran Contra CIA Drug Running Mena Arkansas Barry Seal 3 25 1994 CBS
27. Bohemian Grove: For years, many conspiracy theorists were saying that the rich and powerful met every year in the woods and worshiped a giant stone owl in an occult fashion. It turns out, ABC, CBS, NBC, and many other credible news agencies investigated this and found out, its true. It is said to be just all fun and games, like brotherhood style fraternity stuff.
These news clips can be viewed by clicking here.
July 21, 1983 Report on Bohemian Grove Mentioned:
For more clips on the Bohemian Grove including comprehensive investigations by the mainstream media, clik here...
http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/588/Rare-news-clips-about-Bohemian-Grove
surfaced-for-documentary-film-project.aspx
28. Operation Paperclip: Operation Paperclip was the code name for the 1945 Office of Strategic Services, Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency recruitment of German scientists from Nazi Germany to the U.S. after VE Day. President Truman authorized Operation Paperclip in August 1945; however he expressly ordered that anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi party and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism" would be excluded. These included Wernher von Braun, Arthur Rudolph and Hubertus Strughold, who were all officially on record as Nazis and listed as a "menace to the security of the Allied Forces." All were cleared to work in the U.S. after having their backgrounds "bleached" by the military; false employment histories were provided, and their previous Nazi affiliations were expunged from the record. The paperclips that secured newly-minted background details to their personnel files gave the operation its name.
29. The Round Table: British businessman Cecil Rhodes advocated the British Empire reannexing the United States of America and reforming itself into an "Imperial Federation" to bring about a hyperpower and lasting world peace. In his first will, of 1877, written at the age of 23, he expressed his wish to fund a secret society (known as the Society of the Elect) that would advance this goal: “To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonization by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.”
In his later wills, a more mature Rhodes abandoned the idea and instead concentrated on what became the Rhodes Scholarship, which had British statesman Alfred Milner as one of its trustees. Established in 1902, the original goal of the trust fund was to foster peace among the great powers by creating a sense of fraternity and a shared world view among future British, American, and German leaders by having enabled them to study for free at the University of Oxford. Milner and British official Lionel George Curtis were the architects of the Round Table movement, a network of organizations promoting closer union between Britain and its self-governing colonies. To this end, Curtis founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in June 1919 and, with his 1938 book The Commonwealth of God, began advocating for the creation of an imperial federation that eventually reannexes the U.S., which would be presented to Protestant churches as being the work of the Christian God to elicit their support. The Commonwealth of Nations was created in 1949 but it would only be a free association of independent states rather than the powerful imperial federation imagined by Rhodes, Milner and Curtis. The Council on Foreign Relations began in 1917 with a group of New York academics who were asked by President Woodrow Wilson to offer options for the foreign policy of the United States in the interwar period.
Originally envisioned as a British-American group of scholars and diplomats, some of whom belonging to the Round Table movement, it was a subsequent group of 108 New York financiers, manufacturers and international lawyers organized in June 1918 by Nobel Peace Prize recipient and U.S. secretary of state, Elihu Root, that became the Council on Foreign Relations on 29 July 1921. The first of the council’s projects was a quarterly journal launched in September 1922, called Foreign Affairs. Some believe that the Council on Foreign Relations is a front organization for the Round Table as a tool of the "Anglo-American Establishment", which they believe has been plotting from 1900 on to rule the world. The research findings of historian Carroll Quigley, author of the 1966 book Tragedy and Hope, are taken by both conspiracy theorists of the American Old Right (Cleon Skousen) and New Left (Carl Oglesby) to substantiate this view, even though he argued that the Establishment is not involved in a plot to implement a one-world government but rather British and American benevolent imperialism driven by the mutual interests of economic elites in the United Kingdom and the United States. Quigley also argued that, although the Round Table still exists today, its position in influencing the policies of world leaders has been much reduced from its heyday during World War I and slowly waned after the end of World War II and the Suez Crisis. Today it is largely a ginger group, designed to consider and gradually influence the policies of the Commonwealth of Nations, but faces strong opposition. Furthermore, in American society after 1965, the problem, according to Quigley, was that no elite was in charge and acting responsibly.
American banker David Rockefeller joined the Council on Foreign Relations as its youngest-ever director in 1949 and subsequently became chairman of the board from 1970 to 1985; today he serves as honorary chairman. In 2002, Rockefeller authored his autobiography Memoirswherein, on page 405, he wrote: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents ... to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” Barkun argues that this statement is partly facetious (the claim of "conspiracy" or "treason") and partly serious – the desire to encourage trilateral cooperation among the U.S., Europe, and Japan, for example – an ideal that used to be a hallmark of the internationalist wing of the Republican Party when there was an internationalist wing. However, the statement is taken at face value and widely cited by conspiracy theorists as proof that the Council on Foreign Relations (itself alleged to be a front for an "international banking cabal", as well as, it is claimed, the sponsor of many "globalist" think tanks such as the Trilateral Commission) uses its role as the brain trust of American presidents, senators and representatives to manipulate them into supporting a New World Order.
Conspiracy theorists fear that the international bankers of financial capitalism are planning to eventually subvert the independence of the U.S. by subordinating national sovereignty to a strengthened Bank for International Settlements with the intent to “create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole”. In a 13 November 2007 interview with Canadian journalist Benjamin Fulford, Rockefeller countered: “I don't think that I really feel that we need a world government. We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate. But, I can't imagine that there would be any likelihood or even that it would be desirable to have a single government elected by the people of the world ...
There have been people, ever since I've had any kind of position in the world, who have accused me of being ruler of the world. I have to say that I think for the large part, I would have to decide to describe them as crackpots. It makes no sense whatsoever, and isn't true, and won't be true, and to raise it as a serious issue seems to me to be irresponsible.” Some American social critics, such as Laurence H. Shoup, argue that the Council on Foreign Relations is an "imperial brain trust", which has, for decades, played a central behind-the-scenes role in shaping U.S. foreign policy choices for the post-WWII international order and the Cold War, by determining what options show up on the agenda and what options do not even make it to the table; while others, such as G. William Domhoff, argue that it is in fact a mere policy discussion forum, which provides the business input to U.S. foreign policy planning. The latter argue that it has nearly 3,000 members, far too many for secret plans to be kept within the group; all the council does is sponsor discussion groups, debates and speakers; and as far as being secretive, it issues annual reports and allows access to its historical archives.
30. The Illuminati: The Order of the Illuminati was an Enlightenment-age secret society founded on May 1st, 1776, in Ingolstadt (Upper Bavaria), by Adam Weishaupt, who was the first lay professor of canon law at the University of Ingolstadt. The movement consisted of freethinkers, secularists, liberals, republicans and pro-feminists, recruited in the Masonic Lodges of Germany, who sought to promote perfectionism through mystery schools. As a result, in 1785, the order was infiltrated, broken and suppressed by the government agents of Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, in his campaign to neutralize the threat of secret societies ever becoming hotbeds of conspiracies to overthrow the monarchy and state religion. In the late 18th century, reactionary conspiracy theorists, such as Scottish physicist John Robison and French Jesuit priest Augustin Barruel, began speculating that the Illuminati survived their suppression and became the masterminds behind the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Illuminati were accused of being enlightened absolutists who were attempting to secretly orchestrate a world revolution in order to globalize the most radical ideals of the Enlightenment: anti-clericalism, anti-monarchism, and anti-patriarchalism. During the 19th century, fear of an Illuminati conspiracy was a real concern of European ruling classes, and their oppressive reactions to this unfounded fear provoked in 1848 the very revolutions they sought to prevent. Although many say that the Illuminati was disbanded and destroyed so long ago, it is well known that the Rothschild dynasty following the family’s involvement in the secret order in Bavaria received much attention for its major takeover of Europe’s central banks. The Rothschild dynasty owns roughly half of the world’s wealth and evidence suggests it has funded both sides of major wars, including the United States Civil War.
31. The Trilateral Commission: The Trilateral Commission is a private organization, established to foster closer cooperation among the United States, Europe and Japan. It was founded in July 1973 at the initiative of David Rockefeller, who was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations at that time. The Trilateral Commission is widely seen as a counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations. In July 1972, Rockefeller called his first meeting, which was held at Rockefeller's Pocantico compound in New York's Hudson Valley. It was attended by about 250 individuals who were carefully selected and screened by Rockefeller and represented the very elite of finance and industry. Its first executive committee meeting was held in Tokyo in October 1973. The Trilateral Commission was officially initiated, holding biannual meetings. A Trilateral Commission Task Force Report, presented at the 1975 meeting in Kyoto, Japan, called An Outline for Remaking World Trade and Finance, said: "Close Trilateral cooperation in keeping the peace, in managing the world economy, and in fostering economic development and in alleviating world poverty, will improve the chances of a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system." Another Commission document read: "The overriding goal is to make the world safe for interdependence by protecting the benefits which it provides for each country against external and internal threats which will constantly emerge from those willing to pay a price for more national autonomy. This may sometimes require slowing the pace at which interdependence proceeds, and checking some aspects of it. More frequently however, it will call for checking the intrusion of national government into the international exchange of both economic and non-economic goods."
March 29, 1981 News Clip on Trilateral Commission:
May 2, 1995 News Clip on Trilateral Commission:
32. Big Brother or the Shadow Government:
It is also called the “Deep State” by Peter Dale Scott, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. A shadow government is a "government-in-waiting" that remains in waiting with the intention of taking control of a government in response to some event. It turned out this was true on 9/11, when it was told to us by our mainstream media. For years, this was ridiculed as a silly, crazy conspiracy theory and, like the others listed here, turned out to be 100% true. It is also called the Continuity of Government. The Continuity of Government (COG) is the principle of establishing defined procedures that allow a government to continue its essential operations in case of nuclear war or other catastrophic event. Since the end of the cold war, the policies and procedures for the COG have been altered according to realistic threats of that time. These include but are not limited to a possible coup or overthrow by right wing terrorist groups, a terrorist attack in general, an assassination, and so on. Believe it or not the COG has been in effect since 2001. After 9/11, it went into action. Now here is the kicker, many of the figures in Iran Contra, the Watergate Scandal, the alleged conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, and many others listed here are indeed members of the COG. This is its own conspiracy as well.
March 1, 2002 News Clip on Secret Government:
The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States
and the World
is a book written by Air Force Col. L fletcher Prouty, published in 1973. From 1955 to 1963 Prouty was the "Focal Point Officer" for contacts between the CIA and the Pentagon on matters relating to military support for "black operations" but he was not assigned to the CIA and was not bound by any oath of secrecy. (From the first page of the 1974 Printing) It was one of the first tell-all books about the inner workings of the CIA and was an important influence on the Oliver Stone movie JFK. But the main thrust of the book is how the CIA started as a think tank to analyze intelligence gathered from military sources but has grown to the monster it has become. The CIA had no authority to run their own agents or to carry out covert operations but they quickly did both and much more. This book tells about things they actually did and a lot about how the operate. In Prouty's own words, from the 1997 edition of The Secret Team: This is the fundamental game of the Secret Team. They have this power because they control secrecy and secret intelligence and because they have the ability to take advantage of the most modern communications system in the world, of global transportation systems, of quantities of weapons of all kinds, and when needed, the full support of a world-wide U.S. military supporting base structure. They can use the finest intelligence system in the world, and most importantly, they have been able to operate under the canopy of an assumed, ever-present enemy called "Communism." It will be interesting to see what "enemy" develops in the years ahead. It appears that "UFO's and Aliens" are being primed to fulfill that role for the future. To top all of this, there is the fact that the CIA, itself, has assumed the right to generate and direct secret operations. " He is not the first to allege that UFOs and Aliens are going to be used as a threat against the world to globalize the planet under One government.
March 1, 2002 report on Secret Government:
The Report From Iron Mountain is a book, published in
(during the Johnson Administration) by Dial Press, that states that it is the report of a government panel. According to the report, a 15-member panel, called the Special Study Group, was set up in 1963 to examine what problems would occur if the U.S. entered a state of lasting peace. They met at an underground nuclear bunker called Iron Mountain (as well as other, worldwide locations) and worked over the next two years. Iron Mountain is where the government has stored the flight 93 evidence from 9/11. A member of the panel, one "John Doe", a professor at a college in theMidwest, decided to release the report to the public. The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace "could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it." War was a part of the economy. Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war. They also recommended "blood games" and that the government create alternative foes that would scare the people with reports of alien life-forms and out of control pollution. Another proposal was the reinstitution of slavery. U.S. News and World Report claimed in its November 20, 1967 issue to have confirmation of the reality of the report from an unnamed government official, who added that when President Johnson read the report, he 'hit the roof' and ordered it to be suppressed for all time. Additionally, sources were said to have revealed that orders were sent to U.S.embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no relation to U.S. Government policy. Project Blue Beam is also a common conspiracy theory that alleges that a faked alien landing would be used as a means of scaring the public into whatever global system is suggested. Some researchers suggest the Report from Iron Mountain might be fabricated, others swear it is real.
Bill Moyers, the American journalist and public commentator, has served as White House Press Secretary in the United States President Lyndon B. Johnson Administration from 1965 to 1967. He worked as a news commentator on television for ten years. Moyers has had an extensive involvement with public television, producing documentaries and news journal programs. He has won numerous awards and honorary degrees. He has become well known as a trenchant critic of the U.S. media. Since 1990, Moyers has been President of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy. He is considered by many to be a very credible outlet for the truth. He released a documetnary titled, The Secret Government, which exposed the inner workings of a secret government much more vast that most people would ever imagine. Though originally broadcast in 1987, it is even more relevant today. Interviews with respected top military, intelligence, and government insiders reveal both the history and secret objectives of powerful groups in the hidden shadows of our government.
Here is that documentary:
The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill Moyers
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430&hl=en#
For another powerful, highly revealing documentary on the manipulations of the secret government produced by BBC, click here (view free at link provided).
The intrepid BBC team clearly shows how the War on Terror is largely a fabrication.
For those interested in very detailed information on the composition of the shadow or secret government from a less well-known source, take a look at the summary available here.
33. The Federal Reserve Bank: The fundamental promise of a central bank like the Federal Reserve is economic stability. The theory is that manipulating the value of the currency allows financial booms to go higher, and crashes to be more mild. If growth becomes speculative and unsustainable, the central bank can make the price of money go up and force some deleveraging of risky investments - again, promising to make the crashes more mild. The period leading up to the American revolution was characterized by increasingly authoritarian legislation from England. Acts passed in 1764 had a particularly harsh effect on the previously robust colonial economy. The Sugar Act was in effect a tax cut on easily smuggled molasses, and a new tax on commodities that England more directly controlled trade over. The navy would be used in increased capacity to enforce trade laws and collect duties. Perhaps even more significant than the militarization and expansion of taxes was the Currency Act passed later in the year 1764. "The colonies suffered a constant shortage of currency with which to conduct trade. There were no gold or silver mines and currency could only be obtained through trade as regulated by Great Britain. Many of the colonies felt no alternative to printing their own paper money in the form of Bills of Credit." The result was a true free market of currency - each bank competed, exchange rates fluctuated wildly, and merchants were hesitant to accept these notes as payment. Of course, they didn't have 24-hour digital Forex markets, but I'll hold off opinions on the viability of unregulated currency for another time. England's response was to seize control of the colonial money supply - forbidding banks, cities, and colony governments from printing their own. This law, passed so soon after the Sugar Act, started to really bring revolutionary tension inside the colonies to a higher level. American bankers had learned early on that debasing a currency through inflation is a helpful way to pay off perpetual trade deficits - but Britain proved that the buyer of the currency would only take the deal for so long...
Following the (first) American Revolution, the "First Bank of the United States" was chartered to pay off collective war debts, and effectively distribute the cost of the revolution proportionately throughout all of the states. Although the bank had vocal and harsh skeptics, it only controlled about 20% of the nation's money supply.
Compared to today's central bank, it was nothing. Thomas Jefferson argued vocally against the institution of the bank, mostly citing constitutional concerns and the limitations of government found in the 10th amendment. There was one additional quote that hints at the deeper structural flaw of a central bank in a supposedly free capitalist economy. "the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank" –Thomas Jefferson. Basically, the existing banks will fight over gaining favor with the central bank - rather than improving their performance relative to a free market.
The profit margins associated with collusion would obviously outweigh the potential profits gained from legitimate business. The Second Bank of the United States was passed five years after the first bank's charter expired. An early enemy of central banking, President James Madison, was looking for a way to stabilize the currency in 1816. This bank was also quite temporary - it would only stay in operation until 1833 when President Andrew Jackson would end federal deposits at the institution.
The charter expired in 1836 and the private corporation was bankrupt and liquidated by 1841. While the South had been the major opponent of central banking systems, the end of the Civil War allowed for (and also made necessary) the system of national banks that would dominate the next fifty years. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) says that this post-war period of a unified national currency and system of national banks "worked well." [3] Taxes on state banks were imposed to encourage people to use the national banks - but liquidity problems persisted as the money supply did not match the economic cycles. Overall, the American economy continued to grow faster than Europe, but the period did not bring economic stability by any stretch of the imagination. Several panics and runs on the bank - and it became a fact of life under this system of competing nationalized banks. In 1873, 1893, 1901, and 1907 significant panics caused a series of bank failures.
The new system wasn't stable at all, in fact, many suspected it was wraught with fraud and manipulation. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is not shy about attributing the causes of the Panic of 1907 to financial manipulation from the existing banking establishment. "If Knickerbocker Trust would falter, then Congress and the public would lose faith in all trust companies and banks would stand to gain, the bankers reasoned." In timing with natural economic cycles, major banks including J.P. Morgan and Chase launched an all-out assault on Heinze's Knickerbocker Trust. Financial institutions on the inside started silently selling off assets in the competitor, and headlines about a few bad loans started making top spots in the newspapers. The run on Knickerbocker turned into a general panic - and the Federal Government would come to the rescue of its privately owned "National Banks." During the Panic of 1907, "Depositors 'run' on the Knickerbocker Bank. J.P. Morgan and James Stillman of First National City Bank (Citibank) act as a "central bank," providing liquidity ... [to stop the bank run] President Theodore Roosevelt provides Morgan with $25 million in government funds ... to control the panic. Morgan, acting as a one-man central bank, decides which firms will fail and which firms will survive." How did JP Morgan get so powerful that the government would provide them with funding to increase their power? They had key influence with positions inside the Administrations.
They had senators, congressmen, lobbyists, media moguls all working for them. In 1886, a group of millionaires purchased Jekyll Island and converted it into a winter retreat and hunting ground, theUSA's most exclusive club. By 1900, the club's roster represented 1/6th of the world's wealth. Names like Astor, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Pulitzer and Gould filled the club's register. Non- members, regardless of stature, were not allowed. Dignitaries like Winston Churchill and President McKinley were refused admission. In 1908, the year after a national money panic purportedly created by J. P. Morgan, Congress established, in 1908, a National Monetary Authority. In 1910 another, more secretive, group was formed consisting of the chiefs of major corporations and banks in this country. The group left secretly by rail from Hoboken, New Jersey, and traveled anonymously to the hunting lodge on Jekyll Island. In fact, the Clubhouse/hotel on the island has two conference rooms named for the "Federal Reserve." The meeting was so secret that none referred to the other by his last name. Why the need for secrecy?
Frank Vanderlip wrote later in the Saturday Evening Post, "...it would have been fatal to Senator Aldrich's plan to have it known that he was calling on anybody from Wall Street to help him in preparing his bill...I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System." At Jekyll Island, the true draftsman for the Federal Reserve was Paul Warburg. The plan was simple. The new central bank could not be called a central bank because America did not want one, so it had to be given a deceptive name. Ostensibly, the bank was to be controlled by Congress, but a majority of its members were to be selected by the private banks that would own its stock. To keep the public from thinking that the Federal Reserve would be controlled from New York, a system of twelve regional banks was designed. Given the concentration of money and credit in New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York controlled the system, making the regional concept initially nothing but a ruse.
The board and chairman were to be selected by the President, but in the words of Colonel Edward House, the board would serve such a term as to "put them out of the power of the President." The power over the creation of money was to be taken from the people and placed in the hands of private bankers who could expand or contract credit as they felt best suited their needs. Why the opposition to a central bank? Americans at the time knew of the destruction to the economy the European central banks had caused to their respective countries and to countries who became their debtors. They saw the large- scale government deficit spending and debt creation that occurred in Europe. But European financial moguls didn't rest until the New World was within their orbit. In 1902, Paul Warburg, a friend and associate of the Rothschilds and an expert on European central banking, came to this country as a partner in Kuhn, Loeb and Company.
He married the daughter of Solomon Loeb, one of the founders of the firm. The head of Kuhn, Loeb was Jacob Schiff, whose gift of $20 million in gold to the struggling Russian communists in 1917 no doubt saved their revolution. The Fed controls the banking system in the USA, not the Congress nor the people indirectly (as the Constitution dictates). The U.S. central bank strategy is a product of European banking interests. Government interventionists got their wish in 1913 with the Federal Reserve (and income tax amendment). Just in time, too, because the nation needed a new source of unlimited cash to finance both sides of WW1 and eventually our own entry to the war. After the war, with both sides owing us debt through the federal reserve backed banks, the center of finance moved from London to New York. But did the Federal Reserve reign in the money trusts and interlocking directorates? Not by a long shot. If anything, the Federal Reserve granted new powers to the National Banks by permitting overseas branches and new types of banking services. The greatest gift to the bankers, was a virtually unlimited supply of loans when they experience liquidity problems.
From the early 1920s to 1929, the monetary supply expanded at a rapid pace and the nation experienced wild economic growth. Curiously, however, the number of banks started to decline for the first time in American history. Toward the end of the period, speculation and loose money had propelled asset and equity prices to unreal levels. The stock market crashed, and as the banks struggled with liquidity problems, the Federal Reserve actually cut the money supply. Without a doubt, this is the greatest financial panic and economic collapse in American history - and it never could have happened on this scale without the Fed's intervention. The number of banks crashed and a few of the old robber barons' banks managed to swoop in and grab up thousands of competitors for pennies on the dollar.
The following docmentary is called America: From Freedom to Fascism:
America: Freedom to Fascism - Director's Authorized Version
1:51:16 - 2 years ago
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&hl=en#
This next documentary is called, The Money Masters:
The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained
Control of America 47:22
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&hl=en#
Monopoly Men (Federal Reserve Fraud) (1999)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7065177340464808778&hl=en#
Mannréttindi | Breytt 5.5.2024 kl. 16:33 | Slóð | Facebook | Athugasemdir (0)
3.12.2009 | 16:14
Why Is The Anti -Defamation League (ADL) Promoting Alex Jones?
WHY IS THE ADL PROMOTING ALEX JONES?
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=465
Commentary By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Real Zionist News, 12-1-09/Copyright 2009
Articles May Be Reproduced Only With Authorship of Br Nathanael Kapner & Link To Real Zionist News (SM)
For The Best Alternative News CLICK: Rense.com Here
THE ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE’S RECENT ‘BLAST’ at radio conspiracy ‘patriot’ maven, Alex Jones, appears to be more - AND less - than it seems upon closer examination and rational consideration.
That world Zionism is the center of evil on the planet is beyond any rational dispute. From AIPAC and the ADL to the bogus Southern Poverty Law Center to B’nai B’rith, Zionism is the most ruthless geopolitical (thermonuclear Israel), financial and political force in the United States…and much of the world.
Even a rudimentary understanding of the Wall Street bankster machine, and the beyond corrupt Federal Reserve, reveals the overwhelming power of Zionism which ultimately traces back to the City of London banking center, and the Rothschilds. As David Icke succinctly puts it, “Zionism is the Elephant in the Controllers’ Board Room” that only Zionist deniers, de facto agents and Zionist apologists pretend isn’t there and won’t mention.
The premiere Zionist enforcement agency in America, the ADL, often runs hit pieces on people it tries to smear as ‘anti-semites’ or ‘anti-Israel’ and so forth. These pieces are usually vicious in tone and replete with baseless slanders and smears of the targeted individual/s. (Brother Nathanael is described by the ADL as a ‘rabid anti-Semite.’) However, when was the last time you saw an ADL Zionist hit piece targeting someone who virtually never even mentions Zionism or makes anti-Zionist statements? That question is vital…as you consider the following material.
A recent investigative piece by Lorie Kramer uncovered an apparent clear link between Zionism and the Zionist Bronfman family of North America, and alternative talk show host Alex Jones. Kramer’s research showed that Holly Bronfman’s attorney just happens to be Jones’ personal attorney. Coincidence? From that discovery it is not hard to project why Mr. Jones avoids even the mention of ‘Zionism’ unless put into a corner. Read Entire Kramer Story Here, Here & Here.
In one of his most infamous Zionist coverup statements, Jones stated: “Hollywood Is Owned By The Arabs’ - The Arabs Own Everything!” That stunning statement simply shattered the credibility meter. It’s simply a matter of connecting the dots.
Many have noticed - and even die-hard fans have been perplexed for years - over Jones refusing to discuss the ‘elephant in the board room’ on his radio show. He simply will not criticize or even mention ‘World Zionism’ except in passing…and very infrequently at that. Facts are facts. Therefore, when the ADL ‘blasts’ someone in the media who does not mention Zionism, or the Israel Lobby, or Zionist Jews, one has to start digging a little deeper and thinking of who ultimately benefits from such an ADL ‘attack.’
Jones, jumping on the opportunity (as planned at some level?) pointed to the ADL ‘hit piece’ story on one of his sites and masterfully presented an ‘editorial rebuttal’ to it, which was about how the ADL had ruthlessly attacked America’s most highly-visible patriot talk show host. In a deft attempt to underscore the ADL piece as a personal attack on Jones - as if he were a true enemy of Zionism - the Jones site’s responsive editorial blasted back at the ADL piece as if it had damaged him severely.
However, once again, the term Zionism never appeared. Connect the dots again. Jones is, in reality, anything but a patriot martyr out to expose the Zionist Jewish agenda and its malignant hold on our Republic. The ADL article actually reads more like a promo for Jones than a personal attack as evidenced by even just two excerpts:
“Jones runs a syndicated radio show, The Alex Jones Show, which is broadcast on AM and FM stations. Jones also operates two popular Web sites, Infowars and Prison Planet, and appears on a cable access television show.” (Remember, this is supposed to be a savage hit piece on Jones…)
“After the election of Obama, Jones developed ties to mainstream media outlets such as the FOX News Network. In March 2009, Jones appeared on the FOX News programFreedom Watch which allowed him to simulcast the show over his radio program.” (Reads like a publicity release…which is really, essentially, exactly what the ADL piece is.) Read The Entire ADL Story Here.
JONES’ HOME RADIO SHOWS
PRESENTED BY ZIONIST JEWISH MEDIA
EVERY SUNDAY AFTERNOON when most Christians are in Church - but when Jews are working - Alex Jones does a syndicated and internet-based show from his home studio for KLBJ 590 AM (“Alex Jones brings his unique perspective to the KLBJ team”) from 4:00-6:00pm. Who, exactly, is the KLBJ team’s owner?
In fact, KLBJ AM is owned by Emmis Communications, (”Emmis” is the Hebrew word for “truth”), which operates radio stations in the nation’s largest markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The Founder and CEO of Emmis Communications just happens to be a well-connected Jewish American broadcast mini-mogul named Jeffrey H. Smulyan — the kind of Jewish American who would doubtless have strong allegiance to Zionist Jewish organizations like the ADL — and whom the ADL likes to support in return.
With a Doctorate Law degree from the University of Southern California School of Law and a subsequent “Tree of Life Award” from the Jewish National Fund, Smulyan has just the right credentials to rub shoulders with one of the JNF’s financial recipients, the ADL.
In 1994, Smulyan was tabbed by The White House to head the U.S. Delegation to the Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunications Union. As a U.S. ambassador, Smulyan negotiated an agreement between Israel and the PLO which has since hit the trash bin due to Zionist Israel’s ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
In 2005, (boasts Smulyan on his Website), Emmis Communications was named one ofFortune magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work For.” (Smulyan does not mention thatFortune is owned by the Canadian Jew, Edgar Bronfman Jr. of Time Warner, who has aprofessional alliance with Emmis Communications.)
Apparently, Alex Jones ALSO LIKES to work for Emmis and KNOWS very well, indeed, how to keep his mouth shut when it comes to singling out Zionists and Jewish lobbyists when broadcasting for Smulyan’s KBLJ radio. View Entire Story Here & Here
EVERY SATURDAY EVENING when Jews are feasting on their “Erev Shabbat” Sabbath meal, Jewish-owned satellite radio Sirius Network, beams out Jones’ muddled message on its XM radio station from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM.
The Sirius XM Radio Network is owned by the American Jew, Mel Karmazin, CEO; andmanaged by the Jews, Scott Greenstein, President; David Frear, Chief Financial Officer; and Eddy Hartenstein, Chairman of the Board. Connect the dots. Zionism is king.
Before his July 2009 stint with Sirius, Jones was railing against Sirius XM radio for featuring‘no planner’ Paula Gloria on Sirius’ Howard Stern slot. Why did Jones suddenly change his mind? Could it be money, lots of Zionist money? - a big motivator even for ‘conspiracy theorists’ like ADL-promoted radio talk show hosts.
* A STUNNER FROM THE JERUSALEM POST *
“JONES’ SALARY PAID BY THE JEW MEDIA”
Jones Called ‘Jewish Media’s Rebbe’ By Jerusalem Post
VETERAN JERUSALEM POST REPORTER, David Shamah, (a vehement Zionist Jew), admits, or to be more accurate, exposed Alex Jones for “being on the Jews’ payroll.” Yes, that is a direct quote from the article.
On Shamah’s Website, Digital Newzgeek, where he archives his Jerusalem Post articles, Shaman posted a piece which he penned for the Jerusalem Post on April 14 2009, titled,What Creeps Under Internet Rocks. In the article, Shaman exposes Jones as a “rebbe” whose fans fear his Jewish ties will make him “look bad:” Wrote Shamah:
“Jones believes that the world is run by the Rockefellers, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group. But I never heard him utter the word ‘Jew’ in connection with any of these conspiracies. According to Jones’ Wikipedia biography page: ‘The Alex Jones Show radio program is broadcast live from Emmis Communications KLBJ Radio in Austin, Texas.’
“The CEO of Emmis? Jeff Smulyan, winner of the Jewish National Fund’s Tree of Life Award. Interestingly, I have never seen Smulyan’s name on the lists of Jews who run the media on the Anti-Semitic sites. Could it be they don’t want to make their ‘rebbe,’ Jones, look bad? After all, his salary is being paid by ‘Jew media!’” Read Entire Shamah Story Here.
So, it’s not hard to see that even Zionist Jews know what Jones and his flappery about ‘the Arabs owning Hollywood’ and virtually never touching the subject of the ‘elephant in the boardroom’ are all about…and on which side his kosher bread is buttered.
.
BACK TO THE FARCE ADL ARTICLE which supposedly ‘blasts’ Jones, but is, in reality, running interference for him…a clever psy op to make it look like the ADL hates him. Nothing could be much farther from reality.
No sooner did the ADL publish what amounts to this thinly-veiled PR piece for him, than Jones’ largely Zionist staff cranked out its painfully contrived story about how poor Jones was being savaged by the ADL.
Nowhere in the ADL article do the words ‘anti-semite’ or ‘anti-semitic’ appear…terms of standard operating bedrock for virtually ALL ADL attacks on those who oppose Zionism and its death grip on America.
So, again, if you haven’t connected the right dots, it is patently obvious that the ADL moved to give Jones and his agenda of not mentioning the ‘elephant in the board room’ a near-perfect shield to protect him. The Jones site editorial reply to theADL ‘hit piece’ is simply the sequel to the binary ADL psy op. Read both and decide for yourself.
Jones runs, according to many, a de facto ZIONIST OPERATION, and he ONLY mentions Zionism in passing when he absolutely must. His historic effort to cover for his Zionist Jewish Hollywood friends by saying, on a “YouTube clip, “The Arabs own Hollywood and everyone knows it” is truly a classic faux pas. The ‘Arabs’? He might as well have tried to deny the existence of the sun.
Jones, his program, his sites (at least five of them), and through his documentaries are essentially the core of a mass desensitizing operation. When viewing his ‘films,’ most come away feeling as if they’ve been bludgeoned and beaten to near hopelessness. And that, of course, is the very idea. All the talk about ‘taking the country back’ basically runs most people into the ground…and many of them become moribund, disheartened…or just quit.
When Jones keeps pounding home the theme about the ALL-powerful Global Elite - but not mentioning that Zionist Jews ARE the great majority of the elite - the message of who is really running the West and America is lost. Zionism would seem to have a truly great, loyal and steadfast friend in Mr. Jones.
JONES IS BASICALLY, (as one of the most visible public figures in the alternative media), not much more than a showman or razzle-dazzle carny type. He could have earned millions as a ‘teevee evangelist.’
Does anyone really think that Jones got into Bohemian Grove and did all that videotaping without the Elite knowing about it? That DVD was, of course, the perfect entre into the larger world of alternative media for him as the ultimate ‘patriot super hero.’ And with thepassing of William Cooper (who exposed Jones as a liar), the path was clear for the Jones machine to make its move. View Cooper YouTube Video Here.
Jones’ strange ‘connections’ to the uber Zionist Bronfman family via his personal attorney, and toZionist Hollywood; the fact that he has a ticket to ride on his flagship radio station with Emmis Communications and a slot on XM/Sirius; that his top staff is dominated by Zionist Jewish Americans (also see his protege Jason Bermas’ hateful YouTube Video Here); and that many of hissponsors are Jewish-owned businesses…should be highly instructive to those seeking to understand why he gives Zionism a clean pass by rarely, if ever, mentioning it.
Jones has a specific agenda that unquestionably covers for Zionism. Sure, he wears the cloak of the Patriot…he’s a master at it. Remember …the BEST disinformation is at least 90% truth. And Alex ‘Bullhorn’ Jones appears to be the best friend world Zionism has in the often murky milieu of ‘patriot’ radio and the alternative media. Remember…connect the dots…and the true picture eventually congeals in front of one’s eyes…truly a stark and painful image in this case.
For Further Listening - ‘Alex Jones Master Of Deception’ Here___________________________________
For More See: Is Alex Jones A Zionist Shill?..Controversy Swirls Click Here
And: Is Alex Jones Linked To Zionist-Jew Bronfman? Click Here
And: Entire RZN ‘ADL Hate’ Articles Click Here
Mannréttindi | Breytt 23.8.2010 kl. 11:46 | Slóð | Facebook | Athugasemdir (5)
Nota bene
Translate your website into 52 languages
We The People Will Not Be Chipped!
NO VERICHIP INSIDE ME! I WILL NOT BE MARKED AS I WERE A BEAST!
Efni
RSSNýjustu færslur
- "GRAPHEN OXIDE" FRAMHALD UM EFNIÐ SEM YFIRTEKUR!!! “THE BLAC...
- DAUÐSFÖLL AF VÖLDUM GRAPHENE OXIDE ÖREINDARHLUTUM.
- RADDKLÓNUN HLJÓMAR EINS OG VÍSINDASKÁLDSAGA EN ER NÚ ÞEGAR AÐ...
- Ríkisstjórnir og herinn úða eitruðum efnum yfir íbúa til að b...
- Viðbrögð við heimsfaraldrinum voru völd að fleiri dauðsföllum...
Bloggvinir
-
666
-
annasteinunn
-
artboy
-
athena
-
berglindnanna
-
bergthora
-
biddam
-
birgitta
-
bofs
-
brylli
-
coke
-
daystar
-
dofri
-
doriborg
-
ea
-
ellyarmanns
-
estersv
-
fridaeyland
-
gammon
-
gmaria
-
gudrunmagnea
-
gullvagninn
-
gunnipallikokkur
-
habbakriss
-
halkatla
-
hallarut
-
halldorbaldursson
-
hallurg
-
handtoskuserian
-
heida
-
heidathord
-
heidistrand
-
heimskringla
-
hjolagarpur
-
hlynurh
-
hlynurha
-
id
-
ingo
-
ipanama
-
ippa
-
jensgud
-
joninaben
-
jorunn
-
josira
-
kallimatt
-
ketilas08
-
kiddih
-
kiddijoi
-
kiddip
-
killerjoe
-
killjoker
-
kiza
-
kollaogjosep
-
konur
-
limped
-
lovelikeblood
-
lydurarnason
-
malacai
-
mia-donalega
-
molta
-
morgunstjarna
-
nonniblogg
-
ofurbaldur
-
olafurfa
-
omar
-
omarragnarsson
-
overmaster
-
perlaheim
-
poppoli
-
prakkarinn
-
predikarinn
-
proletariat
-
ragnargests
-
rheidur
-
rosabla
-
saethorhelgi
-
salist
-
sigurjonn
-
sigurjonth
-
sirrycoach
-
sjos
-
stebbifr
-
svarthamar
-
sveinnhj
-
tharfagreinir
-
trollchild
-
tru
-
upplystur
-
vertu
-
vglilja
-
vitale
-
alla
-
dufa65
-
andres08
-
gumpurinn
-
danna
-
arit-bloggar
-
apalsson
-
taoistinn
-
asgrimurhartmannsson
-
heiddal
-
brahim
-
gattin
-
brandarar
-
rafdrottinn
-
saxi
-
eysi
-
fafnisbani
-
fiskurinn
-
geiragustsson
-
morgunn
-
gudjonelias
-
gjonsson
-
lostintime
-
tilveran-i-esb
-
conspiracy
-
skodun
-
holi
-
vulkan
-
heim
-
hildurhelgas
-
drum
-
truthseeker
-
holmdish
-
don
-
danjensen
-
ingaghall
-
johannvegas
-
jonasg-eg
-
jonasg-egi
-
joningic
-
jonmagnusson
-
alda111
-
bisowich
-
andmenning
-
kristinthormar
-
lotta
-
ludvikludviksson
-
astroblog
-
vistarband
-
marinomm
-
manisvans
-
minnhugur
-
bylting-strax
-
olafur-62
-
pallvil
-
ljosmyndarinn
-
perlaoghvolparnir
-
sviss
-
bjornbondi99
-
shhalldor
-
infowarrioreggeiri
-
sigvardur
-
thorthunder
-
thee
-
tigercopper
-
vefritid
-
zordis
-
tsiglaugsson
-
thordisb
Nýjustu myndir
Nýjustu myndböndin
Heimsóknir
Flettingar
- Í dag (28.3.): 7
- Sl. sólarhring: 7
- Sl. viku: 51
- Frá upphafi: 317314
Annað
- Innlit í dag: 5
- Innlit sl. viku: 46
- Gestir í dag: 5
- IP-tölur í dag: 5
Uppfært á 3 mín. fresti.
Skýringar
Af mbl.is
271 dagur til jóla
Um bloggið
Hitt og þetta...aðallega hitt...
Eldri færslur
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
Nýjustu albúmin
Tenglar
Uppáhalds síður
Margvísleg málefni.
Ýmsir vefir.
- Velvirk börn Félag hæfileikaríkra og skapandi einstaklinga
- Heilsubankinn Meðferðar og þjónustuaðilar
- Sannleikurinn minn Fróðleikur um ýmis heilsumál
- Heimasíðan mín Ýmislegt efni.
- Gagnauga Gagnauga er upplýsingavefur um alþjóðamál
- MSSPJALLIÐ Opið Spjallborð um MS
- Ablechild.org Parents for Label and Drug Free Education
- ASPARTAME KILLS Rumsfeld og Aspartame
- Óvenjuleg og umdeild mál 9/11, samsæriskenningar...
- The National Foundation for Gifted and Creative Children Samtök hæfileikaríkra og skapandi barna
- Upplýsingasíða um MSG If MSG isn´t harmful, why is it hidden?
- Spjallborð um 911 og ýmislegt plott
- Þessi síða er alveg must read ýmislegt sem þú sérð bara hér
- The SPECTRUM Ýmsar greinar
- Label Me Sane Fjallað um ofnotkun lyfja.
- Alliance for Human Research Protection Samtök gegn tilraunum á fólki
- Organic Consumers Association Neytendasamtök fyrir lífrænt
- Freedom Or Facism ? Frelsi eða Facismi?
- Health Truth Revealed Hulunni svipt af heilsu málefnum
- Quackpot Watch "The last days of the Quackbusters "
- True Torah Jews/Jews Against Zionism Traditional Jews Are Not Zionists
- Question 911.com Free DVD download / frítt niðurhal
Talnaspeki / Numerology
Fróðleikur um þessa speki
- Sun - Angel Numerology Frítt dæmi þarna
- Free Numerology Reading Meira en bara talnaspeki..
- Your Reading / Agny Lýsingin á mér...
- INDIGO intentions Tarot, numerology, Indigo children, Reiki, Angels reading
Fyndið stuff.
Myndir, brandarar og glens.
- Cartoons Teiknimyndir
Andleg málefni
Allt sem tengist þeim málum.
- AEROSOL OPERATION CRIMES & COVER-UP SPRAYING US AS A BUG..
- Crystalinks Þessi síða er hreinlega með allt.
- Tarot Cards & Free Readings Frí Tarot spá
- Mind Power News Kraftur hugans.
- Progressive Awareness Research Allt mögulegt andans stuff.
- Tilvitnanir / quotes Ýmsar tilvitnanir
- New Jersey ghost hunter center Drauga "veiðar"
- The Tree of the Golden Light Ýmis andleg mál
- Mayan Calendar Articles Tímatal Mayanna
Stjörnuspeki / Astrology
Fróðleikur um þessa speki.
- The Future Minders Frítt dæmi þarna
Síður um ADD / ADHD
Upplýsingar um athyglisbrest / ofvirkni.
- Dr. Mary Ann Block ,, Find the course, fix the problem".
- A Multisensory Learning Program Kennslugögn fyrir ADD / Autism / Dyslexia
- Exposing the Fraud of ADD and ADHD Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD Neurologist, Pediatric Neurology
- Stimulant Drugs for ADHD and ADD Örvandi lyf við ADHD og ADD
- "Are Psychiatrists Betraying Their Patients?" Eru geðlæknar að svíkja sjúklingana sína?
- "Our Toxic World" " Okkar eitraði heimur"
- No proof mental illness rooted in biology Engin líffræðileg sönnun fyrir geðsjúkdómum
- Death From Ritalin Snannleikurinn á bak við ADHD
- Methylphenidate ( virka efnið í Ritalin) Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section
- What Drugmakers of ADD & ADHD Drugs vilja ekki að þú vitir
- Answers for ADHD Questions Svör við ADHD spurningum.
SSRI lyf og önnur þunglyndislyf
Ýmsar síður um hugarfars breytandi lyf.
- Dangerous Medicine forum Spjallborð
- Antidepressants Facts Staðreyndir um þunglyndislyf.
- SSRI Stories Ekki er sannleikurinn fallegur...
- International Coalition For Drug Awareness Verum meðvituð ...
- PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN NOW Verndum börnin okkar!!
- THE DARK SIDE OF PSYCHIATRY Dökka hlið geðlækninganna
- How psychiatry is making drug addicts out of America´s shool children Amerísk skólabörn gerð að læknadóps fíklum.
- Psyhchiatric Drug Side Effects Search Engine.
- Psyhchiatric Drug Side Effects Search Engine. SEARCH ENGINE
Asperger syndrome og Autism
Síður sem fjalla um Asperger og einhverfu
- Aspergers Syndrome in Children Góð síða (mín skoðun)
Blogg úr ýmsum áttum..
Vinir / áhugaverðir einstaklingar.
- Sigurjón Þórðar.
- Nornin
- Tigra
- Anna panna
- Þarfagreinir
- Katrín ódæla
- Klisja
- Olasteina "Fjarskyld frænka"
- Nornin Vinkona af Baggalút.
- Geiri 3d.
- Laramin
- Sigunzo
- Ditto bloggar Yndisleg og spes manneskja.
AGLOCO
- AGLOCO Borgað fyrir að browsa..
http://skorrdal.com/
MICROCHIP - RFID
- Microchip Implants News Articles MIND CONTROL; ÖRFLÖGUMERKINGAR; RFID
UMDEILD MÁLEFNI
- WIDE EYE CINEMA WIDE EYE CINEMA is dedicated to showcasing the very best alternative truth-related documentaries & cinema uploaded onto the World-Wide Web.
MY FAVORITE SITES
- This site is number 1 on 10 black list sites of US gov. Here you find it all.Specially what the elite do not want you to find
- Alvaran Forum about what some call conspiracy
- Prophecies of Sollog Sollog is a POLITICAL PRISONER of the USA!
- Ingaoramas video VIDEOS
- So you wanna talk conspiracies? try this on for size. JUST GO THERE...
- ConCen An eye openinger
- What you should not know...is here.. Knowing litle about lot is better than know lot about a little...
HAARP
- Chemtrails Data Page Chemtrails - Frequently Asked Questions
CHEMTRAILS
- CHEMTRAIL CENTRAL Þetta er forum um Chemtrails og málefni tengd efna úðun úr lofti..
- Chemtrails news, articles and information Cemtrails=Efnarákir
- CHEMTRAILS -HAARP-GEOENGIERING-DEPOPULATION AT WORK CHEMTRAILS síða- fyrrverandi FBI starfsmaður leysir t.d. frá skjóðunni- núna látinn..
- Efnaúðun -veðurfarsstjórnun í gegnum chemtrails Cemtrails=Efnarákir- Ísland er ekki undanskilið þessu ógeði!
- Chemtrails = Aerosol spraying to change the atmosphere. Chemtrails = Aerosol spraying of barium, "fibers", pathogens.
- Efnaúðun -veðurfarsstjórnun í gegnum chemtrails Cemtrails=Efnarákir
TRANSLATE-ÞÝÐA
- Translate your website into 52 languages Just copy and paste the Translate This Button anywhere on your site, it's free and easy. There are no files to upload and it works on almost any website. The Translate This Button is a lightweight JavaScript translation widget. It translates any page quickly using Ajax and the brilliant Google Translate.
VERICHIP-WE THE PEOPLE WILL NOT BE CHIPPED!
Færsluflokkar
- Bloggar
- Bækur
- Dægurmál
- Evrópumál
- Ferðalög
- Fjármál
- Fjölmiðlar
- Heilbrigðismál
- Heilsumálefni
- Kvikmyndir
- Lífstíll
- Ljóð
- Löggæsla
- Mannréttindi
- Matur og drykkur
- Menning og listir
- Menntun og skóli
- Óvenjuleg og umdeild mál
- Samgöngur
- Spaugilegt
- Spil og leikir
- Stjórnmál og samfélag
- Trúmál
- Trúmál og siðferði
- Tölvur og tækni
- Umhverfismál
- Utanríkismál/alþjóðamál
- Vefurinn
- Viðskipti og fjármál
- Vinir og fjölskylda
- Vísindi og fræði
