051209 News As Talked About On The Harry Thomas Show week in review

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat and member of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, plans to introduce an assault weapons ban this week. Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York, was at one time highly rated by the NRA for her advocacy of the Second Amendment.

Newsday claims Gillibrand has “undergone a transformation” over the last three months and has moved away from “her House record that won the NRA’s top rating while remaining a supporter of Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.” Since her Senate appointment, she has “passed just about every test on guns set by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy,” who reintroduced a bill closing the so-called gun-show loophole at a news conference last week.

It appears likely Ms. Gillibrand was a gun-grabber all along and used the Second Amendment as an election ploy. Polls indicate a large percentage of voters strongly support the Second Amendment.

McCarthy’s bill, H.R. 6676, would utilize the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for background checks on all gun store employees and dealers. In addition to H.R. 6676, three other bills have been offered including laws that would make it illegal for known or suspected terrorists to buy guns.

As reported by Infowars last week, the House is currently working on H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily the bill will likely be used in junction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report that characterizes advocates of the Second Amendment and others as terrorists. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists.”

Senator Gillibrand is working closely with gun-grabbing organizations, including New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign, according to Matt Canter, Gillibrand’s spokesman. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and others are working with Gillibrand on “anti-trafficking legislation to stop the flow of illegal guns,” Canter told Newsday.

The Obama administration recently attempted to link the right to own firearms to drug cartel violence in Mexico. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials have said 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States. In fact, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. Statistics reveal that most of the guns flowing into Mexico come from the black market, Russian crime organizations, South America, Asia, Guatemala, and the Mexican Army.

Soon after his shoo-in confirmation, Attorney General Eric Holder revived the assault weapons ban debate. Responding to a reporter’s question on weapons’ regulations, Holder said, “Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder did not provide details on when legislation would be presented to Congress.

Democrats are reluctant to make additional attacks against the Second Amendment. In 1994, the issue was instrumental in handing over control of Congress to the Republicans. Earlier this year, the Democratic-led Senate dealt a body blow to the gun control movement, when 22 Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., joined 40 Republicans to shelve firearms restrictions in the nation’s capital.

Democrats fearful of backlash have told the Obama administration they would “actively oppose” any renewal of the assault weapons ban. Democrat senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus warned they would “strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners.”

Democrats, however, are biding their time. Veteran gun-grabber Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, author of the 1994 assault weapons ban, told CBS’ “60 Minutes” on April 12 that she has no intention of reintroducing the assault weapons ban at this time. “I’ll pick the time and the place, no question about it,” she said, that is to say when the opportunistic introduction of such legislation is politically expedient and will not damage her party.

Government propaganda and exploitation of recent high profile “gun violence” stories by the corporate media have not turned the public against the Second Amendment. “Recent polls show shrinking support for new gun control measures and strong public sentiment for enforcing existing laws instead. So strong is the shift in public opinion that a proposed assault-weapons ban — once backed by three in four Americans — now rates barely one in two,” reports the Houston Chronicle.

An April poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal found that support for curbing the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles has dropped from 75 percent in 1991 to 53 percent today.

A San Francisco Chronicle report about a gun show in Daly City notes that when the doors were opened, people came running in and immediately started panic buying ammo, again emphasizing fears about shortages and the Obama gun ban agenda.

“Everybody’s panic buying,” said a wholesale ammunition dealer, who also requested anonymity. “When the doors opened (on Saturday), people we’re running in,” according to the report.

Gun dealers across the country are reporting a virtual run on ammo as prices soar.

Semiautomatic firearms “are going fast,” according to a dealer quoted in the report. “People are afraid the Obama administration will ban assault weapons.”

Gun owners are also concerned that Obama, despite claiming before the election that he wouldn’t target the second amendment, recently bemoaned the fact that he didn’t have the political power to ban semi-automatic weapons, falsely blaming U.S. gun shops for the violence in Mexico.

Obama is also pushing a treaty that would ban “illicit” manufacture of firearms and reloading.

According to Gun Owners of America,”Illicit manufacturing includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty — just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.”

Despite Obama promising that he was not interested in going after the second amendment before his election, one of his first actions was to appoint the rabidly anti-gun Eric Holder as his Attorney General.

The leaked Obama gun ban list would make millions of Americans criminals for owning weapons such certain types of rifles or pistols. Anti-gun legislation has found its way into stimulus and other unrelated bills as pork barrel. The first steps of the Obama administration with regard to gun control have resulted in record firearm and ammunition purchases across the country.

A sinister bill working its way through the House may eventually serve as a companion piece to the Department of Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremist” report that labels veterans and advocates of the Second Amendment as dangerous terrorists — H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York.

On April 29, with little fanfare or corporate media coverage, H.R. 2159 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The entire bill can be read on the Govtrack website.

A similar bill was introduced in the Senate in 2007 but did not make it out of committee.

As noted above, the DHS has compiled a long list of folks the government considers terrorists. The bill, if enacted, would allow the attorney general, a documented gun-grabber, to deny millions of Americans due process. “[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, tells WorldNetDaily.

On May 1, 2009, Infowars reported on the existence of another DHS document, the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon.” It adds more suspected terrorists to the government’s list, including people working in the alternative media, anarchists, pro-life activists, skinheads, lone terrorists, members of the militia movement, “decentralized” terrorists, and others.

The DHS reports were distributed to “federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”

Earlier this week, a man was stopped in Louisiana and detained by police for the crime of displaying a “Don’t tread one me” bumper sticker on his car. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group, according to The American Vision website. “Don’t tread on me” was originally displayed on a flag designed by general and statesman Christopher Gadsden during the Revolutionary War. It is depicted as a terrorist symbol in the DHS “Rightwing Extremist” report.

During Holder’s shoo-in confirmation hearings earlier this year, Stephen Halbrook, Second Amendment attorney, detailed Holder’s vehement opposition to the right to bear arms. Holder’s role in the Waco massacre and Ruby Ridge were expected to be brought up during the hearings but were not.

Shortly after 9/11, Holder penned a Washington Post op-ed entitled “Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists.” In the article, the future Attorney General argues that a new law should give “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.” He also states that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by various government entities. In order to make his point, Holder makes the ludicrous hypothesis that Osama bin Laden would be able to purchase an unregistered firearm at a gun show in America.

The government now possesses the appropriate “watch lists” and has designated specific categories of Americans as domestic terrorists. If H.R. 2159 becomes law the Obama administration and the Justice Department will go after opponents to their far-reaching plan to disarm the nation and deliver it defenseless into the clutches of bankers and corporatists determined to reduce a once proud constitutional republic to the status of a fuedalist backwater.

Republican Representatives have demanded answers from the Department of Homeland Security over the origins of the leaked security intelligence assessment which equates veterans and gun owners with violent terrorists.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner filed the request using a little known legislative procedure called “a resolution of inquiry”, which ensures that the Democratic leadership will publicly resolve the issue within 14 days.

“The report that came out of DHS was offensive, and unfortunately, Secretary Napolitano still has a lot of explaining to do,” Boehner told the Washington Times.

“She has not explained how this report came about, why she signed off on it, or why she defended it.” the Ohio Republican stated.

The resolution, co-sponsored by Rep. Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, requests that all documents and information pertaining to the compilation of the intelligence assessment be revealed.

“We have made repeated requests that the committee hold a bipartisan oversight hearing, but unfortunately those requests have been ignored. We are left with no other alternative but to demand answers from the secretary of homeland security herself,” Mr. King commented.

The report, entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (PDF link) was leaked to the Internet a fortnight ago.

Further analysis of the document has indicated that it was created by the DHS in 2007, under the authority of the Bush/Cheney administration, a fact that undermines any opportunity for political pointscoring on behalf of the GOP.

The document characterizes concerns about the economy, unemployment, the loss of U.S. sovereignty and the move towards global government as “rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet” which itself is defined as a potential tool for terrorists to network, build bombs, and send encrypted messages to each other.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

Controversy over the assessment was heightened earlier this week when another disturbing DHS security document emerged.

Entitled “Domestic Extremism Lexicon”, it shockingly lists the “alternative media” with other radical extremist groups and implies that people who disagree with the mass media’s version of events are potential domestic terrorists.

Though Janet Napolitano appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, she was not questioned on either of the documents.

First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York congressman’s bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic enough; taken together they portend “a clear and present danger” to the liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.

As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone “militia members”: including people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration.

The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as potentially dangerous “extremists.”

As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment rights to everyone listed above.

According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, “A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans a potential ‘threats,’ could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others–any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential ‘extremism.’

“Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any ‘known or suspected dangerous terrorist.’ The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is ‘appropriately suspected’ of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general ‘has a reasonable belief’ that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

“Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill’s language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being ‘dangerous.’”

WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying, “By [DHS] standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009.”

Pratt was also quoted as saying, “Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast.” He went on to say, “This such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done.”

Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for “extremists,” it looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159.

This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the first people denied their civil rights–especially the right to own and possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led.

I’m not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists’ cache of arms in Concord, Massachusetts, that started America’s War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the “shot heard ’round the world.” And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms.

I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential “extremist.” I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious–and how close–the threat of gun confiscation has become?

If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger’s assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a “New Global Order.” He is also reported to have told Medvedev, “By September we’ll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn’t matter what we do, we’ll still be in charge.” (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)

This leads to a very serious question: how many of America’s gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?

As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now.

On May 5, the WikiLeaks website posted a document entitled “Concept of Operations for Police Intelligence Operations” produced by the U.S. Army and dated March 4, 2009. The 60 page PDF is a “For Official Use Only” intelligence manual from the U.S. Army’s Military Police School.

“PIO [Police Intelligence Operations] supports the homeland defense goals of detecting, deterring, preventing and defeating threats and attacks,” the document states. “PIO supports the range of homeland defense operations and civil support protection capabilities. A CONUS [Contiguous United States] based PIO network that is integrated with local, country, tribal, state and federal, law enforcement entities will ensure a federated approach to enable a unified effort for defense support to civil authorities (DSCA) [Defense Support of Civil Authorities] as well as support (within legal constraints) development and exchange of data assisting in the production of watch lists that deny adversaries access to the homeland, fixed installations/facilities, or expeditionary forces in-transit.”

In short, the document explains how the U.S. military, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, has “integrated” with local law enforcement under the rubric of the GWOT, or so-called Global War on Terrorism. It stresses the need for military police to collect “information that identifies trends, patterns and associations that indicate a possible nexus disrupting or targeting Army operations” within the United States. The “criminal intelligence produced from this analysis should be focused on future coordination” with local law enforcement, again a direct violation of Posse Comitatus.

In 2005, NBC revealed the existence of a DoD database containing information on the antiwar activities of American citizens. “A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a ‘threat’ and one of more than 1,500 ’suspicious incidents’ across the country over a recent 10-month period,” Lisa Myers, Douglas Pasternak, and Rich Gardella reported on December 14, 2005. “Other documents obtained by NBC News show that the Defense Department is clearly increasing its domestic monitoring activities.”

According to Robert Dreyfuss, writing for Rolling Stone, the Pentagon has assembled a nationwide domestic spying machine that rivals the NSA’s warrantless surveillance of telephone and email traffic. “Operating in secret, the Defense Department is systematically gathering and analyzing intelligence on American citizens at home — and a new Pentagon agency called Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) is helping to coordinate the military’s covert efforts with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.” The Pentagon insists the effort is aimed at preventing another attack by al-Qaeda, but as Dreyfuss notes “the military’s efforts at domestic spying have caught few, if any, terrorists.”

It is not merely the antiwar movement the feds and the military are spying on. During the Tea Party antitax protests held last month, a number of people reported the presence of DHS’ Federal Protective Service at the rallies. “The Department of Homeland Security has an important public safety mission,” says spokesman Russ Knocke. “In a post 9/11 world, I think the public would be comforted to know that part of our mission is to maintain situational awareness of possible vulnerabilities to public safety or even security, such as, for instance, at large public gatherings. The department will, as a routine matter, maintain situational awareness of large public gatherings and share that with state and local partners.”

As it turns out, CIFA was not closed down. It was outsourced to QinetiQ, a major British-owned defense and intelligence contractor based in McLean, Virginia. “Pentagon ‘outsourcing’ of intelligence operations to corporations provide yet another layer of ‘plausible deniability’ to the DoD as it wages the administration’s odious ‘war on terror’ against the American people,” writes Tom Burghardt.

During the Republican National Convention, military intelligence teamed up with federal, state, and local law enforcement to violate the civil liberties of Americans and disregard Posse Comitatus. In late 2008, WikiLeaks posted a DHS document detailing how security forces worked together during the RNC. Many federal, state and local organizations are mentioned in this document and a number of these agencies are military based. NORTHCOM figures prominently in the document (see Did Feds Use Military Intelligence to Spy On RNC Protesters? where there is a link to the DHS document).

The “Concept of Operations for Police Intelligence Operations” document is instrumental because it provides additional information on how this “theater of operation” network operates. Intelligence “fusion cells,” the document explains, are now more prevalent in “operational environments” and these cells enable “commanders to have a ’see, decide and act’ advantage over criminal networks, terrorist groups, cells, and individuals [as noted above, consisting primarily of American citizens opposed to government policies] by ensuring police information and police intelligence is integrated as vital pieces of the overall battlefield visualization.”

As documented on the Infowars and Prison Planet website and covered by Alex Jones on his nationally syndicated radio show, military collaboration with local law enforcement has increased substantially since the false flag terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Most recently, military police have patrolled civilian events such as the Kentucky Derby and the Boston Marathon. DHS, federal agencies, and military police have participated in illegal (under Posse Comitatus) checkpoints in Tennessee, California, Texas, and elsewhere. These operations are designed primarily to acclimate the populace to the presence of uniformed and armed soldiers in our midst — in essence, a standing army — a notion completely antithetical to the sensibilities of the founders.

The “Concept of Operations for Police Intelligence Operations” document is another indication that the military is in the process of incrementally imposing a military dictatorship by stealth in the United States under cover of the bogus GWOT. As then General Tommy Franks told Cigar Aficionado magazine in December, 2003, the next terrorist attack will result in a cancellation of the Constitution and the imposition of a military dictatorship.

The next terrorist attack will be pulled off by the same people as the first one — not a distant organization of patsies and dupes created by the CIA and hiding out in caves, but forces within the shadow government. Before this can happen, however, the military and police state apparatus must be in order. “Concept of Operations for Police Intelligence Operations” provides us with another glimpse of the operational plans now underway.

EU police have been in action subduing Serbians protesting against their loss of national sovereignty to the globalist created client state Kosovo.

Yes that’s right - if you didn’t know - the EU now has its own international police force - and they have been busy over the last couple of weeks tear-gassing and stun-grenading Serbian demonstrators upset about the UN-run Kosovo authorities re-building houses for ethnic Albanians in disputed territory.

Is this a portend for when North American Union troops are dispatched to deal with angry Americans protesting against the loss of their sovereignty to a forcibly amalgamated U.S.-Canada-Mexico union of the Americas?

Agreements have already been signed between the U.S. and Canada that “paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency.”

Recall that the Kosovo Liberation Army, a terrorist group with direct links to Al-Qaeda, was sponsored by the CIA during the NATO-led Kosovo war in 1999.

As the Center For Research on Globalization reported, “Despite its links to organized crime and Al Qaeda, the KLA rebel army had been skillfully heralded by the Western media in the months preceding the 1999 NATO bombings as broadly representative of the interests of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.”

You Tube accelerated its aggressive purge against free speech today after the video networking website suspended the Infowarrior Channel, which was the replacement for the previously censored Alex Jones Channel.

When attempting to visit the Infowarrior Channel this morning, one is met with the message, “This account is suspended.”

Just as before, no credible reason has been provided for the suspension of channel. The original Alex Jones Channel was suspended because You Tube claimed that showing a computer print out of a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette news article on camera constituted “copyright violation,” despite the fact that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette denied ever making a copyright complaint.

However, You Tube’s decision to ban both the Infowarrior and the Alex Jones Channel has seemingly backfired, with more Alex Jones videos appearing on You Tube than ever before.

A general video search by date of the term “alex jones” on the You Tube website shows that You Tube users have met our challenge to fight back against Internet censorship, not by admitting defeat and abandoning You Tube, but by bombarding the website with more Alex Jones video uploads than ever before.

Not only are there multiple times more Alex Jones videos being added to You Tube on an hourly basis, but they are being uploaded from numerous different user accounts, making it difficult for You Tube to target individual accounts for suspension.

At time of writing, the first two pages of Alex Jones related videos, when one searches by “recently added,” have been uploaded by no less than 14 different user accounts.

You Tube Free Speech Purge Accelerates, Infowarrior Channel Banned 120509top2a

Screenshot shows different Alex Jones videos being uploaded by numerous different user accounts.

The London Daily News has now picked up on the story, reporting on its website, “Radio and internet journalist Alex Jones has been censored by the internet giant Youtube with the removal of the “Alex Jones Channel” from the site, causing revulsion across the United States and Europe, in what is increasingly being seen as another example of a “Big Brother” intervention in the democratic process.”

“Increasingly YouTube has been scorned for its move away from its foundation of “free speech video” to being seen as part of the establishment it tried to redefine when it was first established,” states the report.

In a related development, Google Video has now suspended all new content from being uploaded and is re-directing users to You Tube, where full videos longer than 10 minutes cannot be uploaded without a special “director” account.

“If current videos will remain online, and for how long is anyone’s guess. The move to suspend all new content from being uploaded adds another attempt to the growing list of methods used to remove viral content from the Internet that is damaging to the Establishment and the New World Order,” writes Mark Dice of the Resistance Manifesto.

We would normally encourage people to subscribe to the new official Alex Jones channel on You Tube, The Infowarrior, but since that has now also been banned we can only reiterate our challenge for You Tube users to continue to upload Alex Jones videos in large quantities in order to break down the electronic Berlin Wall that You Tube and other large video sharing websites are apparently trying to erect at the behest of their corporate masters.

You Tube’s disdain for free speech is rivaled only by their unsurpassed stupidity. Don’t they realize that the more Alex Jones channels they ban, the more resentment they will create amongst You Tube users? This will only lead to more Alex Jones related videos being posted on You Tube. In engaging in this wanton censorship, You Tube is only making a rod for its own back.

While allowing all kinds of x-rated trash to appear on a website that is frequented by millions of children, You Tube is waging a war on free speech and the alternative media by consistently banning our video channels under phony pretexts invented as a way to hide the real reason behind the purge - You Tube’s transformation from a much-loved and popular user-driven video website to a hollow shell that puts the interests of its corporate sponsors above those of the people who helped make it one of the biggest websites in the world today.

Perhaps You Tube should be renamed “Corporate Tube,” because the “You” is certainly being taken out of the equation altogether.

It comes as no surprise YouTube has pulled the plug on Jason Bermas’ Infowarrior channel. In addition to clips from Jason’s show, the channel served as a replacement for the Alex Jones Channel, pulled earlier this month after the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette allegedly filed a complaint with YouTube in response to Alex Jones showing a computer printout of a page from the newspaper’s website on his show. YouTube considers this a copyright violation, a rather absurd accusation considering Viacom filed suit against Google in March 2007, seeking more than $1 billion in damages for allowing users to upload clips of Viacom’s copyright material.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette incident was merely a pretense. YouTube no longer has any use for Alex Jones and thousands of other users who have contributed to the site and have made it what it is today. In fact, YouTube’s users are basically suckers for Google’s corporate vision of the future and they were shamelessly exploited in order to build the site up over the last few years.

According to Nielsen Online, YouTube is the 5th most popular website in the United States and had over 83 million unique visitors in February. It is estimated that 41% of all US video streams will go through YouTube in 2009 and the site will see 375 million unique viewers worldwide.

Even so, YouTube is a failed business model. It loses millions of dollars a year. In order to realize a profit, YouTube has penned deals with with CBS, Lions Gate, MGM, Disney, ESPN and other corporate leviathans. Last month YouTube announced a partnership with Universal Music to build VEVO, a premium music video website.

“Those overtures have led some observers to question YouTube’s long-term ability to serve both its homegrown community and Hollywood, with its emphasis on professionally produced content and tight copyright controls,” Chris Snyder wrote for Wired last month.

But is not simply the copyright issue. YouTube and its parent Google are in the process of “ghettoizing user-generated clips” and deliberately Hulu-izing the site in order to make it acceptable to its corporate partners. YouTube claims it can and will balance both interests.

Hulu is a YouTube spin-off produced by NBC Universal and Fox Entertainment Group. The Hulu venture was announced in March 2007 with AOL, MSN, Facebook, and Yahoo! as partners. Hulu offers commercial-supported streaming video of TV shows and movies from NBC, Fox and many other networks and studios.

YouTube is in the process of a site redesign that “separates its premium and long-form programming from the user-posted videos that account for most of its activity,” Clickz reported in March. In other words, YouTube plans to ghettoize non-corporate content. In addition, YouTube plans to insert ads in the middle of user videos using new technology called Google TV Ads Online.

YouTube’s new business model is a microcosm of the brave new internet envisioned by corporations and government — not unlike corporate-dominated television, an electronic universe supporting millions of channels but with nothing of significance on. In this universe, there will be no space for democratic discussion untethered and micro-managed by government and mega-corporations.

The Hulu-ization of YouTube represents the beginning of this process. In the not too distant future, government will step in at the behest of corporations and impose regulations designed to domesticate the internet and exclude those who do not tote the company line. Jay Rockefeller’s so-called “cybersecurity” bill (allowing the president to shut down the internet on a whim) and the misnamed “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act” represent the beginning of an orchestrated plan to make the internet safe for the ruling elite, government, and transnational corporations.

Jay Rockefeller wasn’t kidding when he said we’d be better off if the internet was never invented — that is to say government and corporations would be better off if an open and democratic internet was suffocated in its infancy.

Free Speech Comes Under Attack By Corporate Members Of The CFR HTSR050609

Truth Tellers No Longer Welcome On Corporate Owned Sites , Free Speech Under Attack

Free Speech Comes Under Fire , Truth Tellers Banned

News Corp will charge for newspaper websites, says Rupert Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch expects to start charging for access to News Corporation's newspaper websites within a year as he strives to fix a "malfunctioning" business model.

Encouraged by booming online subscription revenues at the Wall Street Journal, the billionaire media mogul last night said that papers were going through an "epochal" debate over whether to charge. "That it is possible to charge for content on the web is obvious from the Wall Street Journal's experience," he said.

Asked whether he envisaged fees at his British papers such as the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World, he replied: "We're absolutely looking at that." Taking questions on a conference call with reporters and analysts, he said that moves could begin "within the next 12 months‚" adding: "The current days of the internet will soon be over."

Plunging earnings from newspapers led the way downwards as News Corporation's quarterly operating profits slumped by 47% to $755m, although exceptional gains on sale of assets boosted bottom-line pretax profits to $1.7bn, in line with last year's figure.

Dwindling advertising revenue across print and television divisions depressed the News Corp numbers despite box office receipts from Twentieth Century Fox movies such as Slumdog Millionaire and Marley and Me. But Murdoch said he believed signs of hope were appearing.

"I'm not an economist and we all know economists were created to make weather forecasters look good," he quipped. "But it is increasingly clear the worst is over."

He continued: "There are encouraging signs in some of our businesses that the days of precipitous declines are done, and things are beginning to look healthier."

News Corp's newspaper division barely broke even, with quarterly profits collapsing from $216m to $7m year-on-year. Advertising revenue in Britain fell by 21% and Murdoch revealed the Sunday Times is struggling: "It's still in profit, but only just so." The tabloids had fared better, aided by price battles at supermarkets which spend heavily on print promotions.

Television profits also shrank dramatically, falling from $419m to $4m due to a loss of Superbowl revenue and weaker advertising at the group's Fox channels in the US and its Star network in Asia.

News Corp has cut 3,000 jobs over the last year, although Murdoch said very few affected journalists or "creative" personnel. Its filmed entertainment division enjoyed an 8% rise in profits to $282m, while Fox News Channel in the US helped push profits from cable subscription networks up by 30% to $429m.

But News Corp revealed that its interactive media division, which includes the social networking site MySpace, had turned in a lower contribution. MySpace's management was recently replaced as News Corp struggles to build sustainable profitability but Murdoch dismissed competition from its larger rival, Facebook.

"We're not going for the Facebook model of getting hundreds and hundreds of million of people who don't bring any advertising with them at all," he said.

Meanwhile a threat to close the Boston Globe was averted today as its owner, the New York Times Company, struck a deal with the daily's largest union after a week of talks; the 137-year-old publication is the 14th biggest-selling US paper.

Billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch gave a strange response when asked about plans for mainstream news websites to charge for content, declaring, “The current days of the internet will soon be over.”

He was making reference to the fact that corporate media websites cannot continue to survive under their current failing business model.

The establishment media is dying and advertising revenue has plummeted as people turn to blogs and the alternative media for their news in an environment of corporate lies and spin.

This has forced sectors of the corporate media to charge the dwindling number of loyal readers they have left for news content, a practice which is set to become widespread according to Murdoch. This will only send more people over to the alternative media as the old organs of de facto state-controlled propaganda wither and die.

“Asked whether he envisaged fees at his British papers such as the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World, (Murdoch) replied: “We’re absolutely looking at that,” reports the Guardian. “Taking questions on a conference call with reporters and analysts, he said that moves could begin “within the next 12 months‚” adding: “The current days of the internet will soon be over.”

Murdoch’s newspapers and TV networks, which include Fox News and the Asian Star Network, have seen profits plummet from $216m to just $7m year-on-year. MySpace.com is also floundering despite a recent move to replace the company’s entire management staff.

It was all but over for the Boston Globe this week, following a threat to close the 137-year-old publication after net losses of $85 million this year alone. Only a last minute cost-cutting agreement on behalf of its owner, The New York Times Company, and The Boston Newspaper Guild, saved the newspaper.

But it’s not just establishment newspapers that are struggling to survive - social networking websites like Twitter and corporate online video giant You Tube are also deep in the red. Apparently, paying out millions in server fees for half the population of the planet to watch clips of cute puppies isn’t a sustainable business model.

This is why You Tube is being forced to pursue lucrative partnerships with giant production studios and broadcasters, at the expense of user generated content which has been relegated to a sub-section of its website, taking the “You” out of You Tube altogether. Content that may be deemed harmful to You Tube’s corporate agenda and its multi-million dollar partnership deals, like The Alex Jones Channel, is being systematically erased from You Tube’s website under the pretext of flimsy copyright infringement claims.

The jig is up for the corporate media. If they continue to allow free access to their content they will go out of business because there’s not enough advertising revenue coming in, whereas if they charge for content they will lose a huge chunk of their audience and their influence in shaping the news agenda will wane completely.

This is the price the corporate media has paid for lying, spinning and obfuscating on behalf of the virulently corrupt power elite and expecting the population to eat it up without question.

This what Murdoch is really getting at when he assures us that, “The Internet will soon be over” and it’s down to us to stop that agenda from being realized.

Arianna Huffington, the liberal darling in bed with the globalist George Soros by way of the Bermuda-based Atlantic Philanthropies, has posted an article on her website penned by Rep. Linda Sánchez, the Democrat congress critter from California. Sánchez is behind the so-called Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, an effort to impose draconian regulations on the internet.

Megan Meier, a thirteen year old from Dardenne Prairie, Missouri, killed herself in response to “cyberbullying” on MySpace. It later came out that Megan was harassed by Lori Drew, the mother of a former friend. A federal grand jury indicted Drew on May 15, 2008, on three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress, and one count of criminal conspiracy. She was found guilty on three lesser charges.

For Sánchez and the co-sponsors of this bill the conviction is not enough. They want the full coercive weight of the government behind a law that will punish people for the crime of “cyberbullying” on the internet.

“When so-called child’s play turns hostile and a child becomes a victim, it is time to act,” writes Sánchez on Huffpo. “When so-called free speech leads to bullies having free-reign to threaten kids, it is time to act. The Supreme Court recognizes that in some instances words can be harmful. For example, you cannot falsely yell ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater. If you say it even once you can be held liable. Yet, you can repeatedly emotionally abuse someone with words, pictures, and false impressions online and get away scot-free.”

On April 30, law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh addressed the draconian nature of Sánchez’s bill. Volokh underscores the following language contained in the bill:

Volokh proposes a couple hypothetical situations in regard to the language in the bill:

“The examples could be multiplied pretty much indefinitely,” writes Volokh. “The law, if enacted, would clearly be facially overboard (and probably unconstitutionally vague), and would thus be struck down on its face under the First Amendment. But beyond that, surely even the law’s supporters don’t really want to cover all this speech.”

Obama Democrats are busy at work formulating “diversity of ownership” rules at the Federal Communications Commission, considered by opponents to be a back-door effort to revive the so-called Fairness Doctrine. “The left has reached the conclusion that the political price to pay for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is too high, so now they’re looking at these new means,” Seton Motley, director of communications for the Media Research Center, told Fox News earlier this week. The current chairman of the committee, Henry Rivera, has been singled out for his past support of the measure when he was a commissioner of the FCC from 1981-1985. The doctrine died in 1987, only after Rivera left the FCC.

Democrats and their liberal partisans have repeatedly called for their opponents to be silenced by the government. A rather blatant example of this occurred after Richard Poplawski killed Pittsburgh police officers in April. Daily Kos, Media Matters, and other liberal partisan outlets, orchestrated by the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center, launched a virulent campaign attempting to link Alex Jones to the deranged killer. They argued that “rightwing conspiracy theories” led directly to violence and the murder of cops.

Steve Rendall, FAIR’s senior analyst, notes “that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion” and declares “broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.” FAIR, short for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, is funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund, the MacArthur Foundation, the Schumann Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, so we can assume they influence the sort of “diversity of ownership” pushed by FAIR.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act has nothing to do with protecting children. It is all about whittling away the First Amendment and tricking Democrats and so-called “progressives” into supporting tyranny. Obama’s packing of the FCC with “diversity” activists has nothing to do with making sure minorities have a say in local media dominated by mega-corporations certainly not interested in genuine diversity. It is about making sure alternative media is not only hobbled and fearful — under penalty of law — of hurting the feelings of protected minorities or school children on MySpace without adult supervision. It is about shutting down all opposition.

The South Bend Tribune reports that political activist, author, former diplomat and presidential candidate Alan Keyes has been arrested on the campus of Notre Dame. Keyes was involved in an anti-abortion protest at the time of his arrest.

On May 6, 2009, Keyes announced he would be present at the University of Notre Dame on May 17 and planned to be arrested protesting President Obama’s invitation to speak and receive an honorary degree at the ceremony, the Catholic News Agency reported.

In a statement released earlier this week, Keyes said he “will go to South Bend. I will step foot on the Notre Dame campus to lift up the standard that protects the life of the innocent children of this and every generation. I will do it all day and every day from now until the Master comes if need be, though it mean I shall be housed every day in the prison house of lies and injustice that Obama, Jenkins and their minions now mean to construct for those who will never be still and silent in the face of their mockery of God and justice, their celebration of evil.”

Randall Terry, founder of the the pro-life organization Operation Rescue, appeared this afternoon on the Alex Jones Show with Jason Bermas, Terry said Keyes was arrested with other protesters as they pushed baby carriages with dolls covered in fake blood across the campus of the Catholic university. Terry said the protests will continue.

In 2008, Keyes lost a bid to become the Constitution Party presidential candidate. During the convention, the party’s founder, Howard Phillips, gave a controversial speech in which he referred to Keyes as “the neocon candidate.” Keyes formed a new third party, America’s Independent Party, for his presidential candidacy. In the federal election held on November 4, 2008, Keyes received 47,694 votes nationally to finish seventh

Alan Keyes: Government Will Stage Terror, Declare Martial Law

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes has given perhaps his most dire warning yet, saying that the Obama administration is preparing to stage terror attacks, declare martial law and cancel the 2012 elections, which is why they are demonizing their political enemies as criminals and terrorists.

“It’s obvious that they will stop at nothing,” Keyes told attendees of a reception in Fort Wayne, adding, “We may wake up one day and there’s a series of terrorist attacks, the economy is paralysed….martial law will be declared everywhere in the United States and it won’t end until the crisis ends.”

Keyes said that Americans should be thankful if they even see another election in 2012, stating, “If we don’t wake up and work to see that it happens, we will not see another election.”

“The minute they think they can get away with it, they will end this system of government and that is their intention,” added Keyes, noting that everyone acting as if the time we are in was just “business as usual” reminds him of the attitude of politicians in the Weimar Republic when Hitler was rising to power or eastern Europe when the Communists were taking over after the second world war.

Keyes said that because the majority of people are decent-minded, they believe others will play by the rules when this simply isn’t the case, warning that this attitude will allow evil to take over before we can do anything about it.

“It is so clear hat we have now put a faction in place - they are not playing by the rules and they don’t intend to play by the rules - if they were playing by the rules they wouldn’t have tried to identify their opposition as criminals,” added Keyes, making reference to the recent controversy surrounding the release of the MIAC and Homeland Security reports, which implied that Americans who exercise and are knowledgeable about their constitutional rights are a threat to law enforcement and potential domestic terrorists.

Keyes said that the only solution was from the bottom up because our leaders “are so gutless that they won’t even ask that the Constitution be enforced for clear, plain, absolutely unequivocal requirements,” and respond meekly with “their lips shut and their hearts terrorized.”

Keyes also warned of Obama’s agenda to create a civilian security force and said it was part of the ultimate agenda to disarm American citizens and create a police state.

Keyes has been a vocal critic of Obama, warning that he is a radical Communist who is determined to destroy America, and that if his agenda is not stopped then the country as we know it will cease to exist.

Who Is Bilderburg And What Are They Up To ?

On the eve of the 2009 Bilderberg Group conference, which is due to be held May 14-17 at the 5 star Nafsika Astir Palace Hotel in Vouliagmeni, Greece, investigative reporter Daniel Estulin has uncovered shocking details of what the elitists plan to do with the economy over the course of the next year.

The Bilderberg Group meeting is an annual confab of around 150 of the world’s most influential powerbrokers in government, industry, banking, media, academia and the military-industrial complex. The secretive group operates under “Chatham House rules,” meaning that no details of what is discussed can ever be leaked to the media, despite editors of the world’s biggest newspapers, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Financial Times, being present at the meeting.

According to Estulin’s sources, which have been proven highly accurate in the past, Bilderberg is divided on whether to put into motion, “Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty … or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.”

The information takes on added weight when one considers the fact that Estulin’s previous economic forecasts, which were based on leaks from the same sources, have proven deadly accurate. Estulin correctly predicted the housing crash and the 2008 financial meltdown as a result of what his sources inside Bilderberg told him the elite were planning based on what was said at their 2006 meeting in Canada and the 2007 conference in Turkey.

Details of the economic agenda were contained in a pre-meeting booklet being handed out to Bilderberg members. On a more specific note, Estulin warns that Bilderberg are fostering a false picture of economic recovery, suckering investors into ploughing their money back into the stock market again only to later unleash another massive downturn which will create “massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead,” according to a Canada Free Press report.

According to Estulin, Bilderberg is assuming that U.S. unemployment figures will reach around 14% by the end of the year, almost doubling the current official figure of 8.1 per cent.

Estulin’s sources also tell him that Bilderberg will again attempt to push for the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, a key centerpiece of the agenda to fully entrench a federal EU superstate, by forcing the Irish to vote again on the document in September/October despite having rejected it already, along with other European nations, in national referendums.

“One of their concerns is addressing and neutralizing the anti-Lisbon treaty movement called “Libertas” led by Declan Ganley. One of the Bilderberger planned moves is to use a whispering campaign in the US media suggested that Ganley is being funded by arms dealers in the US linked to the US military,” reports CFP.

Daniel Estulin, Jim Tucker, and other sources who have infiltrated Bilderberg meetings in the past have routinely provided information about the Bilderberg agenda that later plays out on the world stage, proving that the organization is not merely a “talking shop” as debunkers claim, but an integral planning forum for the new world order agenda.

Indeed, just last month Belgian viscount and current Bilderberg-chairman Étienne Davignon bragged that Bilderberg helped create the Euro by first introducing the policy agenda for a single currency in the early 1990’s. Bilderberg’s agenda for a European federal superstate and a single currency likely goes back even further. A BBC investigation uncovered documents from the early Bilderberg meetings which confirmed that the European Union was a brainchild of Bilderberg.

In spring 2002, when war hawks in the Bush administration were pushing for a summer invasion of Iraq, Bilderbergers expressed their desire for a delay and the attack was not launched until March the following year.

In 2008, Estulin predicted that Bilderberg were creating the conditions for a financial calamity, which is exactly what began a few months later with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Bilderberg has routinely flexed its muscles in establishing its role as kingmaker. The organization routinely selects presidential candidates as well as running mates and prime ministers.

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were both groomed by the secretive organization in the early 1990’s before rising to prominence.

Barack Obama’s running mate Joe Biden was selected by Bilderberg luminary James A. Johnson, and John Kerry’s 2004 running mate John Edwards was also anointed by the group after he gave a glowing speech at the conference in 2004. Bilderberg attendees even broke house rules to applaud Edwards at the end of a speech he gave to the elitists about American politics. The choice of Edwards was shocking to media pundits who had fully expected Dick Gephardt to secure the position. The New York Post even reported that Gephardt had been chosen and “Kerry-Gephardt” stickers were being placed on campaign vehicles before being removed when Edwards was announced as Kerry’s number two.

A 2008 Portuguese newspaper report highlighted the fact that Pedro Santana Lopes and Jose Socrates attended the 2004 meeting in Stresa, Italy before both going on to become Prime Minster of Portugal.

Several key geopolitical decisions were made at last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Washington DC, again emphasizing the fact that the confab is far more than an informal get-together.

As we reported at the time, Bilderberg were concerned that the price of oil was accelerating too fast after it hit $150 a barrel and wanted to ensure that “oil prices would probably begin to decline”. This is exactly what happened in the latter half of 2008 as oil again sunk below $50 a barrel. We were initially able to predict the rapid rise in oil prices in 2005 when oil was at $40, because Bilderberg had called for prices to rise during that year’s meeting in Munich. During the conference in Germany, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what happened.

There was also widespread speculation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s “secret meeting,” which was accomplished with the aid of cloak and dagger tactics like locking journalists on an airplane to keep them from tracking the two down, took place at the Bilderberg meeting in DC.

It remains to be seen what kind of mainstream media press coverage Bilderberg 2009 will be afforded because, despite the proven track record of Bilderberg having a central role in influencing subsequent geopolitical and financial world events, and despite last year’s meeting being held in Washington DC, the U.S. corporate media oversaw an almost universal blackout of reporting on the conference, its attendees, and what was discussed.

Once again, it will be left to the alternative media to fill the vacuum and educate the people on exactly what the globalists have planned for us over the coming year.

Leaked documents from the 1955 Bilderberg Group conference held in Germany discuss the agenda to create a European Union and a single EU currency, decades before they were introduced, disproving once again debunkers who claim that Bilderberg has no influence over world events

Leaked papers from the meeting which took place from September 23-25 1955 at the Grand Hotel Sonnenbichl in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, West Germany, were released by the Wikileaks website yesterday.

As we first reported in 2003, a BBC investigative team were allowed to access Bilderberg files which confirmed that the EU and the Euro were the brainchild of Bilderberg. They were probably reading from the same documents that were released by Wikileaks.

It was only last month that Belgian viscount and current Bilderberg-chairman Étienne Davignon bragged that Bilderberg helped create the Euro by first introducing the policy agenda for a single currency in the early 1990’s.

However, the documents show that the agenda to create a European common market and a single currency go back decades earlier.

The summary report of the 1955 meeting talks of the “Pressing need to bring the German people, together with the other peoples of Europe, into a common market.”

The document also outlines the plan, “To arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common European market.”

Just two years later, in 1957, the first incarnation of the European Economic Community (EEC) was born, which comprised of a single market between Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The EEC gradually enlarged over the next few decades until it became the European Community, one of the three pillars of the European Union, which was officially created in 1993.

The 1955 Bilderberg summary outlines a consensus that, “It might be better to proceed through the development of a common market by treaty rather than by the creation of new high authorities.” The EEC was duly created via the Treaty of Rome, which was signed on 25 March 1957.

The same process is still being followed to this day with the Lisbon Treaty, which hands over vast swathes of national sovereignty to the EU by means of the consent of Presidents and Prime Ministers of European countries, rather than by the arbitrary creation of new authorities, a method that would more obviously lay bare the fact that the creation of a federal EU superstate is totalitarian by its very nature.

Even so, debunkers will probably still try and claim that the idea of a common European market was floating around in the early 1950’s and that Bilderberg were merely debating contemporary political ideas.

However, the same cannot be said for the single European currency, which wasn’t even introduced in the form of notes and coins until January 2002, having been first codified in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. The documents prove that Bilderberg members were pushing for its introduction nearly 40 years earlier.

“A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority,” states the summary document.

True to form, the single European currency, the Euro, was not introduced until after the creation of a central political authority - the EU itself.

The document also stresses, “The necessity to bring the German people into a common European market as quickly as possible,” adding that the future was in danger without a “United Europe”.

We also learn that, “A United States participant confirmed that the United States had not weakened in its enthusiastic support for the idea of integration, although there was considerable diffidence in America as to how this enthusiasm should be manifested. Another United States participant urged his European friends to go ahead with the unification of Europe with less emphasis on ideological considerations and, above all, to be practical and work fast.”

Indeed, the sheer stupidity of debunkers to suggest that an event that attracts the titans of government, industry, banking, business and academia, at which the most pressing global issues of the day are vigorously discussed under the cloak of a mutually agreed media blackout, has no bearing on future world events, is the most laughable “conspiracy theory” ever uttered.

Bilderberg’s 2009 agenda has already been leaked before their May 14-17 meeting in Vouliagmeni, Greece. According to investigative journalist Daniel Estulin, one of Bilderberg’s aims is to smear anti-Lisbon Treaty activists and politicians by planting derogatory stories in the media, enabling them to silence opposition to an EU federal superstate that Bilderberg has been carefully cultivating since their very first meetings in the 1950’s - a fact, not a conspiracy theory, proven by Bilderberg’s own internal documents.

This is the second of several articles on Ellen Brown’s remarkable book titled “Web of Debt….the shocking truth about our money system, (how it) trapped us in debt, and how we can break free.” It’s a multi-part snapshot. Reading the entire book is strongly recommended - easily obtainable through Amazon or Brown’s webofdebt.com site.

In the 1890s, “keeping the family homestead was a key political issue” given that foreclosures and evictions “were occurring in record numbers,” much like today. The “Bankers Manifesto of 1892″ spelled it out - a willful plan “to disenfranchise farmers and laborers of their homes and property,” again like today except that now our very freedom and futures are at stake as sinister forces aim to steal them by turning America into Guatemala and lock it down by police state repression.

The panic of 1893 caused an earlier depression - severe enough to establish a precedent of street protests, the result of the first ever march on Washington. Businessman/populist Jacob Coxey led his “Coxey’s Army (of around 500) from Massilon, Ohio (beginning March 25, Easter Sunday) to the nation’s capital to demand jobs and a return to debt and interest-free Greenbacks. Local police intervened. The marchers were disbanded. Coxey was arrested. He spent 20 days in jail for disturbing the peace and violating a local ordinance against walking on the grass. However, he was never charged, then released, and is now remembered for his heroics.

He began a tradition later sparking suffragist marches; unemployed WW I veterans for their “Bonus Bill” money; numerous anti-war and earlier civil rights protests; in 2004, one million in the nation’s capital for women’s rights, and the previous day thousands protesting IMF-World Bank policies.

The late 19th century Populist movement was the last serious challenge to private bankers’ monopoly power over the nation’s money. Journalist William Hope Harvey wrote a popular book titled “Coin’s Financial School” that explained the problem in simple English - that restricting silver coinage was a conspiracy to enrich “London-controlled Eastern financiers at the expense of farmers and debtors.” He called England “a money power that can dictate the money of the world, and thereby create world misery.”

He referred to the “Crime of 73″ that limited free silver coinage and replaced it with British gold. It forced America to pay England $200 million annually in gold in interest on its bonds and inspired William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech. He nearly became president, but lost in a close (big-monied financed) race to William McKinley, but he, too, paid a price. He was later assassinated, likely for his protectionism, very much disadvantaging British bankers. With him gone, the Morgans and Rockefellers dominated US banking, and arranged for friendly leaders to run the country, Teddy Roosevelt included, a man with more bark than bite.

“The trusts and cartels remained the puppeteers with real power, pulling the strings of puppet politicians” who were bought and paid for like today.

Various presidents suggested the worst of what’s now clear. By signing the Federal Reserve Act, Woodrow Wilson was a tool of big money. Yet he belatedly expressed regret, said “I have unwittingly ruined my country,” and called America “one of the worst ruled….most completely controlled governments in the civilized world (run by) a small group of dominant men.”

Franklin Roosevelt was as clear in saying “The real truth (is that) a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.” Other officials said the same thing, and so did Matthew Josephson (in his 1934 book) calling bankers and business titans “Robber Barons” - men who “lived for market conquest, and plotted takeovers like military strategy.”

They sought monopolies for market dominance and trusts - concentrated wealth in a few hands to be manipulated for maximum profits and power. During the Gilded Age, trusts became strong enough to plant “their own agents in the federal commissions, (use) government regulation (for) greater control….protect themselves from competition,” and keep prices high.

Four names (among others) stand out - Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and JP Morgan running finance with the power of a potentate. “He didn’t build, he bought. He took over other people’s businesses, and he hated competition” so he eliminated it. Together with Rockefeller, they dominated business and finance through interlocking directorates, the same way as today throughout industry, commerce and finance.

For his part, Morgan was so dominant, financial writer John Moody called him “the greatest financial power in the history of the world” even before the establishment of the Federal Reserve. Morgan died months before its creation, but his influence made it possible.

His long arm favored the fortunate - with enough funding to monopolize their industries. “But where did (he and other bankers get their money)?” Congressman Wright Patman explained that they created it “out of an empty hat.” They held the ultimate credit card, limitless accounting-entries to buy out competitors, corner raw materials markets, control politicians, and after the birth of public relations, popular opinion the way distinguished author/psychogist and activist Alex Carey explained in his seminal book titled “Taking the Risk out of Democracy:”

“The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.” It came into its own during WW I, then grew, became dominant, and remains near-omnipotent today, even with fissures appearing with enough promise to challenge it.

In 1910, seven financial titans met secretly on this privately-owned island off the coast of Georgia and created the Federal Reserve:

— established three years later on December 23, in the middle of the night, by an act of Congress;

— its most outrageous action ever that few legislators, if any, even read or would have understood if they did because the text was so intentionally vague;

— it enfranchised powerful bankers to hold the nation hostage in permanent debt bondage by giving them the right to create money, in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that states Congress alone has the power “To coin (create) money (and) regulate the value thereof….”

Woodrow Wilson made it possible, “Morgan’s man in the White House” with an administration staffed with his cronies. This act was so publicly harmful it had to be shepherded through a carefully arranged Conference Committee, scheduled for between 1:30 - 4:30AM three days before Christmas when many lawmakers had left town and many others were asleep. It was then enacted the next day - one that will live in infamy for the damage it caused.

“The bill was so obscurely worded that no one really understood its provisions.” The nation’s money would be printed by the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing, then issued as a government obligation (or debt) to the private Federal Reserve with interest.

Nominally, Congress and the president appoint Fed governors, but they operate secretly with no government oversight or control. As a privately owned banking cartel, they’re a power unto themselves. The chairman sits at its helm, but he’s a mere tool of the bankers who control him.

The 1913 Federal Reserve Act “was a major coup” for them. The Fed exists to serve them, not the government or public interest. Therein lies its problem and why it must be abolished.

For over a century, powerful international bankers wanted a private central bank giving them “the exclusive right to ‘monetize’ the government’s debt (that is, print their own money and exchange it for government securities or IOUs.)” The entire Act was written in obscure Fedspeak so no one but its creators knew its purpose.

“In plain English, the Federal Reserve Act authorized a private central bank to create money out of nothing, lend it to the government at interest, and control the national money supply, expanding or contracting it at will.” Nothing has been the same since.

Contrary to common belief, it’s a private banking cartel owned by its member banks in each of its 12 Fed districts. “The amount of Federal Reserve stock” each one holds “is proportional to its size.” The New York Fed is most dominant (like a mother bank) owning 53% of the System’s shares because the nation’s largest commercial banks are located there, on Wall Street, of course, with names like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley prominent and familiar. Bank of America was founded in California and remains concentrated heavily in Western and Southwestern states, yet operates globally like the others.

The largest banks are financial superpowers with interests in commercial and investment banking, insurance, real estate, home mortgages, credit cards, and virtually all things financial - nationally and globally.

Financial commentator Hans Schicht refers to Wall Street’s “master spider” controlling a powerful inner circle of men, headed by him. Their business is done secretly behind closed doors by what he calls “spider webbing.” It exercises “tight personal management and control, with a minimum of insiders and front-men who themselves have only partial knowledge of the game. They also have “leverage” over mergers, takeovers, chain store holdings where one company holds shares of others, conditions annexed to loans, and so forth.

Further, they make concentrated wealth “invisible. The master spider studiously avoids close scrutiny by maintaining anonymity, taking a back seat, and appearing to be a philanthropist.”

Post-WW II, the center of power shifted from the House of Rothschild to Wall Street with David Rockefeller Sr. (John D’s grandson) becoming “master spider,” a sort of boss of bosses, much like the underworld but much more deadly and powerful.

All the more so because “the Robber Barons (used) their monopoly over money to buy up the major media, educational institutions,” and other means of communications. They got all this but Morgan wanted more - to “secure the banks’ loans to the government with a reliable source of taxes, (gotten directly from) the incomes of the people. There was just one snag.” The Supreme Court “consistently” declared federal income taxes unconstitutional. So how were they instituted and why are they willingly paid?

The Constitution omits any mention of a federal income tax because the Founders “considered the taxation of private income, the ultimate source of productivity, to be economic folly.” They also decided that the States and federal government shouldn’t impose the same tax at the same time. Congress was to have responsibility “for collecting national taxes from the States’ ” tax revenues.

Direct taxes were to be apportioned according to each State’s population. “Income taxes were considered unapportioned direct taxes in violation of this provision of the Constitution.”

Except in times of war, no federal income tax existed until the 16th Amendment was ratified on February 13, 1913 empowering Congress to levy one - unapportioned among the states. Even without one, the economy grew impressively for nearly a century and a half, adequately funded by customs and excise taxes.

For a brief period, Congress enacted an income tax in 1894 when the nation was at peace. On April 8, 1895, in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, the Supreme Court held that unapportioned income taxes were unconstitutional. “That ruling has never been overturned.” To get around it, Wall Street packaged the 16th Amendment with the Federal Reserve Act, both in 1913. It applied only to annual incomes over $4000, well above the average level at the time.

The original tax code was simple enough to be covered in 14 pages. It’s now a 17,000 page monster, filled with obscure provisions professionals struggle to understand or even know about. It also has “whole pages devoted to private interests,” including loopholes exempting powerful corporations from paying rightfully owed taxes.

Before WW II, income taxes affected few people. However, from 1939 - 1944, Congress passed various ones, including to fund the war effort, and began letting workers (voluntarily) pay them in installments. Thereafter, “withholding” became mandatory.

“Today the federal income tax has acquired the standing of a legitimate tax enforceable by law, despite longstanding (Supreme Court rulings) strictly limiting its constitutional scope.” Numerous other taxes were also added, including on capital gains, real estate, corporate income, FICA, sales, luxury, and IRS interest and penalties. With all hidden ones included (dozens in all), up to 40% of an average worker’s income goes for taxes.

Enough for some tax protesters to challenge the 16th Amendment’s legitimacy on grounds that it was improperly ratified. However, US courts rejected the argument and now it’s “beyond review” - even though no tax would be needed if the federal government printed its own money interest-free instead of taking ours to defray banker-imposed charges.

After signing the Federal Reserve Act, Woodrow Wilson called himself “a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.” Yet he knew precisely what he did. He was a lawyer, a Ph. D, a historian and political scientist, and former Princeton University president before entering politics.

In theory, the Federal Reserve was established to stabilize the economy, smooth out the business cycle, manage a healthy, sustainable growth rate, and maintain stable prices. It failed dismally on all counts - most noticeably in the 1930s after a depression followed the crash. The Fed wasn’t the solution. It was the problem.

As in recent years, it kept interest rates low and money plentiful - not money, in fact, but “credit” or “debt,” the same problem creating havoc today. In the 1920s, production rose faster than wages, but (again like today) people could borrow on credit. Then as stocks soared in “value,” Wall Street promoted buying them on margin (namely, leverage on credit) on the premise that higher prices could repay loans. It turned “investing” into a “speculative pyramid scheme” based on money that didn’t exist.

The Fed caused the whole scheme with easy and plentiful money (credit). It assured the inevitable crash, and late in the game Fed officials saw it coming. New York Fed governor, Benjamin Strong, warned wealthy industrialists, politicians, and high foreign officials to sell stocks, then began reducing the money supply and raising bank-loan rates to correct the bubble “naturally.” It caused a huge liquidity squeeze. Stock purchases declined. Prices fell. Margins were called causing the crash over three days - so-called Black Thursday (on October 24), Monday and Tuesday.

The subsequent fallout was disastrous. From 1929 - 1933, “the money stock fell by a third, and a third of the nation’s banks closed their doors….It was dramatic evidence of the dangers of delegating the power to control the money supply to a single autocratic head of an autonomous agency.”

It resulted in a “vicious cyclone of debt….dragging all in its path into hunger, poverty and despair” - the very process repeating today, including insiders being tipped off, selling high, profiting from the collapse at fire sale prices, and letting the public pay for the dirty scheme they had in mind in the first place. Then, like today - shifting huge wealth amounts from “the Great American Middle Class to Big Money.”

Instead of shutting the Fed and prosecuting its conspirators, Congress enacted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), “ostensibly to prevent” another collapse. It insured deposits up to $5000 at the time and rescued some banks, but not all. It was for “rich and powerful” ones, the equivalent of prominent names today and considered then like now, “too big to fail” run by officials too important to offend.

Milton Friedman blamed the Great Depression on the contraction of the money supply, but others disagreed. Chairman Louis McFadden of the House Banking and Currency Committee said it “was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence….The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all.”

The “Bankers Manifesto of 1934″ suggested the same thing, and some observers today believe it’s again playing out, this time on a global scale for much greater stakes for both winners and losers.

Roosevelt addressed the collapse straightaway, starting impressively in his first 100 days with the passage of 15 landmark acts, covering:

— empowering the Reconstruction Finance Corporation that was toothless under Hoover;

— the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to refinance homes and prevent foreclosures; and

— an alphabet soup of development agencies in charge of constructing national infrastructure and producing jobs for the unemployed.

In all, it was a whirlwind of achievement in a few short months unlike anything before or since - so much in such a short time. This writer’s late April article said:

Despite its flaws and failures, FDR’s New Deal was remarkable in what it accomplished. It helped people, put millions back to work, reinvigorated the national spirit, built or renovated 700,000 miles of roads, 7800 bridges, 45,000 schools, 2500 hospitals, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 1000 airfields, and various other infrastructure, including much of Chicago’s lakefront where this writer lives. It cut unemployment from 25% in May 1933 to 11% in 1937, then it spiked before early war production revived economic growth and headed it lower.

Challenging Classical Economic Theory - Keynesianism

Post-WW II, it dominated economic policy, the idea being that deficit spending could propel nations to prosperity unlike the classical economic belief that money supply increases weren’t needed. Its theory was that when the supply contracts, so do prices and wages naturally leaving everything in balance like before.

It didn’t work at a time people wanted jobs, but there were few around. Factories could produce, but there was little demand, and resources were available but unused - for the lack of enough pump priming to reinvigorate a collapsed economy.

Enough, but not too much because as long as bankers print money, added liquidity means more debt and a greater amount to service. In addition, doing it crowds out social services, sacrifices industrial growth, and increases inflation hugely over time. The 5 cent ice cream cone and candy bars this writer remembers as a boy today cost around $2.50. If government printed its own money, they might still be a nickel or pretty close.

Congressman Wright Patman suggested it in 1933 by asking: “Why is it necessary to have Government ownership and operation of banks? The Constitution of the United States says that Congress shall coin money and regulate its value,” not hand it over to predatory private bankers.

Even so, in his first few months in office, he got enacted tough reformist legislation, very much impacting bankers. He also “took aim at the trusts and monopolies that had returned in force” in the anything-goes 1920s. By 1929, consolidation left around 200 companies “in control of over half of all American industry.”

FDR reversed the trend with new legislation, reviving earlier trust-busting efforts. He also imposed banking regulations as cited above - enough to get him to call financiers “unanimous in their hatred of me, and I welcome their hatred.” Lucky for him he survived. Big money plays for keeps, wins more often than it loses, and generally on what matters most.

A Texas Democrat, he served in Congress from 1929 - 1976 where from 1963 - 1975 he headed the House Banking and Currency Committee until his death. Unlike his counterparts today in the House and Senate, he was called an “economic Populist,” one way being for how he exposed Fedspeak to reveal the scheme behind it.

In an August 5, 1964 Committee document titled “A Primer on Money,” he concluded:

“The Federal Reserve is a total moneymaking machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover (them) simply by asking the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving to print them.”

Although the Fed now returns most interest on its government bonds to the Treasury, of far greater importance is the windfall its member banks get. “The bonds that have been acquired essentially for free become the basis of the Fed’s ‘reserves” - the phantom money that is advanced many times over by commercial banks in the form of loans.”

Virtually all money in circulation comes from the Fed and its member banks, expanded by a factor of about 10 (through fractional reserve lending) for every federal debt dollar monitized. It all “consists of loans on which the banks have been paid interest.” This interest, not what the Fed gets, “is the real windfall to the banks.

The limitless money-creation machine is kept hidden “in obscure Fedspeak,” even undecipherable to people who think they understand the process. In The Creature from Jekyll Island, Ed Griffin states that:

“modern money is a grand illusion conjured by the magicians of finance and politics. (The Fed’s function) is to turn debt into money. It’s just that simple….if one remembers that the process is not intended to be logical but to confuse and deceive.” It has to be. Would the public ever put up with it if they realized they’d be had - that their tax money was being used to enrich bankers, and Washington made it possible.

“Magical(ly) multiplying reserves is called fractional reserve banking” that seems more like a con or “shell game.” Each dollar deposited “magically” becomes about 10 in the form of loans or computer-generated funds. As explained below, “reserves” are being phased out so the 10 - 1 multiple is actually higher but the principle is the same.

So if $1 million deposited becomes $10 million, and $900,000 can be loaned out (the other $100,000 required for reserves), “money created out of thin air (at 5% interest) is doubled in about two years.”

The Fed claims it returns 95% of its profits to the Treasury. In fact, it’s only the interest on federal securities held as reserves. Far more important is the windfall afforded banks, the Fed’s owners, that “use the securities as the ‘reserves’ that get multiplied many times over in the form of loans” that generate huge profits for them.

Wright Patman wanted to abolish the Open Market Committee and nationalize the Fed, thus giving Congress control of it as a “truly federal agency” issuing interest-free money.

The Fed is now heading for a zero percent reserve requirement meaning they’ll be “no limit to the number of times deposits can be relent.” There’s effectively no limit now as if banks exhaust their reserves, they can borrow freely from the Fed - today at zero percent interest.

“Banks don’t have to have the money they lend before they make loans, because the Fed will ‘provide’ the necessary reserves by making them available at the federal funds rate” - today amounting to limitless free money at zero percent interest to be loaned out at higher rates for profit. The “slight of hand” is that the Fed “creates reserves out of thin air.”

Loans then become deposits that banks can freely re-lend many times over - the more deposits, the greater the amount of lending. It’s a process of multiplying the money supply and charging interest for doing it, a very profitable business when working well in a healthy economy.

— when borrowers spend their money, banks raise their reserves back to the required 10% (or less) “by borrowing from the Fed or other sources;” and

— the Fed never runs out of reserves because its “open market operations” create more of them; it simply manufactures whatever amounts it wishes out of thin air, and the public is none the wiser or that they’re being taxed to pay for this shell game.

Reserves don’t comprise safe money to pay claimants. They’re accounting entries at Federal Reserve banks letting commercial banks “make many times those sums in loans.” In plain English, “reserve accounts are a smoke and mirrors accounting trick concealing the fact that banks create the money they lend out of thin air, borrowing any ‘reserves’ they need from the Fed, which also creates the money out of thin air.” What a business, especially given how secretive it is under the protection and auspices of the federal government that sanctions the con.

There’s more as well. Besides what they loan out, banks “create their own investment money” to use for their own purposes. Traditionally, commercial banks invested conservatively, but not investment banks. They raise money for their clients through stock issuances and sales. But more important is their “proprietary trading” that involves using their own money to buy or sell stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities, or any other financial instrument or derivative thereof no matter how risky.

Since investment and commercial banks may be one in the same, limitless sums are available through magical money creation and open-ended Fed borrowing, then leveraged multiple times through more borrowing. The game worked “magically” until it no longer did the old way, so alternatives are used.

The 1929 “Crash” happened on three “Black” days but “continued for nearly four years, stoked by speculators who made huge profits not only on the market’s” ascent but during its plunge to 11% of its peak value.

Called a “bear raid,” it targets vulnerable stocks for “take-down” quick profits or corporate takeovers at fire sale prices. When done on a large scale, short selling can impact markets greatly on the downside just like heavy “program buying” can rocket it up. The whole business amounts to blatant manipulation for quick profits.

Short sellers actually do it with borrowed (not owned) stock, then sell it into the market. If it declines (it may also rise, of course), it’s re-bought at the lower price, returned to the seller, with short-sellers pocketing the difference as profit. It’s not investing. It’s gambling with someone else’s stock, without permission to borrow it, and as a result harms its owner by driving down the price when it works.

“Short selling is sometimes justified as being necessary to keep a brake on (over-exuberance) that might otherwise drive popular stocks into dangerous ‘bubbles.’
(However,) Any alleged advantages to a company from the liquidity afforded by short selling (and supposedly keeping markets honest) are offset by the serious harm (this causes) companies targeted for take-down(s) in bear raids.” When done with enough force, it can destroy companies if that’s the intent.

“Short selling is the modern version of the counterfeiting (that brought) down the Continental in the 1770s.” Currencies, bonds, and commodities can be shorted just like stocks - to manipulate them for profit.

Worse still, and illegal, is so-called naked short-selling without first borrowing the security shorted, assuring it can be borrowed, or arranging to borrow it as required by law - the reason being that it’s an even easier way to manipulate stock prices so SEC regulations ban it.

Even so, the idea that markets move randomly is rubbish. So is believing that companies or nations don’t target competitors for destruction by attacking their worth through short selling or other manipulative ways.

“Hedge funds are private funds that pool the assets of wealthy investors with the aim of making ‘absolute returns’ - making a profit whether (markets go) up or down” on whatever financial assets they invest in. Leverage is used for maximum profitability, the more of it the greater gain or loss. In futures trading, it’s called the margin - placing “many more bets than if they had paid the full price.”

Originally, hedge funds were to “hedge (investment) bets….against currency or interest rate fluctuations (but) they quickly became instruments for manipulation and control.” At their peak, they controlled over half of daily equity market trading because of their numbers, size, amount of capital, and frequency of their buying or selling.

Derivatives are one of their key tools - essentially making “side bets that some underlying investment will go up or down” to insure against the risk. “All derivatives are variations on futures trading (and like it) is inherently speculation or gambling.” Familiar examples include puts and calls - on whether assets will go down or up.

“Over 90% of the derivatives held by banks….are ‘over-the-counter’ (ones) specially tailored to financial institutions (with) exotic and complex features, not traded on standard exchanges.” They’re unregulated, hard to trace, and “very hard to understand,” quite often impossible. In a 1998 interview, banking columnist John Hoefle called them “the last gasp of a financial bubble.” More recently Warren Buffett said they were “financial weapons of mass destruction” even though he owns a sizable amount of them and incurred considerable losses as a result.

Derivatives aren’t assets. They’re “just bets” on how assets will perform using very little real money. Most is borrowed to make private unreported, unregulated bets that have soared to a “notional value” of around $370 trillion, according to the Bank for International Settlements as of 2006. Notional value is “the number of units of an asset underlying the contract, multiplied by the spot price of the asset.” In other words, “fanciful, dubious or imaginary” assets.

The amount gets so large because when unregulated “gamblers can bet any amount of money they want,” and when markets work well for them, the sky’s the limit. In mid-2006, the Office of the Controller of the Currency reported that around 97% of US bank-held derivatives were owned by five major US banks, including JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup. In November 2005, Bloomberg reported that the credit derivatives market was “vulnerable to a crisis if one (of their major bank holders) fails to pay on contracts that insure creditors from companies defaulting….” John Hoefle warned we were “on the verge of the biggest financial blowout in centuries, bigger than the Great Depression….”

Since banks can create money out of thin air, how can they go bankrupt? Because under accounting rules, commercial banks have to balance their books so their assets equal liabilities. “They can create all the money they can find borrowers for, but” if loans default, banks must record a loss.

Just imagine - if the government created money and not banks, economic stability would follow, crises could be avoided or greatly lessened, inflation would be minimal or non-existant, prosperous growth would be long-term, and bank loans would be far less risky than today assuring steady profits but in smaller amounts.

Fed DreadThe New York Fed is the most powerful financial institution you've never heard of. Look who's running it.

The kerfuffle about current New York Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Stephen Friedman's purchase of some Goldman stock while the Fed was involved in reviewing major decisions about Goldman's future—well-covered by the Wall Street Journal here and here—raises a fundamental question about Wall Street's corruption. Just as the millions in AIG bonuses obscured the much more significant issue of the $70 billion-plus in conduit payments authorized by the N.Y. Fed to AIG's counterparties, the small issue of Friedman's stock purchase raises very serious issues about the competence and composition of the Federal Reserve of New York, which is the most powerful financial institution most Americans know nothing about.

A quasi-independent, public-private body, the New York Fed is the first among equals of the 12 regional Fed branches. Unlike the Washington Federal Reserve Board of Governors, or the other regional fed branches, the N.Y. Fed is active in the markets virtually every day, changing the critical interest rates that determine the liquidity of the markets and the profitability of banks. And, like the other regional branches, it has boundless power to examine, at will, the books of virtually any banking institution and require that wide-ranging actions be taken—from raising capital to stopping lending—to ensure the stability and soundness of the bank. Over the past year, the New York Fed has been responsible for committing trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to resuscitate the coffers of the banks it oversees.

Given the power of the N.Y. Fed, it is time to ask some very hard questions about its recent performance. The first question to ask is: Who is the New York Fed? Who exactly has been running the show? Yes, we all know that Tim Geithner was the president and CEO of the N.Y. Fed from 2003 until his ascension as treasury secretary. But who chose him for that position, and to whom did he report? The N.Y. Fed president reports to, and is chosen by, the Fed board of directors.

So who selected Geithner back in 2003? Well, the Fed board created a select committee to pick the CEO. This committee included none other than Hank Greenberg, then the chairman of AIG; John Whitehead, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs; Walter Shipley, a former chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, now JPMorgan Chase; and Pete Peterson, a former chairman of Lehman Bros. It was not a group of typical depositors worried about the security of their savings accounts but rather one whose interest was in preserving a capital structure and way of doing business that cried out for—but did not receive—harsh examination from the N.Y. Fed.

The composition of the New York Fed's board, which supervises the organization and current Chairman Friedman, is equally troubling. The board consists of nine individuals, three chosen by the N.Y. Fed member banks as their own representatives, three chosen by the member banks to represent the public, and three chosen by the national Fed Board of Governors to represent the public. In theory this sounds great: Six board members are "public" representatives.

So whom have the banks chosen to be the public representatives on the board during the past decade, as the crisis developed and unfolded? Dick Fuld, the former chairman of Lehman; Jeff Immelt, the chairman of GE; Gene McGrath, the chairman of Con Edison; Ronay Menschel, the chairwoman of Phipps Houses and also, not insignificantly, the wife of Richard Menschel, a former senior partner at Goldman. Whom did the Board of Governors choose as its public representatives? Steve Friedman, the former chairman of Goldman; Pete Peterson; Jerry Speyer, CEO of real estate giant Tishman Speyer; and Jerry Levin, the former chairman of Time Warner. These were the people who were supposedly representing our interests!

Of course, there have been the occasional nonfinance representatives from academia and labor. But they have been so outnumbered that their presence has done little to alter the direction of the board.

So is it any wonder that the N.Y. Fed has been complicit in the single greatest bailout of poorly managed banks in history? Any wonder that it has given—with virtually no strings attached—practically the entire contents of the Treasury to the very banks whose inability to manage risk has brought our economy to its knees? Any wonder that not a single CEO or senior executive of a major bank has been removed as a condition of hundreds of billions of direct cash and guarantees? Any wonder that, despite its fundamental responsibility to preserve the integrity of the banking system, it sat quietly on the sidelines as the leverage beneath the banks exploded and the capital underlying their investments shrank?

I do not mean to suggest that any of these board members intentionally discharged their duties with the specific goal of benefitting themselves. Rather, what we have seen is disastrous groupthink, a way of looking at the world from the perspective of Wall Street and Wall Street alone. That failure has brought the world economy to the edge of unraveling. And some of Geithner's early missteps betrayed an inability to get beyond this tunnel vision, such as the idea that the banks need to be first in line to be paid and to be paid in full. We can only hope that Geithner, who, to his credit, did try to raise some of the regulatory issues that mattered while he was at the Fed, is no longer in the mental prison of Lower Manhattan and will have more success now that he has a board of one—President Obama.

Perhaps it is time to calculate what these board members have been paid by their banks in salary and bonuses over the years and seek to have them return it to the public as small compensation for their failed oversight of the N.Y. Fed. And more fundamentally, perhaps it is time to take a hard look at the governing structure and supposed independence of this institution that actually controls the use of our tax dollars and, heaven help us, the fate of our economy.

Speaking about President Obama’s stimulus package and newly announced budget, William Engdahl says the fundamental causes of the economic crisis were missed. Until [President] Obama reinstates Glass-Steigel restraints on banking which were repealed by the Clinton administration in 1999 and begins to re-regulate the financial system, there will not be a flow of healthy credit into the healthy economy.

A March 2009 policy brief by the United Nations Population Division reveals that the long-term plan for worldwide population reduction is not going fast enough, not by a long shot. Under the desperate headline ‘What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?’ the policy brief gives an overview of the progress made by developing countries in regards to the globalists set goal of reducing population and proposes several ways of speeding up the death. Richly draped with graphic illustrations on the state of global population and the progress made by the UN to bring back fertility to ‘acceptable’ levels, the policy brief advises an increased effort on the part of governments to commit to a strict family planning- policy and other measures designed to bring a halt to life.

‘The persistence of high fertility in the majority of the least developed countries and the slow fertility reductions observed among them are associated with high levels of unmet need for family planning.(…) The reduction of fertility could be accelerated if effective measures were taken to satisfy the existing unmet need for family planning.’

After these recommendations, the authors plunge into a long, wailing lament about the slow progress of the desired reducing of the population. They also point the finger to a lack of commitment of the governments concerned and, as expected, the need for a global intervention in order to avoid certain destruction.

This recent policy brief was just one update out of many in regards to the long-term plan by the elite to significantly bring down the numbers of the existing earth population. From the moment the Rockefeller funded ‘family planning’-machine was widely kicked off in the 1960s and 70s, numerous meetings have been held in the last couple of decades where various strategies were discussed to implement population-reduction on as large a scale as possible. The strategies in question were especially directed towards the third world as the globalists had virtual carte blanche in the impoverished developing countries. The famous 1994 population conference in Cairo outlined some of the proposed strategies to be implemented. Then Secretary-General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his opening statement on the International Conference on Population and Development, stated that:

‘I am not exaggerating when I say that not only does the future of the human society depend on this Conference but also the efficacy of the economic order of the planet on which we live.’

During a follow-up-meeting held in New York on December 1994, the United Nations’ participants came up with some practical solutions to the ‘population problem’ - one of which is the integration of population issues with matters of ‘environment’ and ‘human development.’ Another part of the agenda of pressing people to cut down on the number of children was to combine the issue of family-planning with environmental issues:

‘Several priority areas were identified that needed immediate action by the participants. These included creation of awareness of the interrelationships between environment, population and development; advocacy; education; training; population management; gender concerns; monitoring and evaluation; and information dissemination and networking.’

Under the headline: ‘Youth NGOs Agree to Integrate Environment and Population Issues in their Activities’ were mentioned the following activities to brainwash young NGO’s into the right mindset by, again, mixing in environmental issues with population issues:

‘To cooperatively address development problems from the youth perspective, which will ensure their maximum participation, a Working Group of the Regional Consultation of Youth NGOs in Asia and the Pacific was organized in 1994 to mobilize a network of youth NGOs in the region. Among the current issues identified by the Working Group as requiring priority attention were the problems dealing with population, environment and sustainable development. Hence, a Working Group Meeting of the Regional Consultation of Youth NGOs in Asia and the Pacific was held from 19-21 April 1995 at the UNESCO PROAP to discuss and shape a plan of action integrating issues on environment, population and development for consideration by the youth NGOs. (…) To help them develop a relevant plan of action, the participants were exposed and sensitized to the current policies and programmes adopted by FAO, UNEP, UNFPA, and UNESCO in the areas of population, environment and development.’

Further on the use of mass-media is being proposed as effective ‘carriers of population-information’ to hammer dehumanization into the collective consciousness:

‘With more than 2 billion radios in the world, roughly one for every three people, and growing number of televisions, the electronic media plays an increasingly important and influential role in building awareness of population and other development issues.’

Radio and television soap operas featuring family planning themes, popular songs on population-related issues, and phone-in question-and-answer sessions have all had an impact in different countries. The use of such media can be very important where literacy is low or where written information is not widely circulated. A TV soap opera series is credited with bringing thousands to family planning clinics in Mexico, and night-time drama series integrating family planning themes have proved successful in Egypt, Nigeria and Turkey.‘

In a January 1994 preparation meeting for the Cairo conference called ‘Family Planning Communications Strategies Examined’ the issue was discussed how best to use the media to create tolerance among the general public and ‘how attitudes and beliefs could be changed through the innovative use of traditional and mass media.’

‘The meeting featured case studies and presentations by communication practitioners and covered a wide range of subjects, such as: the use of folk tradition and drama to organize community action in Egypt; the use of micro-communications to encourage acceptance of family planning in the Philippines; the use of traditional and modern media in Ghana; and the use of songs to propagate family planning messages in Latin America. The success in India and Mexico of radio and television soap operas and films on family planning subjects was also discussed.’

During the meeting the Executive Coordinator of the ICPD, Jyoti Shankar Singh, stressed the importance of using mass media to ‘convey family planning and reproductive health messages’:

‘Electronic media, print media (and) interpersonal interventions were all part of the kind of comprehensive information, education and communication (IEC) strategies we need in pursuit of population goals.’

In another technical report (‘Guidelines on Basic Education with special attention to Gender Disparities for the UN Resident Coordinator System’) the message is repeatedly conveyed that:

‘It is important that information be disseminated through various channels including traditional means and packaged in various forms to allow both literate and illiterate persons to understand the key messages.’

In 1997 the UNFPA organized a ‘Regional Media Seminar on Population and Development’ for the role of the mass media in (euphemistically called) ‘Information Repackaging’ for the Pacific islands. The UN officials boasted on the success of the seminar:

‘The seminar brought together journalists in the print and radio media from 9 countries of the South Pacific to explore both the role and potential of mass media as a vehicle for population advocacy, information, education and communication. (…) The seminar explored the role of the media in developing and packaging population materials for identified target groups. The meeting also provided development partners with an opportunity to forge networks with media personnel and develop effective strategies to better address population and development goals and accelerate the implementation of the ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development) Programme of Action.’

In other words: every possible resource should be utilized for propagandizing different target audiences. But the people burdened with designing and implement population education on a large scale emphasized the need for a common tongue and sequence of arguments with which the different UN-divisions sell the people on the idea of dehumanization.

‘Mr. Michael Vlassoff, Senior Technical Officer, Technical and Evaluation Division, UNFPA, introduced the work of the Working Group on Policy-Related Issues. He explained that the Working Group had decided to address the “common advocacy” concern by drawing up a Statement of Commitment that would then be issued by all agencies and organizations involved in the IATF. The aim of such a statement would be to ensure that all UN agencies and organizations use the same language regarding population and development issues.’

The report goes on to list these arguments with which populations worldwide should be lured into embracing modern-day eugenics as a sensible policy:

‘The “Statement of Commitment on Population and Development by the United Nations System”, drafted by the Working Group, is divided into three sections: a general introduction stressing the commitment by the UN agencies and organizations to implement ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development); a section on the linkages between population issues and other development issues; and a concluding section calling for global partnership in addressing these interrelated issues.’

In short- a great part of the 1990s were occupied with a great mobilization of mass media for propaganda purposes by the global elite, a test case so to speak, before implementing the same strategies worldwide in the first decade of the 21st century. And lo and behold! The great global warming swindle arrives just in time as an environmental as well as a development issue to attach the basic message to: there are too many of us- and our numbers should be reduced before the planet is destroyed. Because the warming is global, the response should be so as well. However eloquently the message may be presented by hopelessly compliant media outlets, it is the tyrant’s voice we discern amidst the chatter- and all with ears to hear should educate their neighbor in this all-out information war. Let’s not forget what the elite who have funded the UN from the moment of its very conception have always aspired. In the words of the aristocratic fiend Prince Philip:

‘If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.’

A third of the world’s population could be infected with swine flu, expert projections suggest.

Although one in three who come in contact will likely become infected, the Imperial College London team declined to estimate the death toll.

The number of laboratory-confirmed swine flu cases has reached 5,251 in some 30 countries around the world, with 61 having died from the disease, the World Health Organization has confirmed.

Working in collaboration with the WHO and public health agencies in Mexico, the researchers assessed the Mexico epidemic using data to the end of April and taking into account factors like international spread and viral genetic diversity.

2 Billion Infected? WHO Stokes Swine Flu Fear

Disease Experts Say Dedicated Swine Flu Vaccine Is Becoming More Likely

By DAN CHILDS and MICHELLE SCHLIEF
ABC News Medical Unit

May 7, 2009—

The World Health Organization may have inadvertently triggered a new wave of fear over the threat of a swine flu pandemic today by suggesting that up to 2 billion people could be infected if the current outbreak worsens.

"If the situation continues to evolve and the virus does become established in other countries, and we do move into a pandemic, we would expect the virus to infect many people," said WHO chief Keiji Fukuda at a press conference today. "Perhaps a third of the world's population could be infected with this virus, based on previous pandemic."

Fukuda quickly noted to reporters that he was making statement based on data from past pandemics and was not a predicting what would happen with the current swine flu outbreak.

"I do not want you to walk out of here saying that there is an estimate that 2 billion will get infected in the next year or so," he said. "Please do not interpret this as a prediction for the future."

The comment immediately ignited debate among infectious disease experts.

"I think that WHO could serve the world health better by providing a more evidence-based, sensible 'benchmark' of H1N1 infection," said Ed Hsu, associate professor of public health informatics at the University of Texas School of Health Information Sciences and School of Public Health. He argued that the 2 billion figure, based on past pandemics, does not take into account recent public health improvements. Moreover, his own research has suggested that the rate of swine flu infection in the United States may have already stabilized.

"One could reasonably question the reliability of WHO's statement of mass infection," he said. "By making such statement without strong backing WHO may risk putting its accountability on the line."

On the other side of the argument is Dr. Christian Sandrock, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the UC Davis School of Medicine. He said the numbers cited by Fukuda are less important than the overall message, which is that we should be prepared for a second wave of swine flu later this year.

"I think this is an important discussion -- not the numbers, but the likelihood of larger spread in the second wave," he said, adding that such a discussion is crucial for vaccine development and other issues of preparedness. "Much better to do this now than later."

The Swine Flu Vaccine Question

Still, the question of whether the public and the medical community should worry about a possible swine flu pandemic has big implications for preparing for such an event -- particularly in regard to vaccines.

As drug makers await the viral "seed strain" they need to begin manufacturing doses of swine flu vaccine by the millions, health officials are mulling what form the jabs might take -- and if Americans may be facing up to three needle jabs this fall.

The debate is not a trivial one. While infectious disease experts have said that there is much about the new strain of the H1N1 virus that they still do not know, government agencies must decide soon whether or not a swine flu vaccine will be needed -- particularly because such a vaccine would take months to develop and produce.

The risk of moving forward is that the virus will fizzle, making such a vaccine unnecessary. This would cost millions and, for pharmaceutical companies, waste precious time and resources.

The risk of delaying, on the other hand, is that the virus will resurge later this year and spread viciously through an unprotected populace.

Dr. Peter Katona, for one, believes one of these sets of risk far outweighs the other.

"To have a non-pandemic and waste the effort is worth it, compared to having a pandemic and not being optimally prepared," said Katona, an associate professor of clinical medicine at The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

"It would take a brave soul to operate under the impression that we're not going to see this [swine flu] again in the fall," agreed former CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding. "Ideally, we want a just-in-case vaccine. Even it is no worse than seasonal flu, we will want a vaccine."

Drug makers already are preparing for such an effort. Pennsylvania-based Sanofi-Pasteur, the only U.S.-based manufacturer of injectable seasonal flu vaccine, said that it is in daily contact with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, waiting for the green light to begin the process.

"We expect in the next couple of weeks that the decision will be reached to make a pandemic flu vaccine," said Rick Smith, vice president of Strategic Programs and Projects for Sanofi-Pasteur. "Right now, we're getting everything ready -- getting raw materials, getting eggs, assessing production schedules."

But the exact form which such a vaccine would take -- specifically, whether it is lumped into the usual seasonal flu vaccine or offered as a separate shot or series of shots -- is still in question. And while this detail may seem trivial to some, it could well determine how effectively it is used.

Three's a Crowd? Concerns of Multiple Jabs

The question of what form a swine flu vaccine might take hit headlines late Tuesday when The Washington Post reported that the Obama administration may be considering a vaccination plan this fall for Americans that would involve a battery of three shots, two of which would be against the new viral threat.

Dr. Greg Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic's Vaccine Research Group, said he believed a swine flu vaccine would almost certainly have to take this form.

"Three shots are definitely possible," he said. "I think it is the only route we can go."

Poland added that manufacturers are already in the process of making the seasonal flu vaccine in preparation for the next regular flu season. Adding protection from another viral strain into this vaccine would involve a new layer of approval from regulatory authorities -- a complex step that could cost precious time.

Dr. D.A. Henderson, a distinguished service professor at Johns Hopkins University and an infectious disease expert, agreed.

"The production of the trivalent seasonal vaccine is now under way and continuing," he said. "To me, it would make sense to advise giving one dose of the [seasonal flu vaccine] and two doses of the new H1N1."

But not all agree that this is the best option. Dr. Pascal Imperato, chair of the department of preventive medicine and community health at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, N.Y., said that in a perfect world, one shot would serve a dual purpose of protecting against both seasonal and swine flu.

"The best option, if possible, would be to incorporate the H1N1 antigens into the usual annual vaccine and recommend only one inoculation," he said, adding as a caveat, "Whether or not this is scientifically feasible remains an open question."

Swine Flu Vaccine: Is It Worth It?

Another open question is whether the threat posed by swine flu actually warrants its own vaccination. As much media coverage that swine flu has generated over the past couple of weeks, case and casualty figures remain low when compared with other diseases.

"If [the U.S.] decided to make the vaccine investment," Hsu noted, "the administration would have to make a stronger case, at some point, why a disease that caused two deaths and less than 500 cases in the U.S. in a two-week period -- with a risk not greater than seasonal flu -- would warrant the multibillion dollar investment, versus other prevalent diseases such as hepatitis, cancer or [cardiovascular disease] that each caused dozens of thousand deaths and affects millions of Americans each year."

Dr. Harley Rotbart, professor of microbiology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and author of the book "Germ Proof Your Kids -- The Complete Guide to Protecting (without Overprotecting) Your Family from Infections," said that the effort to produce a special vaccine would be a massive undertaking -- especially considering that such an effort would take place at the same time that companies are manufacturing seasonal flu vaccine.

"How to fit an 'emergency' additional vaccine into the mix without disturbing what we do well is ... [a] challenge," Rotbart said.

And even with all drug makers producing the vaccine, it is unlikely that there would be enough to protect everyone.

"World ability is about one billion doses," Poland said. "That is not enough. There are priority tiers on who gets vaccine. Little or no [vaccine] will go to underdeveloped countries."

Americans May Not Get Their Shots

Domestically, the questions over how many Americans will accede to three needle pokes instead of just one is another part of the equation, of course. In a Gallup poll released today, only 46 percent of respondents said they would get a swine flu vaccine shot if available, while 52 percent said they would not.

And though the medical community at large is in general agreement that vaccines are notably safe, the jabs are not without their possible side effects and risks.

Notably, during the 1976-1977 flu season, those who received a vaccine for swine influenza appeared afterward to have an increased risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) -- a disease in which the body damages its own nerve cells, leading to muscle weakness and occasional paralysis. According to the CDC, between 5 and 6 percent of all patients with GBS die from it.

"Many will remember reports of this complication from 33 years ago, and most will certainly be reminded of it by the press and media," Imperato said.

Health officials emphasize that this risk is no longer an issue, thanks to improved safety testing and additional research. Still, many of those who remember the episode may be reticent to opt for the shot, some doctors worry.

"There is not enough time or a large enough sample to test any vaccine before we will need it this fall," Olds said. "That will create uncertainty and decrease coverage. ... Most people will likely not take it for fear of the neurologic side effects unless they are facing a major swine flu pandemic with a higher-than-currently-observed mortality rate. Most would prefer to sit back with some Tamiflu in their pocket and wait and see."

And then there is the question of whether people will be willing to visit the doctor multiple times for multiple shots -- particularly in light of the common complaint among infectious disease experts that not enough Americans get their single seasonal flu shot already.

Still, Henderson said he believes that even if vaccinating the public against both seasonal flu and the swine flu takes multiple jabs -- and multiple visits the doctor -- a properly conceived public health effort could protect much of the public from illness.

"I would speculate that the [seasonal flu vaccine] and one dose of the H1N1 could be given at the same time, but that needs to be confirmed," he said. "Thus, it might be possible to deliver the needed vaccine with just two visits.

"Yes, I've dealt with a number of vaccine campaigns, and I know the potential confusion that could and will result in some instances. However, this is not exactly rocket science. It can be done."

The ABC News Medical Unit contributed to this report.

Stewart Harbut, his pregnant wife Sasha and their four young children claim they were “pinned down” at Sharm el Sheikh International Hospital while doctors forced them to give swabs.

When Mr Harbut, an engineer, tried to leave the hospital after being kept in a “filthy” isolation unit overnight, he was confronted by three armed guards who blocked his way.

Speaking from their Red Sea resort hotel after being “released” Mr Harbut, 37, said he had been treated like a drug smuggler.

Residents of the United Kingdom have received a propaganda leaflet on the so-called swine flu pandemic. In addition to instructing the commoners on how to sneeze, the leaflet explains government plans for pandemics.

“While the current situation is serious, there’s good reason for us to be confident that we can deal with it.” How will the government deal with the next pandemic and the one after that? By stockpiling expensive drugs — Tamiflu and Relenza — that do nothing to prevent the flu.

“There is no evidence that Tamiflu, the drug being stockpiled by Britain, the United States and Europe, will work if a flu pandemic takes off in humans, according to a review published today by the Lancet medical journal,” the Guardian reported in January. “While the drugs might reduce patients’ symptoms, the authors say the use of Tamiflu could actually increase the spread of the flu virus. If people take the drug and have fewer symptoms they may end up going to work and spreading the potentially lethal virus.”

“Not long ago, President Bush sought to instill panic in this country by telling us a minimum of 200,000 people will die from the avian flu pandemic, but it could be as bad as 2 million deaths in this country alone,” writes Joseph Mercola. “This hoax is then used to justify the immediate purchase of 80 million doses of Tamiflu, a worthless drug that in no way shape or form treats the avian flu, but only decreases the amount of days one is sick and can actually contribute to the virus having more lethal mutations.”

In response to this hype — or rather, the reason for the hype — the United States placed an order for 20 million doses of this worthless drug at a price of $100 per dose. It cost the taxpayers around $2 billion.

Tamiflu was originally manufactured by Gilead Sciences and licensed to Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Evil himself, Donald Rumsfeld, was appointed chairman of Gilead Sciences in 1997. Former Sec. of State George Schultz — CFR, Trilateral, and Bilderberg member — is on the board of Gilead Sciences.

Rumsfeld and Schultz stand to make a killing — literally — on the Tamiflu ruse.

The propaganda leaflet distributed by the UK admits that Tamiflu and Relenza “are not a cure” for the flu, but that didn’t stop the British government from buying millions of doses of the “antiviral” drugs.

Britain will also buy into a vaccine after it is developed, according to the propaganda leaflet.

The last time a government attempted to mass vaccinate a population against “swine flu” it resulted in disaster. It was 1976 and after a few soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey, came down with the flu (one soldier died) then president Gerald Ford ordered a mass vaccination program. The motivating force behind the scheme was a $135 million windfall profit for the major drug manufacturers. It was hyped by our old friend, Dr. Evil, Donald Rumsfeld, then Sec. of Defense, who turned the issue into a political football. The mass vaccination scam was pushed along by the Disease Control Center in Atlanta, Georgia.

On April 15, 1976, Congress passed Public Law 94-266, which provided $135 million of taxpayers’ funds to pay for a national swine flu inoculation campaign, later to be dubbed the Great Swine Flu Massacre, supposedly designed to immunize “every man, woman, and child.” The vaccine cooked up by Big Pharma left some victims dead and others crippled with Guillain-Barré syndrome, but this was not a concern for the drug companies because the government had granted them indemnification, that is to say they would not be held responsible.

It is said the new vaccine will be manufactured by Baxter International, the drug company responsible for contaminating “experimental virus material” with a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses and unlabelled H5N1 viruses and then sending this out to an Austrian research company, Avir Green Hills Biotechnology, who subsequently sent portions of it to sub-contractors in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany.

“Accidental release of a mixture of live H5N1 and H3N2 viruses could have resulted in dire consequences.”

Indeed. The process of mixing viruses, known as reassortment, is one of two ways to create pandemic viruses. WHO bent over backwards to make excuses for this “mistake” and said it could not reveal more information because it would give away proprietary information about Baxter’s production process.

“Baxter confirmed over the weekend that it is working with the World Health Organization on a potential vaccine to curb the deadly swine flu virus that is blamed for scores of deaths in Mexico and has emerged as a threat in the U.S.,” the Chicago Tribune reported on April 27. “Shares of Baxter were up 2.4 percent, or $1.16, to $49.23 a share in trading Monday on the New York Stock Exchange.”

During Bush’s flu pandemic scare-mongering a couple years ago, Baxter and other mega-drug companies were “awarded” around $1 billion to “increase and speed production [of a vaccine], particularly after the spread of bird flu.”

Is it possible Baxter attempted to reassort viruses into a pandemic strain in order to realize fantastic profits?

“Over the years, Baxter has worked with governments around the world to develop and produce vaccines to protect against infectious disease or potential threats from bioterrorism,” writes the Tribune.

Bioterrorism? In February, “Indonesia’s Health Minister has implicated the U.S. government in an international conspiracy to develop the bird flu virus into a deadly bio-weapon in a new book which is also endorsed by Indonesia’s President,” writes Paul Joseph Watson. “In the book, [Dr. Siti Fadilah Supari] accuses the U.S. government of seeking a monopoly on controlling the virus for two reasons. Firstly to be able to dominate the vaccine market and make vast profits from providing the cure and secondly to potentially develop the strain into a potent biological weapon.”

Meanwhile, the commoners will be propagandized ad nauseam on the threat and will have leaflets dropped on their doorsteps. According to experts cited endlessly by the corporate media, the Big Kahuna of pandemic viruses will emerge this autumn so we have to be prepared for the worse case scenario.

Martial law may be required to fight this new plague. Here in the states, Massachusetts is ahead of the curve — a recently passed bill, S18, gives the Governor the power to authorize the deployment and use of force to distribute supplies and materials and local authorities will be allowed to enter private residences for investigation and to quarantine individuals.

In 2005, Bush ordered, and HHS developed, the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza, a plan funded by Congress that went into effect in 2006. And then there are the various CONPLAN preparations devised by the Pentagon and Northcom to deal with pandemic influenza of the sort “accidentally” cooked up by Baxter.

“The pandemic is being presented to public opinion as an issue of National Security, with a view to triggering the militarization of civilian institutions in blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act,” writes Michel Chossudovsky. “The hidden agenda consists in using the threat of a pandemic and/or the plight of a natural disaster as a pretext to establish military rule.”

It also serves as a pretext to make the cash registers at Baxter and Big Pharma sing.

ICN Update on Baxter Labs (since their vaccine scandal)

Are you still thinking about getting vaccinated? Well, THINK AGAIN! When this woman speaks, she speaks volumes! Many thanks to www.youtube/user/InformedCitizensNews for giving me permission to post this update on Baxter Labs. Apparently they've been quite busy since their so-called "accident" where they sent live H5N1 and H3N2 viruses (avian flu mixed with human flu) to 18 countries as a "vaccine" to prevent those diseases. The avian flu has so far proven to be hard to catch, but the H3N2 is very contagious. So what do you think might happen if you got both of them LIVE in a vaccine? Isn't capitalism just grand when you can create your own market for a product by getting everyone sick and then telling them you have the cure?

Most H1N1 flu patients do not require antiviral therapy to recover, but it remains important to develop a pandemic vaccine as there is a risk of future drug resistance, a World Health Organization expert said on Tuesday.

Given most patients can recover with rest and hydration, Shindo said there did not appear to be a need to treat all people infected with the strain with Tamiflu, Relenza, and similar antiviral drugs.

Saving such stockpiles for pregnant women and patients with underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes may prove most prudent, she told a news conference.

“We will recommend to consider the use of antivirals for high risk groups,” Shindo said, while allowing that because little is known about the new strain, it was possible antiviral drug use could be reducing its impact in Europe and elsewhere.

Precipitation Enhancement: Active Weather Modification Campaigns

Treaty Issues: “Local, non-permanent changes, such as precipitation enhancement, hail suppression , fog and cloud dispersal, are permitted under the U. N. treaty.”

New revelations have shed more light on weather modification programs, also referred to as geo-engineering, commonly called chem-trails. The “new” terminology, ‘Precipitation Enhancement‘, has revealed government and governmental contractors have been dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere on a regular basis for decades, dating back to the 1950’s. This article is an attempt to remove the conspiracy theory label that has been attached to very real man-made phenomenon of weather modification.

Precipitation Enhancement programs are ongoing in Texas, California, Australia, China, Iran, and many other locations worldwide. The following programs are documented, and the websites below list the flight missions over Central and South Texas:

There are currently at least 10 precipitation programs underway in Texas, covering more than 50 million acres, under the Edwards Aquifer Authority since 1999. California has cloud seeding programs underway under the authority of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).

Water management is the supposed justification for many of these programs, but upon further investigation, flash flooding and severe thunderstorms are typical results. This link takes you to a summary of some of the missions over South and Central Texas, and if you open the first two Daily Reports (PDFs), flash floods, and severe storms the precipitation enhancement missions caused are documented. As a side note, flood insurance in Texas is hard to obtain.

The U.S. Military has been involved in weather modification for half a century, and the extent to which they have progressed is still unknown, however we do know that droughts, floods and general degradation of enemy forces are a few objectives the Air Force can produce. This document describes the known uses for military applications of weather modification, and this link will take you to a database of weather modification PDFs

We now have documentation revealing Geo-engineering (1), (2), (3), (4), Weather Modification (5), and Precipitation Enhancement (6), from governments, universities, private companies and public companies such as water districts. The debate about whether or not chemicals are being dispersed in our sky on a regular basis should now shift to focusing on what recourse we the people have to stop these unnatural and harmful secret programs.

As stated above, “Local, non-permanent changes, such as precipitation enhancement, hail suppression, fog and cloud dispersal, are permitted under the U.N. treaty banning weather modification”, conveniently enough, due to legal loopholes. If you obtain a permit, you can modify the weather, just be sure to follow the 200 pages of guidelines.

South Texas Weather Modification Program (Including Mission Briefs and Flight Path Maps):

The Reason Why the IBM/Lockheed Martin Census Worker Is On Your Doorstep or…IBM’s Dirty Census Laundry

From April 1st, 150, 000 census workers, part of a $700 million taxpayer-funded contract, will travel all known streets and roads to identify every living quarter where people live or could potentially live. Each structure also will receive Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates to make sure it is recorded in the right location. [1]

To quote the US Census Bureau advertisement - A New Portrait of America “On April 1st , 2010 , our nation will be counted , every person whoever they are , wherever they live , and what we learn will transform what we know about ourselves….. the 2010 Census , its a new portrait of America. The 2010 Census is an exciting milestone for America , it promises to deliver accurate information about our diverse and growing population. And its important for the future of each community . Census Data will be used to allocate 300 Billion funds in Federal funds every year , it is the foundation of our Constitution.. Communities use the data to plan for their future , like disaster and emergency services , health care services , schools , transportation, libraries, senior centres and more….The 2010 Census builds on the success of previous Censuses and is the best plan and most well researched Census …ever. .The 2010 Census …..It’s Important… this census is the commitment to the American way of life…To Be Counted as a resident of the United States I think is one of the proudest things that can happen to you in this country….Its Important to stand up for yourself …be counted , let people know your out there….its a new portrait of America…..” Cue to the American flag….A video shot of diverse and multicultural people ranging from Hispanics , Asians to African and the echoing words…….”Its easy , its Important, its safe!”[2] flashes on the screen pacifying the end user….”Its safe!”…the words: “Its safe!” burn into your sub-conscience…let’s remember that.

2007, September 20th, marked the year the U.S. Census Bureau awarded IBM (NYSE: IBM) Global Business Services a contract worth $89.5 million over 9 years , to provide data tabulation and dissemination services in support of the 2010 Census Decennial Response Integration System (DRIS) program. [3] Fantastic news to the biggest IT company in the world , otherwise known as Big Blue or as the Nazi Nexus Hollerith Machine company to the Jewish families and other non-compliant races who lost their loved ones in WWII to the Third Reich . We will focus on the IBM Nazi Nexus later in the article, lets focus on what is currently happening with the US Census.

As we speak, the US Census Bureau agents are pounding the pavements in the USA. Armed with their big, heavy device , the HTC Census running on an Intel Bulverde 416MHz processor [4] .Yes sir! The Census agents are getting on with their business with a ‘ I’m just doing my job’ attitude, as they capture your GPS front door coordinates. The catch cry of these public servants echoes the hand that feeds them , the USA Census Bureau . “What are we doing on your doorstep?” Ummmm, we are “Helping YOU make informed decisions” [5] screams the USA Census Agent and don’t you think anything else!

Each US Census Bureau worker is assigned a funky HTC Census – dual-band CDMA/EV-DO device with WiFi support and phone jack. The HTC Census is a phone cable and can be connected to a land-line network. The HTC Census is a data-only device and is biometrically protected to the user. [6] It is obvious the ‘worker Census bees’ have no problem with biometric harvesting and soldier on collecting GPS co-ordinates for the Queen bee.

Once the GPS [global navigation satellite system (GNSS) developed by the United States Department of Defense ] co-ordinates are matched to the mapping address , the HTC spits out a ‘you have successfully completed this address’ which motivates the Census worker bee onto the next address with the ultimate goal being to complete the entire list provided.

The little viewed YouTube video of the US Census Bureau, [7] depicts a lovely lady who courteously knocks on the door and introduces herself ” Hi ! My name is Elizabeth from the US Census Bureau . We are in the area today , verifying addresses for the 2010 census …here is a copy of our privacy act along with my purpose here today…What is your address? ….Is this also your mailing address…….Great…ok. Thanks, that sums it up ….if you don’t mind I’ll be up the front updating my maps” The Census worker thanks the house owner and they bid farewell to each other. How lovely! Now back to the real world , we all know we just witnessed wannabe actors and the best paying gig in town was the US Census ad. A brother has to go to eat and i’ts a reference for future acting roles so Ill stop being a hater.

The reality is, the US Census Bureau Agents are conducting themselves in a covert , shifty and stealthy manner . US citizens who have experienced the US Census Bureau agents first hand, have commented they seem untrustworthy, reveal very little when questioned and get the job done regardless.[7x] ‘Getting the job done’ means getting your GPS coordinates …But remember the US Census Bureau advertisement….”It’s easy , it’s Important , it’s safe!” …it’s safe!” Ahhhh, I feel better after drinking the GPS Census Kool Aid…

The US Census Bureau goes on to say “We honor privacy, protect confidentiality, share our expertise globally, and conduct our work openly. We are guided on this mission by our strong and capable workforce, our readiness to innovate, and our abiding commitment to our customers” Who exactly is this customer? A bit of a clue to our readers who are not up with history . The customer is NOT you, its DARPA, the CIA, FBI and other government agencies.

Let us remember these public servants responded to the US Census advertisement which read as follows:

Conducting the census is a huge undertaking. Thousands of census takers are needed to update address lists and conduct interviews with community residents. Most positions require a valid driver’s license and use of a vehicle. However, public transportation may be authorized in certain areas.” [8]

Would these temporary public servants be as gun ho if they were made aware that IBM had a dark and sinister story they were hiding in the blue chip closet?

“Conducting a military operation is hard work and GPS marking every door in America requires a hard worker ! Ideally you would not have studied history and specifically have not read IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black. You need to have persistent qualities even when abused but remember the data you collect will be extremely helpful to Lockheed Martin and IBM who may/may not pass on the data to government agencies for sinister purposes .”

If we stepped back in time , we would realise that census data is extremely powerful in anyone’s hands but what if those hands were Hitlers? Yes the infamous war criminal relied on IBM Census data in WWII to fuel the war machine. The census data provided illegally by IBM to Nazi Germany was used for planning invasion and occupation plans for Europe and provided key information to the NAZIs to exterminate the non compliant races.

Edwin Black, an award-winning, New York Times and international investigative author, painstakingly documented how IBM’s Dohemag subsidiary, overseen by Thomas J. Watson was an integral part of the Nazi killing machine by providing the necessary automation to ‘locate all the Jews of Europe’ . As the Third Reich embarked upon its plan of conquest and genocide, IBM and its subsidiaries helped create enabling technologies, step-by-step, from the Census , to identification and cataloging programs of the 1930’s to the selections of the 1940’s.[9]

We can only speculate that IBM was awarded the contract as they showcased a successful work history with US Census Bureau. IBM was founded in 1898 by German inventor Herman Hollerith as a census tabulating company[10]. Census was it’s business. Herman Hollerith (1860-1929) developed the tabulating system for the U.S. Census Bureau for compiling the 1890 Census. Hollerith’s patents were acquired by the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co. (which later became IBM), and this work became the basis of the IBM Punched Card System. But when IBM Germany formed its philosophical and technological alliance with Nazi Germany, census and registration took on a new mission. IBM Germany invented the racial census–listing not just religious affiliation, but bloodline going back generations. This was the Nazi data lust. Not just to count the Jews–but to identify them.Hooray for IBM work experience and double hooray for an IBM proven track record!

“We appreciate the Census Bureau’s continued confidence in IBM to support their efforts,” said John Nyland, Managing Partner, IBM Global Business Services, Public Sector obviously reflecting on the fact “Working with our business partners, IBM is helping the Census Bureau with innovative approaches to flexible and timely data analysis and dissemination.” IBM is also supporting the Census Bureau as a subcontractor to Lockheed Martin on the Decennial Response Integration System (DRIS) 2010 data collection contract. Yes that’s right , the world’s largest defense contractor by revenue is working with IBM to ensure America is counted . But let’s not get alarmed…Let’s remember the US Census Bureau advertisement….”Its easy , its Important , its safe!…it’s safe!”

• Receive, capture, and standardize census data provided by respondents via census forms and telephone agents;
• Provide assistance to the public through the telephone; and
• Receive standardized data collected via hand-held computers [11]

IBM’s subcontracting business partners for the US Census include BAE Systems, ESRI, Space-Time Research, SAS, M-Cubed, Roundarch, Dataline, FWG, Measurable Results, RCM, PKW, Fenestra, and Acumen Solutions. [12]

Let’s not forget ACORN, a group with a history of voter fraud, is also participating in the count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.[13]

So what exactly are we alluding to in this article? Are we saying that IBM and Lockheed Martin have used temporary public servants to undertake their cloaked military GPS Census operation? Thats precisely what we are saying . Let us be crystal clear , if the US Census workers were armed with their GPS and dressed in IBM/Lockheed Martin military apparel , there would be an outcry and perhaps an awakening on what is happening to the constitutional rights of Americans. But IBM has shown great veiling expertise and US citizens have barely noticed a massively organized millitarization of their information quietly occuring, shrouded in a cloak and dagger US Census Burea marketing campaign. It can’t get any more intimate and personal than your front door GPS coordinates , can it? The question we must now ask , ‘Why are they doing this and what will they do with the information?’

Greg Nikolettos is a writer for We The People Will Not Be Chipped Movement [14] . A group of Neo Luddites who campaign for privacy and on the irrefutable fact that mankind has inalienable human rights that are absolute and can not be debased, nor perverted. Human life can not be degraded to a RFID chip number embedded under you skin under any circumstance.

[1]YouTube - uscensusbureau’s Channel
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZutO-6gGJhA&feature=channel_page

[3] http://www-03.ibm.com/industries/government/us/detail/news/B331854N83981A85.html
[4]http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2007/04/htc_census_muted.html
[5] http://www.census.gov/
[6] http://www.phonearena.com/htmls/500000-enumerators-will-use-HTC-Census-during-2010-Census-article-a_1852.html
[7] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYOszrTe9I4&feature=channel_page
[7x] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qqm8ke5Sbc
[8] http://2010.census.gov/2010censusjobs/

[11] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/dris/index.html
[12]http://www-03.ibm.com/industries/government/us/detail/news/B331854N83981A85.html
[13] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/17/lawmakers-concerned-role-acorn-census/
[14] http://www.wethepeoplewillnotbechipped.com/

Installing smart gas and electricity meters in every home in the country will cost the nation £9.3billion, it has been announced.

Installation will work out at £340 per household and the Government claims customers will save money in the long term by seeing their costs and usage on a daily basis, and therefore be encouraged to cut back to reduce bills.

But there is an argument over how much of the installation cost should be met by consumers and how much by the ‘big six’ suppliers.

The smart meters will provide billions in savings to the likes of British Gas, allowing them to do away with thousands of meter readers and call centre staff.

911 police officer refuses to help girl who calls about her dying father and she gets jailed

Call / Write And Complain
(313) 381-1800
Police Department
1427 Cleophus
Lincoln Park MI 48146

In Lincoln Park, Michigan, a 17-year-old called 911 when her father (recovering at home from brain surgery) had a seizure. Her first call didn't go through, so the panicked girl hung up and tried again. While the phone was still ringing, the girl said "what the fuck." Apparently 911 calls are recorded even while the phone is ringing, so the police officer heard her say it. When the officer answered the call, he was only interested in the fact that the girl said "fuck" and wouldn't help the girl. Instead, he swears at her and hangs up.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/04/911-police-officer-r.html

After the girl places several more calls to 911 trying to explain that her father was about to die, the officer finally called the fire department with a fabricated version of what happened.

Eventually, the girl gets arrested and jailed by the police for a crime that isn't on the books

May, 9 2009

Dear Public Servants,

DHS is sending out reports that label people " extremist " and "violent radicals " for having flags , bumper stickers , and political opinions period. Lumping freedom lovers in with skinheads and fueling the "fear" of 911 constantly is whats causing Law Enforcement Officials to react so over the top these days. Training teaches " everybody " is the enemy except your fellow officers. This is the fruit of the Militarization of the Police Force. Instead of Peace Officers we are now dealing with Soldiers on our streets.

The solution is in the training. Every candidate and applicant should be required to attend Constitution Classes and other courses explaining proper procedures SOP .

The silent "oath" between our men in woman in blue must be revisited. Officers have to stop turning a blind eye to the crime and corruption among the ranks. This is key. No one is above the law and it means arresting those corrupt officials to set examples. Eventually the corruption will decline. When that happens the people will have more trust and the job hazard will decrease.

Every community must start taking action to weed out corruption in their departments. Safety in numbers , there are more good people than bad. Stand up to the bullies. Until stuff like this happens things will just get worse and a good relationship between the Peace Officer and the Citizen will never exist. Using the word Citizen and not Civilian is a small start. We are not Civilians we are American Citizens that are paying a good amount of taxes to be protected by peace officers not soldiers.

Janet Napolitano the United States Secretary of Homeland Security should be fired immediately.

If Law Enforcement Officers uphold their oaths and do not enforce unconstitutional orders then our Republic shall stand tall and once again be a beacon of hope , an example of freedom throughout the World. If you don't then the consequences will destroy the Republic further and our way of life will ceast to exist.

‘I Do Not Apologize’: Fox News Reporter Confronts Janeane Garofalo Over ‘Racist’ Slam

“Everybody I saw at that tea party are racist.”

VIDEO LINK

The Somali pirates attacking shipping in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean are directed to their targets by a “consultant” team in London, according to a European military intelligence document obtained by a Spanish radio station.

It says that pirate groups have “well-placed informers” in London who are in regular contact with control centres in Somalia where decisions on which vessels to attack are made. These London-based “consultants” help the pirates select targets, providing information on the ships’ cargoes and courses.

In at least one case the pirates have remained in contact with their London informants from the hijacked ship, according to one targeted shipping company.

In the interview here, NBC’s David Gregory completely ignores Pakistan president Asif Ali Zadari when he declares that Osama bin Laden was an “operator” for the United States. Gregory wants to know if Zadari believes Osama is alive. He wants to know why Pakistan has not gone after Bin Laden.

Before “everything changed” on September 11, 2001, the corporate media published truthful stories about Osama bin Laden and his relationship with the CIA. “As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar — the MAK — which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war,” Michael Moran wrote for MSNBC on August 24, 1998. “What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.”

“FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from the US Army, and that these explosives had been delivered three years earlier to Afghan Arabs, the infamous international volunteer brigades involved side by side with bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Red Army,” Alexandra Richard wrote for Le Figaro on October 11, 2001.

In the same article Richard reports that a CIA agent met with Osama bin Laden at the American Hospital in Dubai in July, 2001, where the terrorist underwent surgery. “While he was hospitalized, bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go to bin Laden’s hospital room.”

Not only did the CIA and its ISI partner create MAK and ultimately what the corporate media would call al-Qaeda, they also created the Taliban, although you won’t read that in the New York Times. The ISI organized and the United States, Britain, and the Saudis funded the madrassas (religious schools) that nurtured the fanatical Wahhabi Taliban. “They were literally the orphans of war [a war orchestrated by Zbigniew Brzezinski against the Soviets], the rootless and restless, the jobless and the economically deprived with little self-knowledge. They admired war because it was the only occupation they could possibly adapt to. Their simple belief in a messianic, puritan Islam which had been drummed into them by simple village mullahs was the only prop they could hold on to and which gave their lives some meaning,” writes Phil Gasper.

NBC’s David Gregory might want to ask the CIA or maybe Robert Gates about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden (the current secretary of defense basically ran the Osama operation through Pakistan’s ISI back in the day when he was Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and then CIA director under Bush Senior).

Gregory and NBC are merely setting the stage for Obama’s increased meddling in Pakistan. Part of that effort is to make Asif Ali Zadari look like he is hiding Osama bin Laden and protecting the perennial bogeyman, al-Qaeda.

Zadari, however, knows the truth and is not afraid to speak it on American television: Osama bin Laden was an “operative” for the United States.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not always have been specifically Authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is available without profit to those who have expressed an interest in the included information for research and educational purposes.




	Senator Kirsten Gillibrand poses with fellow gun-grabber Hillary Clinton.




	The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”




Stephen Halbrook, Independent Institute Research Fellow and author of the book The Founders’ Second Amendment, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to Attorney General nominee Eric Holder.




	YouTube’s emerging corporate model is Hulu, the spin-off site owned by NBC Universal and Fox Entertainment Group. HuluTube will be safe for transnational corporations and government, a universe where millions of channels exist but nothing is on.




	The full document can be read by clicking the above image (the password is ‘dynbase’).




	By signing the Federal Reserve Act, Woodrow Wilson was a tool of big money. Yet he belatedly expressed regret, said “I have unwittingly ruined my country,” and called America “one of the worst ruled….most completely controlled governments in the civilized world (run by) a small group of dominant men.”




	In New York in December 1994, the United Nations’ participants came up with some practical solutions to the ‘population problem’ — one of which is the integration of population issues with matters of ‘environment’ and ‘human development.’

Former Top Rated NRA Senator to Introduce Gun Ban This Week