101509 News As Talked About On The Harry Thomas Show

101509 News As Talked About On The Harry Thomas Show - week in review main page

Above The Law? Hilton Refuses To Co-operate With Montana Attorney General

Shadowy outfit fails to meet deadline to turn over documents, arrests could follow

Michael Hilton, the leader of American Police Force, the paramilitary organization that recently terminated a deal with local authorities in Hardin Montana to take over a detention camp in the town, has failed to co-operate with the Montana Attorney General’s demand that the company turn over financial record pertaining to the deal, opening up the possibility that Hilton could be arrested for contempt.

Hilton, a career criminal who is still wanted by authorities in Wyoming for his part in multiple cases of fraud, was given until yesterday to provide the documents but has failed to meet the deadline, instead sending a one page fax to the Attorney General’s office saying he was abandoning the deal to take over the Hardin facility.

However, as we reported on Saturday, despite the termination of the deal, the AG’s office indicated that it still needed to see the documents and if it didn’t receive them, APF could be held in contempt and Hilton could be arrested.

“Assistant Attorney General James Molloy had issued a demand on Oct. 1 for American Police Force to turn over its tax records; lists of customers; and names of company employees, owners and officers and other information,” reports the Associated Press.

The documents were demanded under a Montana law that bars unfair or deceptive business practices.

“This is the response,” (Becky) Shay said of the company’s one-page reply. “It outlines that APF (American Police Force) was only in contract negotiations, did not do business in Hardin and has pulled out of contract negotiations.”

However, APF went further than merely negotiating with local officials. As was widely documented, APF SUV’s with decals that read “City of Hardin Police Department” were driven around town before an uproar prompted their removal. Before the story garnered intense media scrutiny, it appeared as if APF was preparing to act as law enforcement for the town, which would have been completely illegal and unconstitutional.

As the NY Times reports today, when Hilton rolled into town with his Serbian accent, his mock police uniform and his shadowy paramilitary outfit, he promised to make Hardin “the safest place in the United States to live, and in six months the best place to live.”

APF’s reluctance to hand over the documents likely centers around its refusal to identify the parent company that owns the organization.

The Attorney General’s only response to APF’s refusal to turn over the documents was to state that they were reviewing whether they could discuss the issue publicly, implying that further action is likely to be taken against Hilton and APF.

Attorney General Drops Investigation Into APF

Montana’s Attorney General dropped his investigation in to California-based security company American Police Force Tuesday.

A statement released by Montana’s Attorney General Steve Bullock said the goal was to guarantee that, “No Montanans were taken advantage of or conned by this company.”

Since Michael Hilton and APF ended plans to do business in the state, Bullock’s office decided to suspend its inquiry. Officials asked APF to release documents about their funding, current contracts and corporate backing. APF did not provide these documents.

Spokeswoman Becky Shay said the company faxed the AG a one-page letter saying APF did no business in Montana other than to negotiate the jail contract, which they discontinued.

Bullock’s statement concludes, “Mr. Hilton’s failure to answer these simple questions about his company speaks volumes about his company’s legitimacy.”

Full article here

Jim Clausen flies the American flag from the back of his motorcycle. He has a son in the military heading back to Iraq, and the flag – he said – is his way of showing support.

“This flag stands for all those people,” said Clausen, an Oaks Apartment resident. “It stands for the people that can no longer stand – who died in wars. That’s why I fly this flag.”

But to Oaks Apartment management, Clausen said, the American flag symbolizes problems.

He was told to remove the red, white and blue from both of his rides, or face eviction.

Conference between the House and Senate on the defense authorization bill, with hate bill attached, ended today. Sen. Carl Levin and Sen. John McCain announced that the compromise bill includes funding for the development of additional F-35 fighter engines (eventually costing about $100 billion). Asked whether this would tempt a presidential veto, Levin said he did not think so because of accommodations to Obama in the bill that would trim extra spending. McCain said he did not know.

The considerations Levin referred to included elimination of a new fleet of C-17 cargo transports as well as a presidential helicopter fleet. Also, initial funds to be provided General Electric-Rolls Royce for development of the engines are only a reported $560 million. Levin hopes such limited initial spending will persuade Obama that extra engines will not threaten his request for purchase of as many F-35 fighters as possible. Obama says extra F-35 engines mean fewer fighters.

On the other hand, since F-35 engine production is by far the largest expenditure to which Obama objects, it is open to question whether the President will be appeased. He has stated repeatedly, emphatically, that he will not tolerate a $100 billion expenditure on engine development he thinks unnecessary.

Levin must be disappointed. He was a major architect of the Senate decision this spring to strip off F-22 Raptor production, as well as F-35 engine production, from the Senate version of the defense bill. Liberals did so to avoid a veto and protect the attached federal hate crimes bill. Levin said that (largely for the sake of the hate bill) the Senate would “not send a defense authorization bill to the President that he is likely to veto.”

Soon, this bill will go to both Senate and House for approval. If approved, it will go to the President, for either veto or signing, possibly as early as the end of next week.

Is there anything lovers of freedom can do in this very short time to insure its veto? Absolutely!

We must hold Obama to his oft-repeated promise to veto extra F-35 engine production. We must let him know that many, many Americans are aware of that promise. We need to bombard the White House NOW with this message: “Mr. President, we expect you to keep your promise to veto any military authorization bill that wastes $100 billion of taxpayers’ money on unnecessary F-35 jet engines.”

Since the defense/hate bill could be on Obama’s desk in a few days, we have just enough time to get our letters to him — if we act immediately. White House phones and faxes remain very busy, so write the President TODAY at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500. You may also contact the President by email at www.whitehouse.gov/contact.

We know that Obama is not a man of his word. But, like all politicians wanting to remain in office, he is aware of the need to protect his image. The more that voters remind him of his promise, the greater will be the possibility he will pull back his pen from signing the defense/hate bill and send it back to Congress.

Key US lawmakers passed legislation Thursday extending three key provisions of the PATRIOT Act, the sweeping intelligence bill enacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Backing a White House request, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the measure 11 votes to 8 to extend until 2013 three clauses that would have expired by 31 December. The bill now heads to the full Senate for a vote.

The provisions include the “roving wiretap” clause, used to monitor mobile communications of individuals using multiple telephone lines, and the “lone-wolf” provision, which enables spying on individuals suspected of terrorist activity but with no obvious connection to extremist groups.

Lawmakers also extended the life of controversial section 215, known as the “library records provision” that allows government agencies to access individual’s library history.

The committee had earlier met in a closed-door meeting with members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the intelligence community on ensuring their actions would not impede investigations already underway.

The senators also debated freeing up law enforcement actions that have been hampered by legislation and court rulings since the first program was launched by former president George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11, which enabled collecting sensitive information for years without a court order.

On a remote edge of Utah’s dry and arid high desert, where temperatures often zoom past 100 degrees, hard-hatted construction workers with top-secret clearances are preparing to build what may become America’s equivalent of Jorge Luis Borges’s “Library of Babel,” a place where the collection of information is both infinite and at the same time monstrous, where the entire world’s knowledge is stored, but not a single word is understood. At a million square feet, the mammoth $2 billion structure will be one-third larger than the US Capitol and will use the same amount of energy as every house in Salt Lake City combined.

Unlike Borges’s “labyrinth of letters,” this library expects few visitors. It’s being built by the ultra-secret National Security Agency—which is primarily responsible for “signals intelligence,” the collection and analysis of various forms of communication—to house trillions of phone calls, e-mail messages, and data trails: Web searches, parking receipts, bookstore visits, and other digital “pocket litter.” Lacking adequate space and power at its city-sized Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters, the NSA is also completing work on another data archive, this one in San Antonio, Texas, which will be nearly the size of the Alamodome.

Just how much information will be stored in these windowless cybertemples? A clue comes from a recent report prepared by the MITRE Corporation, a Pentagon think tank. “As the sensors associated with the various surveillance missions improve,” says the report, referring to a variety of technical collection methods, “the data volumes are increasing with a projection that sensor data volume could potentially increase to the level of Yottabytes (1024 Bytes) by 2015.”[1] Roughly equal to about a septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages of text, numbers beyond Yottabytes haven’t yet been named. Once vacuumed up and stored in these near-infinite “libraries,” the data are then analyzed by powerful infoweapons, supercomputers running complex algorithmic programs, to determine who among us may be—or may one day become—a terrorist. In the NSA’s world of automated surveillance on steroids, every bit has a history and every keystroke tells a story.

As this presentation to investors makes clear, the chip and its database could form the basis of a new national identity database lined to Social Security and NationalCreditReport.com. The VeriMed Health Link homepage describes the chip:

I’ve just walked into a windowless room on an industrial estate in Tamworth, UK, where three cellphone analysts in blue shirts sit at their terminals, scrutinising the contents of my phone and smirking. “If it’s any consolation, we would have found them even if you had deleted them,” says one.

Worse, it seems embarrassing text messages aren’t the only thing I have to worry about: “Is this a photo of your office?” another asks (the answer is yes). “And did you enjoy your pizza on Monday night? And why did you divert from your normal route to work to visit this address in Camberwell, London, on Saturday?”

Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton and other big city cops are calling for a new system of “citizen watch” programs, allegedly to help them spot hidden terrorists. I view this new call for a nation of private spies with a deep suspicion born of experience with the LAPD and its historic penchant for spying on law-abiding residents of that city.

Back in the late 1970s, together with a band of other doughty journalists, including Tommy Thompson, Ron Ridenour, Ben Pleasants, I co-founded and ran a spunky little news weekly called the LA Vanguard. In the course of just one year, we broke stories about secret “security offices” run by local phone companies (Pacific Telephone and GTE) which provided unlisted numbers and credit information to police and other government agencies without requiring a warrant, about the killing of unarmed citizens by police, about the LAPD’s “shoot to kill” gun use policy, about judges in landlord-tenant cases who were slumlords themselves, and many other stories that were being ignored by the LA Times and the rest of the local establishment media.

For our efforts, we found out years later, we were targeted by the LAPD’s “red squad,” known at the time as the Public Disorder Intelligence Division (PDID), for an intensive program of spying that including planting a young cop, Connie Milazzo, as a member of our editorial collective. We only learned of Milazzo’s real identity years later when she admitted disclosed it herself to a judge in a public hearing (she wanted to avoid being sent to the county lockup along with a group of activists she had “joined” undercover who had all been arrested during a protest and who were refusing to provide their identities to the court).

A subsequent lawsuit filed with the help of the ACLU of Southern California, eventually settled for a payment of $1.8 million by the City of Los Angeles, disclosed that the PDID had for years been using as many as 20 undercover cops to infiltrate and spy on over 200 legal political and activist organizations in the Los Angeles area, gathering rooms full of files on everyone from members of the National Organization for Women to the staffs of certain members of the city council. We also learned that the LAPD was providing those files to a shadowy private outfit in San Francisco called Western Goals, which had links to the ultra-right John Birch Society. Western Goals was apparently seeking to serve as a private repository of dossiers on leftists and political activists collected by local police all around the country in a kind of end run around the restrictions on domestic spying by the FBI that had been imposed after the post-Watergate revelations about the abuses of the COINTELPRO era.

This is why Bratton’s idea stinks. Local police, because they are local, are even more prone to rogue activities that will never be exposed or monitored than are federal police.

As accommodating of police-state tactics as Congress has been, especially since 9-11, at least some members of that body have raised concerns and demanded investigations of some of those abuses by organizations like the FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency. But city councils have been notoriously uninterested in monitoring the unconstitutional activities of their local police around the country, who have extremely powerful political connections and the support of local media establishments.

Any attempt to organize a citizen’s watch program to look for suspicious activity is bound to devolve into a police program of spying on those who are outside of the “norm”: minorities, leftists, activists, loners, people with alternative life-styles, artists, etc.

Let’s be honest. America faces no existential threat from terrorism. It does face such threats from rampaging climate change, political corruption, corporate power, economic collapse, and many other things, but it is hardly threatened by terrorism, which has killed far fewer people even in 2001 than have auto defects, contaminated food, and insurance company denials of care.

Back in 2001, the Bush/Cheney administration stoked an irrational fear of terrorism in order to win passage of the Patriot Act and acceptance of other actions, such as creation of a program by the National Security Agency to use supercomputers to monitor millions of Americans’ electronic communications. Many of those threats to freedom remain in place today. Now Chief Bratton and his compatriots in police departments around the country are trying to stoke that same irrational fear of terrorism to move the country even further towards a police-state mentality.

The last thing we need in this era of corporate-media-induced conformity and citizen passivity is a bunch of self-appointed citizen snoops calling in to the cops with reports on every neighbor who looks or acts a little bit different.

The establishment’s propaganda drive to convince everyone to take the swine flu shot has gone into overdrive, surpassing any previous effort in the domain of public health and stoking suspicions about the motivations of pharmaceutical giants, especially in light of the fact that the H1N1 virus is far less deadly than the regular seasonal flu.

Governments have temporarily backed away from their plans to mandate the shot, but this hasn’t stopped the juggernaut of a mass media brainwashing campaign that is brow-beating reluctant citizens to take the vaccine even in the absence of the widely promised deadlier second wave of the swine flu virus.

Everywhere you look, the corporate media is over spilling with big pharma mouthpieces endlessly regurgitating the refrain that the idiot public should shut up, stop asking difficult questions about mercury, squalene and other additives, and just ‘take the damn vaccine’.

The latest example came in the form of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano’s appearance the The Daily Show the other night, during which she and host Jon Stewart took a sideswipe at people who were concerned about the vaccine by portraying them as paranoid and mentally unstable.

Such desperation is only serving to raise more eyebrows amongst the general public, who unlike the corporate networks still retain a memory of what happened during the last mass swine flu vaccination campaign, when the injection killed more people than the virus itself.

Such fevered insistence that everyone take the shot simply does not correlate with the fact that swine flu has proven far less deadly than regular seasonal flu.

Denis Coulombier, who heads the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control’s preparedness and response unit, told AFP “that A(H1N1) killed a very small proportion of those who caught it, at about 0.2-0.3 deaths per thousand — a lower rate than seasonal flu, which kills around one patient per thousand.”

Despite record cold temperatures around the world over the last month, the promised second wave of swine flu has not yet appeared, but Coulombier still all but guarantees another explosion of infections “in the coming weeks”.

The mammoth level of fearmongering that has been whipped up around swine flu despite its relatively benign threat has of course, I’m sure, nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that pharmaceutical giants are reaping vast dividends in profits from vaccine production during what would otherwise have been a struggle amidst an economic recession.

Sarcasm aside, the desperation of the establishment expresses itself in no more a revealing way than claims that the efforts of the “anti-vaccine lobby” are responsible for the outcome of polls that show a huge number of people will reject the shot, as if the “anti-vaccine lobby,” whatever that is, has one iota of the influence, or indeed the malevolence, enjoyed by the pharmaceutical lobby, an industry that has no less than 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. alone and spent around $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. Big pharma lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004.

In an article for the London Evening Standard entitled, Stop being so selfish and get the swine flu vaccine, a smug-looking celebrity doctor blames the “anti-vaccine lobby” for creating doubt surrounding the vaccine by pointing out that its production was rushed and that it bypassed routine safety procedures. In reality, such concerns were not first expressed by the “anti-vaccine lobby,” but were reported prominently by the London Times on July 13.

The real story here is the fact that the “anti-vaccine lobby,” which consists of a relative handful of doctors and health professionals in comparison with big pharma, has had such an impact in convincing so many people to reject the swine flu shot, even in the face of such a huge effort on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry and their soapbox, the mass media, to convince them otherwise.

The vaccination propaganda is now kicking into overdrive. Earlier today, I switched on the tube and randomly hit two news channels — CNN and Fox — and there was the get the vaccine propaganda. Both channels told me to get the vaccine. Both downplayed the “myths” and “disinformation” about the dangers of the seasonal and H1N1 vaccines.

Supposed experts interviewed by ABC News claim it is unethical to refuse the vaccine. “Does Americans’ right to determine what is best for themselves and their families trump the federal government’s efforts to head off what it believes could be a flu pandemic?” writes Patrick Jonsson for ABC News. “The US government says it has no intention of forcing vaccinations, but its entire flu strategy could be undermined – endangering public health, they say – if a substantial portion of the US population opts out of the $3 billion program.”

The corporate media’s own polls reveal that around two-thirds of parents have serious reservations about the vaccines’ effectiveness and safety. Millions of people simply distrust the government and do not buy into the propaganda.

“Many of the concerns by parents are based on the perception that this vaccine has been rushed into production and may not be safe,” Tom Skinner, a CDC spokesman, told Fox News. “We understand parents’ concerns – they want what is best for their children. We often tell people the best antidote for fear is information. And we ask them to really seek out sound and reliable information from sources they trust.”

According to the CDC, parents need to stop listening to a large number of doctors and virologists who say the vaccines are dangerous and instead get their information exclusively from the corporate media.

The government and the corporate media hate the idea millions of Americans are doing their own research before sticking a needle in their kids. “Just get your damn vaccine,” demanded Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC’s chief medical editor. Snyderman dropped all pretense and revealed the real attitude of the government and the Mockingbird corporate media.

Now you will be told it is irresponsible and unethical not to get a vaccine loaded up with mercury, squalene, preservatives, “attenuated” viruses, and formaldehyde.

James Hodge, a public health law expert at the Arizona State University, told ABC News questioning the vaccination is “just not responsible.” While some objections to vaccinations are warranted, he says, “we’re also seeing an increasing feeling among some Americans that we shouldn’t trust government on this, and that vaccines themselves are the cause of major harm, even though that connection doesn’t exist,” at least it does not exist according to the government and a corporate media that takes a large percentage of its advertising revenue from multinational pharmaceutical corporations.

Officials have stopped short of calling vaccination a moral imperative, instead urging Americans to think deeply about their perceptions and the communal impact of their decisions, according to ABC.

Stopped short… for now. In the weeks ahead, as the multi-million dollar government and big pharma propaganda effort picks up steam, we may be told it is selfish, irresponsible, unethical and immoral not to take the shot. A number of states have passed legislation allowing the government to quarantine those who refuse.

It all hinges on the severity of the flu pandemic this autumn and the hysteria generated by the government and the media. “Just get your damn vaccine” may turn into the government forcing you to take the shot at gunpoint as the propaganda effort fails and millions of people refuse.

Speaking of ethics, Dr. Nancy Snyderman was implicated in an insider trading scam in 1999.

“ABC-TV’s medical correspondent is returning more than $50,000 to a health-care Web site after violating insider-trading rules by selling shares too soon after the site went public,” the New York Times reported on August 21, 1999. “Dr. Snyderman’s husband bought 1,650 shares of DrKoop.com, based in Austin, during a June 8 initial public offering for $9 a share and sold it one month later when prices soared to $41.27 a share. That was a violation of Securities and Exchange Commission rules barring corporate officers and directors from profiting from a stock sale within six months of buying shares, said Sue Georgen-Saad, chief financial officer of DrKoop.com.”

She also “strongly supports a public option in the current health care reform debate,” according to Wikipedia. In other words, she favors Obamacare at gunpoint, not surprising for a woman who has nothing but contempt for those of us who do not trust the government and will not take the toxic vaccine.

A group of nurses is suing the State of New York over mandatory H1N1 vaccinations, claiming that the threat of being fired for refusing is a violation of their civil rights.

The nurses, based at Albany Medical Center, say they have been told they will face a week of suspension without pay, followed by termination if they don’t get both the H1N1 and the seasonal flu vaccines by the end of October.

The New York mandate requires all health care workers to receive the vaccinations before the end of November.

The nurses say that they do not believe the vaccines are as effective as maintaining a good level of hygiene in preventing the flu.

They also state that the possible side effects outweigh any benefits, noting the fact that the H1N1 vaccine has been rushed through testing and production.

“I have had more staff that have become ill after the flu vaccines this year than coworkers that have actually come down with the illness,” Lorna Patterson, one of the nurses, told News 10 wten in Albany.

“People are being forced to do something by the government acting blindly for reasons that are not clear, but about which cynicism might not be an inappropriate attitude to take,” the nurses’ lawyer Terry Kindlon added.

“I think it’s reminiscent of the bank bailout of last year.” Kindlon stated.

“These health care workers are being stampeded into this, and we’re supposed to be a thoughtful, rational society that deals with things through due process and careful reflection. That’s not what [New York] want(s) them to do here. They’re saying, ‘Look you guys, get the shots or in two weeks, you’re on the street.’ That’s criminal. That’s ridiculous. That’s insane.”

The party say their lawsuit will be filed with New York Supreme Court before the end of the week.

This is the second high profile lawsuit filed so far by healthworkers over mandatory vaccinations. Earlier this month the Washington State Nurses Association filed a federal lawsuit against MultiCare Health System for instituting the policy at both Tacoma General and Good Samaritan hospitals.

Nurses across the country are standing up against government intimidation to take the shot, pointing out that the vaccine has not been properly tested and contains mercury, squalene and other dangerous additives.

Mums-To-Be In Swine Flu Jab Controversy

Prepare to have your world rocked. What you’re about to read here will leave you astonished, inspired and outraged all at the same time. You’re about to be treated to some little-known information demonstrating why seasonal flu vaccines are utterly worthless and why their continued promotion is based entirely on fabricated studies and medical mythology.

If the whole world knew what you’re about to read here, the vaccine industry would collapse overnight.

This information comes to you courtesy of a brilliant article published in The Atlantic (November 2009). The article, written by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, isn’t just brilliant; in my opinion it stands as the best article on flu vaccines that has ever been published in the popular press. Entitled Does the vaccine matter?, it presents some of the most eye-opening information you’ve probably ever read about the failure of flu vaccines. You can read the full article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

While I’ve never done this before, I’m going to summarize this article point by point (along with some comments) so that you get the full force of what’s finally been put into print.

This information is so important that I encourage you to share the following summary I’ve put together. Email it to family, friends and coworkers. Or post it on your blog or website (with a link and proper credit to both NaturalNews and The Atlantic, please). Get this information out to the world. People need to know this, and so far the mainstream media has utterly failed to make this information known.

(The really good information begins after around a dozen bullet points, so be sure to keep reading…)

What follows is my point-by-point summary of this groundbreaking article by Shannon Brownlee, originally published in The Atlantic. My opinion statements are shown in brackets and italics.

• Vaccination is the core strategy of the U.S. government’s plan to combat the swine flu.

• The U.S. government has spent roughly $3 billion stockpiling vaccines and anti-viral drugs.

• The CDC is recommending that 159 million Americans receive a swine flu vaccine injection (as soon as possible).

• What if vaccines don’t work? More and more researchers are skeptical about whether they do.

• Seasonal flu (that’s the regular flu) currently kills an estimated 36,000 people each year in the United States. [But most people who die are already suffering from existing diseases such as asthma.]

• Most “colds” aren’t really caused by the flu virus. As few as 7 or 8 percent (and at most, 50 percent) of colds have an influenza origin. There are more than 200 viruses and pathogens that can cause “influenza-like” illnesses (and therefore be easily mistaken for the flu).

• Viruses mutate with amazing speed, meaning that each year’s circulating influenza is genetically different from the previous year.

• The vaccine for each upcoming flu season is formulated by health experts taking a guess [a wild guess, at times] about what strain of influenza might be most likely to circulate in the future.

• The 1918 Spanish Flu infected roughly one-third of the world population and killed at least 40 million.

• In the U.S., the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology predicted that H1N1 influenza could infect up to one-half of the U.S. population and kill 90,000 Americans.

• Of those who have died from the Swine Flu in the U.S., roughly 70 percent were already diseased with some serious underlying condition such as asthma or AIDS.

• Public health officials consider vaccines to be their first and best weapon against influenza. Vaccines helped eradicate smallpox and polio. [I don't agree with that assessment. Vaccines did relatively little compared to improvements in public sanitation.]

• Each year, 100 million Americans get vaccinated, and vaccines remain “a staple” of public health policy in the United States.

• Because researchers can’t exactly pin down who has influenza and who doesn’t, the research conducted on the effectiveness of vaccines simply calculates the death rate from all causes among those who take the vaccine vs. those who don’t. [This includes deaths from accidents, heart attacks, medications, car wrecks and everything.]

• These studies show a “dramatic difference” between the death rates of those who get the vaccines vs. those who don’t. People who get vaccinated have significantly lower death rates [from ALL causes, and herein lies the problem...].

• Flu shot propaganda cites these studies, telling people that if they get their flu shots every year, they will have a significantly reduced chance of dying. But this is extremely misleading…

• Critics question the logic of these studies: As it turns out, compared to the number of deaths from all causes, the number of people killed by influenza is quite small. According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, deaths from influenza account for — at most — 10 percent of the total deaths during the flu season (and this includes all indirect deaths aggravated by the flu).

• This brings up a hugely important dilemma: If influenza only accounts for roughly 10 percent of all deaths during the flu season, how could an influenza vaccine reduce total deaths by 50 percent? (As is claimed by the vaccine manufacturers.) [It doesn't add up. Even if the vaccines were 100% effective, they should only reduce the total death rates by 10%, given that only 10% of the total deaths are caused by influenza.]

• Here’s a direct quote from the story: Tom Jefferson, a physician based in Rome and the head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence, says: “For a vaccine to reduce mortality by 50 percent and up to 90 percent in some studies means it has to prevent deaths not just from influenza, but also from falls, fires, heart disease, strokes, and car accidents. That’s not a vaccine, that’s a miracle.” [Emphasis added.]

• So how do the vaccine companies come up with this “50% reduction in death rate” statistic? Through cohort studies.

• Cohort studies compare the death rates of large groups of people who received the vaccine to large groups of people who did NOT receive the vaccine. But there’s a fatal flaw in this approach: People self-select for vaccinations. And what kind of people? As it turns out: People who take more precautions with their health!

• [Thus, you automatically have a situation where the more health-cautious people are getting the vaccines because they THINK it's good for them. Meanwhile all the masses of people who don't give a darn about their health tend to skip the seasonal flu vaccines. And these people tend to not take very good of their health in lots of other ways. In other words, in terms of the masses, people who get vaccines are more likely to avoid junk food and live a more health-cautious lifestyle. This explains the differences in the death rates between the two groups! It has nothing to do with the vaccine...]

• There is extreme “cult-like” peer pressure put on doctors and researchers to swallow the vaccine mythology without question. Quoted from the story: Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science. “People told me, ‘No good can come of [asking] this,’” she says. “‘Potentially a lot of bad could happen’ for me professionally by raising any criticism that might dissuade people from getting vaccinated, because of course, ‘We know that vaccine works.’ This was the prevailing wisdom.” [In other words, don't dare question the vaccine, and don't ask tough scientific questions because the vaccine industry runs on dogma, not science... and if you ask any questions, you might find yourself out of a job...].

• Lisa Jackson was not deterred. She and three other researchers began to study the widely-quoted vaccine statistics in an attempt to identify this “healthy user effect,” if any. They looked through eight years of medical data covering 72,000 people aged 65 or older and recorded who received flu shots and who didn’t. Then they compared the death rates for all causes outside the flu season.

• What she found blows a hole right through the vaccination industry: She found that even outside the flu season, the death rate was 60 percent higher among those who did not get vaccines than among those who do. [In other words, even when you take the flu season completely out of the equation, elderly people who don't get vaccines have other lifestyle factors that makes them far more likely to die from lots of other causes.]

• She also found that this so-called “healthy user effect” explains the entire apparent benefit that continues to be attributed to vaccines. This finding demonstrates that the flu vaccine may not have any beneficial effect whatsoever in reducing mortality.

• How well done were these particular studies? Quoted from the story: Jackson’s papers “are beautiful,” says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. “They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done.”

• Many pro-vaccine experts simply refused to believe the results of this study [because it conflicts with their existing belief in vaccine mythology]. The Journal of the American Medical Association refused to publish her research, even stating, “To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!” [Which just goes to show you how deeply ingrained the current vaccine mythology is in the minds of conventional medical practitioners. They simply cannot imagine that vaccines don't work, so they dismiss any evidence -- even GOOD evidence -- demonstrating that fact. This is what makes the vaccine industry a CULT rather than a science.]

• Jackson’s papers were finally published in 2006, in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

• The history of the flu vaccine reveals some huge gaps in current vaccination mythology, essentially proving they don’t work:

• For example: In 2004, vaccine production was low and there was a shortage in vaccines (a 40 percent reduction in vaccinations). And yet mortality rates did not rise during the flu season. [Clearly, if vaccines actually worked, then a year when the vaccine wasn't even administered to 40% of the people who normally get it should have resulted in a huge and statistically significant increase in mortality. It should have spiked the death rates and filled the morgues... but it didn't. You know why? Because flu vaccines don't work in the first place.]

• In the history of flu vaccines, there were two years in which the formulated flu vaccine was a total mismatch to the widely-circulating influenza that made people sick. These years were 1968 and 1997. In both of these years, the vaccine was a completely mismatch for the circulating virus. In effect, nobody was vaccinated! [Knowing this, if the vaccine itself was effective at reducing death rates, then we should have once again seen a huge spike in the death rates during these two years, right? Seriously, if the vaccine reduces death rates by 50% as is claimed by vaccine manufacturers, then these two years in which the vaccine completely missed the mark should have seen huge spikes in the winter death rates, right? But what really happened was... nothing. Not a blip. Not a spike. Nothing. The death rates didn't rise at all.]

• If vaccines really worked to save lives, then the more people you vaccinate, the lower death rates you should see, right? But that’s not the case. Back in 1989, only 15 percent of over-65 people got vaccinated against the flu. But today, thanks to the big vaccine push, over 65 percent are vaccinated. And yet, amazingly, death rates among the elderly have not gone down during the flu season. In fact, they’ve gone up!

• When vaccine promoters (and CDC officials) are challenged about the “50 percent mortality reduction” myth, they invoke dogmatic language and attack the messenger. They are simply not willing to consider the possibility that flu vaccines simply don’t work.

• Scientists who question the vaccine mythology are routinely shunned by the medical establishment. Tom Jefferson from the Cochrane Collaboration is an epidemiologist who questions the claimed benefits of flu vaccines. “The reaction [against Jefferson] has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you’d think he was advocating stealing babies” said a colleague (Majumdar).

• Jefferson is one of the world’s best-informed researchers on the flu vaccine. He leads a team of researchers who have examined hundreds of vaccine studies. To quote directly from the article: The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. “Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it’s the term that applies [to these studies].”

[And here's the real kicker that demonstrates why flu vaccines are useless...]

• Vaccines supposedly “work” by introducing a weakened viral strain that causes the immune system to respond by building influenza antibodies. However, as Jefferson points out, only healthy people produce a good antibody response to the vaccine. And yet it is precisely the unhealthy people — the ones who have a poor immune response to the vaccine — who are most at risk of being harmed or killed by influenza. But the vaccines don’t work in them!

• [In other words -- get this -- flu vaccines only "work" in people who don't need them!]

• [At the same time, it's also accurate to say that vaccines don't work at all in the very people who theoretically could benefit from them. They only produce antibodies in people who already have such a strong immune response that they don't need the vaccine in the first place.]

• Jefferson has called for randomized, placebo-controlled studies of the vaccines. But vaccine pushers are resisting these clinical trials! They call the trials “unethical” [but, in reality, they know that a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study would reveal the complete failure of flu vaccines, and they will do anything to prevent such a trial from happening. Don't you find it amazing that drug pushers and vaccine advocates claim they have "science" on their side, but they won't submit their vaccines to any real science at all?]

• [No placebo-controlled studies have ever been conducted on flu vaccines because the industry says they would be "unethical." So where do these people get off claiming their vaccines work at all? The whole industry is based on fabricated statistics that are provably false... and the injections continue, year after year, with absolutely no benefit to public health whatsoever...]

• On the anti-viral drug front, hospitals are urged to hand out prescriptions for Tamiflu and Relenza to almost anyone who is symptomatic, whether they actually have swine flu or not. Concern is growing about the emergence of drug-resistant strains of swine flu. ” Flu can become resistant to Tamiflu in a matter of days…” says one researcher.

• In 2005, the U.S. government spent $1.8 billion to stockpile antiviral drugs for the military. This decision was made during the time when Donald Rumsfeld was Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld also held millions of dollars worth of stock in Gilead Sciences, the company that holds the patent on Tamiflu. That company saw its stock price rise 50 percent following the government’s stockpiling purchase of Tamiflu.

• The evidence supporting Tamiflu’s anti-viral benefits is flimsy at best. Even worse, as many as one in five children taking Tamiflu experience neuropsychiatric side effects including hallucinations and suicidal behavior. [In other words, your kid might be "tripping out" on some bad Tamiflu...]

• Tamiflu is already linked to 50 deaths of children in Japan. Cause of death? Heart failure.

• The evidence supporting Tamiflu is based on cohort studies, just like the vaccines, which may distort or exaggerate the apparent benefits of the drug.

• Even supporters of Tamiflu admit it’s never been proven to help. A CDC official says that randomized trials to determine the effectiveness of Tamiflu would be “unethical.”

• In all, neither vaccines nor anti-viral drugs have any reliable evidence that they work against influenza at all. Both are being promoted based entirely on pure wishful thinking, not hard science.

• The history of pharmaceutical medicine is littered with other examples of drugs that doctors “knew worked” but which later turned out to harm or kill patients. [All along, the proper scientific studies were avoided because, hey, if you already know everything, why bother conducting any actual science to prove anything?]

• The hype about vaccines provides a false sense of security, taking away attention from other things that really do work to prevent influenza deaths. That’s why, except for “hand washing,” virtually no advice has been offered to the public on preventing influenza beyond vaccines and anti-viral drugs.

• Concluding quote from the author: “By being afraid to do the proper studies now, we may be condemning ourselves to using treatments based on illusion and faith rather than sound science.”

• There have been no placebo-controlled studies on flu vaccines because the vaccine pushers say such clinical trials would be “unethical.” Thus, there is actually no hard scientific evidence that they work at all.

• The “50 percent reduction in mortality” statistic that’s tossed around by vaccine pushers is a total fabrication based on “rubbish” studies (”cohort” studies).

• Scrutinizing the existing studies that claim to support vaccines reveals that flu vaccines simply don’t work. And when vaccines aren’t available or the formulation is wrong, there’s no spike in death rates, indicating quite conclusively that these vaccines offer no reduction in mortality.

• Flu vaccines only produce antibodies in people who don’t need vaccines. At the same time, they fail to produce antibodies in people who are most vulnerable to flu. Thus, vaccines only work in people who don’t need them.

• The entire flu vaccine industry is run like a cult, with dogma ruling over science. Anyone who asks tough, scientific questions is immediately branded a heretic. No one is allowed to question the status quo. (So much for “evidence-based medicine,” huh?)

As you can see from all this, the flu vaccine is pure quackery. Those who administer vaccines are, by inference, QUACKS. They claim to have scientific minds, and yet they are the most gullible of all: They will believe almost anything if it’s published in a medical journal, even if it’s complete quackery.

Today, countless doctors, nurses and pharmacists across North America and around the world are pushing a medically worthless, scientifically-fabricated chemical injection that offers absolutely no benefit to public health… and yet they’re convinced it’s highly effective! It just goes to show you how easy it is to brainwash people in the field of conventional medicine.

They’ve abandoned real science long ago, you know. Now the whole industry is just run on the momentum of dogmatic arrogance and the illusion of authority. From the CDC and FDA on down to the local pharmacist at the corner store, the American medical system is run by some seemingly smart people who have been brainwashed into become full-fledged members of the Cult of Pharmacology where vaccine mythology overrules real science.

The vaccine industry is perhaps the greatest medical scam ever pulled off in the history of the world. Don’t fall for it.

Reading everything you’ve read here, you might wonder: Why do people get vaccinated at all?

The reason is because no one knows whether they work or not, so people keep on taking them “just in case.” It’s exactly the kind of superstitious ritual that “science-minded skeptics” rail against on a regular basis… unless, of course, it involves their vaccines, in which case superstition is all okay.

People take vaccines for the same reason they rub a rabbit’s foot. It’s a good luck ritual that may or may not work, but no one really knows. And besides, what’s the harm in it? (They think…)

Personally, I’d rather get some vitamin D and have a healthy, functioning immune system. But for those who prefer to play the lotto, gamble in Vegas or bet their lives on medical superstitions, flu vaccines are readily available.

So what are you waiting for? Shoot up a few flu vaccines, rub your lucky rabbit’s foot, then spin around clockwise seven times and you, too, may be able to generate enough luck to avoid the flu this winter.

It makes sense California would enact such a law. The state is lorded over by an avowed Nazi.

”I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker,” Arnie said in the documentary Pumping Iron. The producer of the film, George Butler, considers Schwarzenegger a ”flagrant, outspoken admirer of Hitler.”

In a book proposal, according to the New York Times, Butler also said he had seen Mr. Schwarzenegger playing ”Nazi marching songs from long-playing records in his collection at home” and said that the actor ”frequently clicked his heels and pretended to be an S.S. officer.”

In response to Butler’s accusation, Schwarzenegger told the newspaper in 2003 that he despises Hitler.

He does? If so, why does Schwarzenegger wear a belt buckle bearing the SS Totenkopf, a Nazi SS insignia? Schwarzenegger appeared on the cover of Time Magazine on June 25, 2007, with Michael Bloomberg — who also has contempt for the Second Amendment — wearing the death’s head belt buckle. He wore it again nine months later in the March 2008 issue of Esquire Magazine.

Schwarzenegger proudly displayed the death’s head buckle a few months ago at the CeBIT 2009 IT conference in Hanover, Germany.

Schwarzenegger’s late father, Gustav, voluntarily applied to join the Nazi Party in 1938 when it was still illegal in Austria. He also voluntarily applied to become a member of the Sturmabteilung, the Nazi paramilitary wing, on May 1, 1939. He was a Hitler-worshiping brownshirt.

Arnie invited Austrian president Kurt Waldheim to his wedding in 1986 after it emerged that the former UN secretary general had long concealed that he fought in a German army commando accused of atrocities.

All of this may be incidental to Arnie’s signing of AB962, the California ammo bill. But then, considering Arnie’s flagrant display of an SS insignia, it does not seem likely.

Nazis feared an armed public. Soon after grabbing power in 1933, the Nazis conducted massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents. “After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefited Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state,” writes Stephen P. Halbrook.

“History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing,” Hitler said.

“The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928,” writes Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership. “The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb ‘gang activity,’ violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? ‘Gun control’ did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

In California it is much the same — the state, the toughest criminal on the block, will now have a monopoly on gun possession while the law-abiding citizens will be forced to jump through hoops in order to realize the constitutional right to own a firearm.

It is ironic that Schwarzenegger signed this bill. He is an avowed Nazi that takes pride in wearing the same insignia as the Schutzstaffel or the SS. It is a symbol representing not only the secret police and naked totalitarian power, but the Nazi death cult responsible for killing tens of millions of innocent humans.

Millions of them would have lived a lot longer if they had firearms and fought back against the people Arnold Schwarzenegger worships.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners: “Own a gun; lose your coverage!”

Baucus’ socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee vote on Tuesday. We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty Baucus to release legislative language. But he has refused to release anything but a summary — and we will never have a Congressional Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation. Even the summary was kept secret for a long time.

But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law — nor the consequences. It simply says:

* “all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through (1) the individual market…”;

* “individuals would be required to report on their federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage…”;

* in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to “define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services…” within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting “required minimum health coverage.”

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment — she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas — we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don’t be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns “dangerous” firearms.

After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!). While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do — Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.

The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you. But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?

All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you about for several months … the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump your gun information into a federal database … a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to “encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun owner in America?

Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines — and possibly more for a household with older teens. And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy — something which was never at issue — it doesn’t prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators. Ask him or her, in the strongest terms, to vote against the phony Baucus bill.

* Is predicated on $283 billion in phony “cuts” which have never, never ever been realized since a similar commitment to cut Medicare costs in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 — and will never, never ever be realized under the Baucus bill;

* Requires massive numbers of Americans to have government-approved insurance which the CBO predicts will be more expensive than current policies;

* Refuses to provide a cost for these policies, making it almost certain that more and more Americans will find insurance beyond their reach;

* Has no legislative language and nothing but a CBO “guesstimate” of the cost and benefits, based on a summary.

On the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law — nor the consequences. It does say that the “Secretary of HHS [Kathleen Sebelius] would be required to define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services…” within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting “required minimum health coverage.”

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment — she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas — I presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

This is, of course, in addition to the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump my gun information into a federal database — a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to “encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Robert Reich, Clinton’s Secretary of Labor and avid Obama supporter, wants to deny health care to old folks. They’re too expensive. He also told an audience in 2007 that most people will not live longer than their parents. Again, too expensive. He wants to force medical technology corporations to stop developing new life-saving technology.

Reich, of course, supports the so-called “public option,” the government’s take-over of the health care industry. In order to push the Obamacare scam, Reich proposed a march on Washington by the liberals to demand the public option. He wanted to do this on Grandparents Day, September 13.

Reich wanted people to march in favor of a plan that would mandate old people die on a day set aside for old people. You can’t make this stuff up.

Mr. Reich’s pronouncement is yet another confirmation that the government wants to kill old people who are after all — according to our eugenicist rulers — nothing if not useless eaters.

Democrats and liberals went ballistic when Sarah Palin mentioned the fact that the government wants to use the “level of productivity in society” as the basis for determining access to medical care. This Darwinian and Malthusian concept is supported by Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and White House health care policy adviser.

In 1996, Emanuel said health care should be rationed for those who are not “participating citizens,” that is to say the old, the infirm, and those suffering from irreversible medical conditions.

As a good liberal, Emanuel would like to avoid the perception that he proposes killing old people simply because they are old — that would be “ageist” — and instead argues that they have used up their “life-years” and basically need to get out of the way and stop using up precious medical resources.

Robert Reich reduces the academic gobbledygook of Emanuel’s “Complete Lives System” down to language the average person can understand. In the above video, he spells it out — the government will intervene in medical decisions made by you and your family. Grand daddy is a burden on society and has nothing left to contribute because he no longer works and pays half or more of his income to the government in the form of confiscatory taxes.

The sad and frightening thing is, when Reich told the audience they will have to die, they applauded.

By now we have all heard the cliches and seen the posters from the “Tea Parties” espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national healthcare down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth of the matter is all the slogans of “Don’t Tread On Me” or “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” or “We’re Mad As Hell And We’re Not Taking It Anymore,” don’t mean a thing when compared to reality; the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage. The answer is in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it! That’s right, the individual States can stop “Obamacare” and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and “big brother” tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hamshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with National Healthcare as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say “No!”

For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let’s look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government. Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments.

The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the “creator.” Let’s be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of “balanced power.” Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Tenth Amendment) Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a recurrence here in America.

In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that “States are not subject to federal direction.” But today’s federal Tories argue that the “supremecy clause” of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing “supreme” is the constitution itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that “Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other.” So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare “incursion.” To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The point to remember here is; where do we define the “sphere” of the federal government? That’s right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is NOT their responsiblity and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.

Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let’s take one more look at Mack/Printz. “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other…” What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a “structural protection of liberty” that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of “checks and balances.” The States (and Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere.

So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and “The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions.” (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell national healthcare proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!

In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, “The federal government may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” It is rather obvious that nationalized healthcare definitely qualifies as a “federal regulatory program.”

Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are misdirected. Such actions are “pie in the sky” dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways. However, in our system of “dual sovereignty,” the States can do it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate. Doing so is what States’ Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.

In many ways, Obama receiving the peace prize last week is a non-story. War criminals and other psychopaths like Henry Kissinger routinely get the award. Sundry heads of state and their minions are invariably praised as peacemakers after handing down murderous directives no different than Charlie Manson telling his LSD-addled zombies to kill innocents.

In the case of Obama’s award, the real story is in the aftermath and the reaction. For instance, consider the reaction of a top Democratic National Committee official after Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said it was “unfortunate” Obama was given the award.

Ben Smith of Politico included the following quote in a report filed on October 9:

In short, every American who has a problem with Obama receiving the award is a terrorist, according to the DNC.

Steele, of course, didn’t say anything about the fact Obama is a terrorist who has as commander in chief ordered the murder of thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other less publicized places around the world, either directly or through proxies.

Steele wouldn’t dare. His former boss, George Bush Jr., was responsible for killing over a million Iraqis. Democrats and Republicans are identical when it comes to killing people. Both parties — the flip side of the same party — are seasoned pros in the gruesome art of serial murder.

After Bush the Lesser’s father bombed Iraq back to the Stone Age, Democrat Bill Clinton engaged in ad hoc bombings, boycotts, and sanctions that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of people, including 500,000 children. In addition to bombing Yugoslavia and Iraq, Clinton attacked Afghanistan and the Sudan (where he bombed a pharmaceutical factory). He enthusiastically supported Turkey in its wanton slaughter of Kurds.

In the recent past, U.S. presidents have supported brutal dictators such as Diem, Mobutu, the Shah, Pinochet, Suharto, Savimbi, Marcos, Fujimori, Salinas, and many others.

In Latin America, U.S.-backed (armed and trained) forces committed massacres, political murders, torture, and the rape of women before killing them. Reagan, the hero of the Republicans, was responsible for many of these crimes.

Henry Kissinger is emblematic of the sort of pond scum that gets the Nobel peace prize. Kissinger is responsible for almost unbelievable instances of mass murder in Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, East Timor, Chile and Cyprus. For his role in these genocidal conflicts, he is hailed as an “elder statesman” by the corporate media.

As for the Taliban, the “terror” group mentioned by Woodhouse, it was created by the CIA.

Funk the War, a demonstration to demand an end to the war in Afghanistan and for increased education funding, was violently attacked by police this evening. At least 10 people were arrested, many are still in custody right now. One of the arrestees was reported to be bleeding from her face after being tackled by two cops into the the base of a light pole, she is currently sitting in the back of a police car without access to medical attention.

Just when you think the Unesco people have reached the upper limit of their criminal mindset, a new document emerges that proves you wrong.

An abject draft report on ‘International Guidelines on Sexuality Education’ proposes desensitizing children as young as 5 to the concepts of masturbation and preparing them incrementally for the possibility of an abortion. Although the report sparked a mild controversy in the beginning of September, the final ‘Conference Ready Version’ of the report has not removed the proposals.

In case you missed it the first time, here it is again: Unesco is intent on exposing 5 year old children to the reality of abortions and masturbation.

In the report, published in June of this year, the authors Nanette Ecker and Douglas Kirby propose five different age ranges and just as many teaching methodologies for ’sexuality education’ to confront children with. The reason given for all this is ‘HIV prevention’ in order to achieve ‘Universal Access Targets.’ According to the Ecker and Kirby, the first thing to impress upon 5 year old children (under the header “Key Ideas”) is that “many different kinds of families exist around the world (e.g. two-parent, single parent, child-headed, guardian-headed, extended and nuclear families, same-sex couple parents, etc.).”

Proposed as “Key Ideas” to impress the impressionable with are, in the age range of 5 to 8:

The last-mentioned “Key Idea” is obviously meant to prepare the children for the possibility of an abortion- for one of the “Key Ideas” mentioned in a later age range, 9 to 12, includes “definition of abortion” and “legal status of abortion locally and globally”. The learning curve is complete when the authors propose, in the age range of 15 to 18, “advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion.”

Here we have it: in the early stage (5 to

children are being taught that “some people are unable to care for a child”, in the next stage (9 to 12) the concept of abortion is being introduced. In the last stage (15 to18) the “Key Idea” is to explicitly advocate abortion.

Whatever one’s position in regards to the subject, everyone should agree that it is nothing less than a crime to desensitize children to such ideas at such an early age.

In a section called ‘common concerns about the provision of sexuality education’, the authors try to ‘debunk’ possible concerns about delivering this information to the very young. One of the concerns the authors toss up is “sexuality education deprives children of their ‘innocence’.”

To put the word innocence in between quotes, says a lot about the mindset behind these proposals. These sickening Unesco sociopaths have the audacity to call into question a child’s innocence, proposing the school should inform the children about such matters at the age of 5.

“Parents”, according to the authors, “are often reluctant to engage in discussion of sexual matters with children because of cultural norms, their own ignorance or discomfort.”

In a twisted mind-warp, the authors therefore propose taking upon themselves the role of the parents, and dangerous ones at that. To quote co-author Nanette Ecker: “We (…) need to start sexuality education young, such as teaching 5- to 8- year olds the correct terminology about their bodies and how they work so they have the language to ask questions or report abusive, coercive behaviour or sexual violence.”

The World Health Organization shares this point of view. In the appendix to the abovementioned monstrosity can be read: “The World Health Organization (WHO) concludes it is critical that sexuality education be started early (…).”

“The International Guidelines”, say the authors, “will have immediate relevance for education ministers and their professional staff, including curriculum developers, school principals and teachers. However, anyone involved in the design, delivery and evaluation of sexuality education, in and out of school, may find this document useful.”

There is no more doubt. The globalists, through their United Nations front, are coming for the kids. It is clear they we are dealing with people who do not even recognize the sacred rule that whatever you do, the children are not to be touched.

Yesterday afternoon, Justice Edward Lehner of the State Supreme Court rubberstamped Referee Louis Crespo’s recommendation that the decision to establish a local commission to investigate the events of September 11th not be put before the voters on November 3rd.

After showing interest in weighing both sides’ arguments in the hearing, the Judge’s short decision gives no indication of having considered the arguments put forth in the Petitioners’ memorandum of law, nor any acknowledgement of the need for a new investigation, which the City of New York callously dismissed as “irrelevant”.

On a dark day for democracy, the patriotic call for answers by hundreds of 9/11 families, first responders and survivors has been stifled, and the will of the people of New York City once again denied.

Judge Lehner ruled that modifying the petition to make it “legally permissible” would result in it being “inconsistent with the law sought by the signatories of the Petition” despite the fact that all 80,000 signatories agreed by signing the Petition that “If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.”

The deadline for inclusion on the ballot falls just before the election, making it possible to appeal Judge Lehner’s decision. NYC CAN is weighing all options and will make an announcement early next week on this issue, as well as on how it will be moving forward on other fronts. Regardless of the outcome in court, the quest for answers continues full throttle.

Three heroes of 9/11 die of cancer in five days

A firefighter and two cops who worked at Ground Zero in the days and weeks after Sept. 11 have died of cancer in the past five days, the Daily News has learned.

Family members and advocates are blaming their deaths on toxins released into the air after the twin towers collapsed – and they’re urging Congress to act on a bill that would help pay for their medical care.

“Everybody is denying that this stuff is connected to 9/11, but it is,” said Stephen Grossman, whose son Robert died of cancer on Friday at the age of 44.

Robert Grossman was a police officer in Harlem who worked at Ground Zero for several weeks after Sept. 11.

“He never once said he was sorry he went down there,” Grossman said. “None of them walked away even though they all knew it was really dangerous.”

Full article here

In the freezing foothills of Montana, a distinctly bitter blast of revolution hangs in the air.

And while the residents of the icy city of Missoula can stave off the -10C chill with thermals and fires, there may be no easy remedy for the wintry snap’s repercussions.

The temperature has shattered a 36-year record. Further into the heartlands of America, the city of Billings registered -12C on Sunday, breaking the 1959 barrier of -5C.

Closer to home, Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains.

You can’t find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but…say “yes, global warming is with us.”

Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling – very slightly – .037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this “cooling” trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that’s the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of “warming.”

Losing Their Religion: 2009 officially declared year the media lost their faith in man-made global warming fears

2009 can now be officially declared the year the media lost their faith in man-made global warming fears.

Significant organs of the mainstream media are now officially abandoning one-sided man-made global warming fear promotion and alleged claims that the “debate is over.”

It appears at long last that media’s faith is waning. Appeals to authority about the alleged global warming “consensus” are now being met with a healthy dose of skepticism by increasing large portions of the mainstream media. Statements like UN IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth that the UN IPCC “has spoken” no longer have the comforting effect on many key members of the journalistic flock. [Disclaimer: This declaration does not mean the battle to improve the media's coverage of global warming is over. But it does mean that there have been significant developments in 2009 with the media's coverage of climate change. Promoters of man-made climate fears will now need a major reformation to win back the faith of key members of the media.]

Close followers of climate science development foresaw this collapse of the science is “settled” reporting way back in 2006. Here is a breakdown of how the science of man-made global warming and the alleged “consensus” has fared since 2006.

The scientific, cultural and political impact of the BBC’s new perspective on man-made global warming was astounding. Headlines blared:

Moment of Clarity: BBC Wakes Up To Benefits Of Warming — And To Climate Skepticism! – July 30, 3009

Not to be left out of the fresh air of journalistic balance and the new recognition of climate reality, the UK Times and the Christian Science Monitor jumped out of the gates with their own new found skeptical take on man-made climate fears in recent days.

CNN’s coverage of global warming radically improved in 2009, since the news network let go its climate fear promoting science reporter Miles O’Brien and his CNN producer Peter Dykstra. The same goes for The Weather Channel. The network’s coverage of climate issues has improved dramatically since the woeful Heidi Cullen was let go. These are two ironclad instances where budget cutbacks and staff reductions noticeably improved climate news coverage.

One final key development in 2009, was a growing and surprising willingness by some man-made climate fear promoters to actually agree to engage in debates. See here for some examples. Expect to see a big increase in global warming debates as the warming faithful realize their “debate is over” tactics and refusal to debate has hurt their case immensely.

Sampling of Media’s Loss of Faith In Global Warming (includes some political leaders as well):

Excerpt: Excerpt: This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on? Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming. They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. [...] Skeptics insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely. One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say its hotting up.

Over the last three months, banks put 63 percent of their new cash into euros and yen — not the greenbacks — a nearly complete reversal of the dollar’s onetime dominance for reserves, according to Barclays Capital. The dollar’s share of new cash in the central banks was down to 37 percent — compared with two-thirds a decade ago.

Currently, dollars account for about 62 percent of the currency reserve at central banks — the lowest on record, said the International Monetary Fund.

The number of Americans filing first- time claims for unemployment benefits fell last week to the lowest since January, a sign the labor market is deteriorating more slowly as the economy emerges from the recession.

Applications fell by 33,000 to 521,000, lower than forecast, in the week ended Oct. 3, from a revised 554,000 the week before, Labor Department data showed today in Washington. The total number of people collecting unemployment insurance dropped in the prior week to the least since March.

While the figures indicate improvement, government data last week showed more job cuts than forecast for September and a rising jobless rate. President Barack Obama pledged to “explore any and all additional measures” to spur growth, as last week’s report underscored that gains in consumer spending may be hard to sustain once stimulus programs expire.

“The pace of job losses has slowed,” Steven Wood, president of Insight Economics LLC in Danville, California, said before the report. Even so, he said, mounting unemployment will mean “sluggish economic growth over the next year.”

Economists forecast weekly claims would drop to 540,000 from a previously reported 551,000, according to the median of 45 projections in a Bloomberg News survey. Estimates ranged from 530,000 to 560,000.

Continuing claims dropped by 72,000 to 6.04 million in the week ended Sept. 26 from 6.11 million in the prior week.

Nationwide, the number of long-term unemployed people hit a record 5.4 million in September, or 35.6% of the jobless.

The U.S. House approved $82.8 billion for federal nutrition programs ranging from food stamps to school lunch on Wednesday, including a plan to compensate poor families for lunches missed during flu epidemics.

The money is part of a $121 billion funding bill for the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration for the fiscal year that began Oct 1. Nutrition spending would rise by $6.6 billion from fiscal 2009, a reflection of the recession. [Pure socialism]

Measured in euros, U.S. per capita GDP is down 25% since 2000. Bond buyer Bill Gross of the Pimco fund summed up the situation nicely in a recent CNBC interview. Asked whether low interest rates will weaken the dollar, the influential allocator of global capital said: “I think that’s part of the administration’s plan. It’s obviously not announced—the ’strong dollar’ is always the policy, so to speak. One of the ways a country gets out from under its debt burden is to devalue.”

Investors have been playing this weak-dollar trade for years, diverting more and more dollars into commodities, foreign currencies and foreign stock markets. This is the Third-World way of asset allocation.

Corporations play this game for bigger stakes, borrowing billions in dollars to expand their foreign businesses. As the pound slid in the 1950s and ’60s and the British Empire crumbled, the corporations that prospered were the ones that borrowed pounds aggressively in order to expand abroad. Though British equities rose in pound terms, they generally underperformed gold and foreign equities. At the end of empire, the giant sucking sound was from British capital and jobs moving offshore as the pound sank.

From the euro perspective, the S&P peaked at 1700 in 2000, finally re-attained 1100 in the 2007 bubble, fell below 600 in March and now stands at 700 (see nearby chart). With most of the market capitalization of U.S. stocks held by Americans, the dollar devaluation has caused a massive decline in the U.S. share of global wealth.

The U.S. Commerce Department launched an investigation Wednesday into whether to impose antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of certain seamless steel pipes from China.

The State of Illinois’ pile of unpaid bills has grown to a record-breaking $3 billion. The comptroller reported corporate income tax receipts down $77 million for July through September; sales tax receipts, down $244 million; personal income tax receipts, down $251 million.

It appears destined for a taxpayer bailout in the next 24 to 36 months,” said Edward Pinto, a consultant who was chief credit officer from 1987 to 1989 for Fannie Mae.

In a sign that more banks are under great pressure from the recession, 34 financial institutions did not pay their quarterly dividends in August to the Treasury on funds obtained under the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). The number almost doubled from 19 in May when payments were last made, and also raised questions about Treasury’s judgment in approving these banks as “healthy,” a necessary step for them to get TARP funding.

“Perhaps the Treasury made assumptions that were a little bit too rosy,” says Walter Todd, who invests in banks at Greenwood Capital. “My question is also whether the Treasury is staffed adequately to handle this tremendous undertaking.”

The U.S. government ended its 2009 fiscal year with a deficit of $1.4 trillion, the biggest since 1945, the Congressional Budget Office reported.

The deficit amounted to 9.9 percent of the nation’s economy, triple the size of the shortfall for 2008.

The nonpartisan CBO said yesterday the government was squeezed on both sides of the budget ledger in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Tax revenue fell by $420 billion, or 17 percent, to the lowest level in more than 50 years.

Individual income taxes, the biggest source of tax receipts, fell by 20 percent, the agency said. Corporate income taxes dropped by 54 percent, reflecting the slow economy. At the same time, federal spending rose by 18 percent, the CBO said. About half of the spending increase, $245 billion, was driven by the costs of bailing out the financial industry and taking over mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The spending increases and tax cuts included in the economic stimulus package approved in February added almost $200 billion to the 2009 deficit, the CBO said.

After three years of major increases in federal Pell grants for needy college students, President Obama aims to boost the aid further with $40 billion in funding over the next decade. But even that influx might not ensure that the grants will recover and sustain the purchasing power they once held.

In the late 1970s, the maximum Pell award covered more than two-thirds of tuition and fees for a public four-year university. In the 1980s, it covered roughly half of such expenses. In the last school year, it covered about a third.

Used vehicle prices shot to an all-time high last month, spurred by falling inventories, according to a closely watched barometer of the second-hand car business.

But those buying their first car or who aren’t looking to trade in a vehicle will find themselves stuck paying the higher price, Webb said.

The Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index rose 6.9% in September to a record high of 118.5. The index is adjusted for vehicle mix and seasonality. A value of 100 represents used vehicle prices in January 1995.

The index reflects the wholesale, or trade-in, value of vehicles. But Webb said retail prices move “pretty much in lockstep” with wholesale values.

The main driver behind higher used car prices is falling wholesale vehicle supply, Webb said. This summer’s wildly popular cash for clunkers program sent new vehicle sales soaring, taking dealers by surprise and clearing out inventories.

Even though new car sales dropped off in September, auto factories struggled to catch up and inventories remained low.

In addition, he blamed falling vehicle turnover from rental car companies, many of whom have taken a beating in the economic recession.

Home sellers cut their asking prices by a total of $28.4 billion to attract buyers as the real estate recovery stalled, Trulia Inc. said.

The average discount was 10 percent as of Oct. 1, the San Francisco-based real estate data provider said today. Homes listed for more than $2 million were cut the most, with owners taking an average of 14 percent off the original price. Luxury homes accounted for 25 percent of all of the reductions.

Sales of existing U.S. homes unexpectedly fell in August for the first time since March, according to the National Association of Realtors, signaling the recovery will be slow to gain speed. The median price dropped 12.5 percent from August 2008.

Consumers have to be slashing the prices of the homes they list,” Pete Flint, chief executive officer of Trulia, said in an interview. There’s a “significant inventory” of homes for sale. “You’re still going to see further price declines before the market stabilizes in 2010.

Half of the 10 states with the highest percentage of discounted homes are in the Northeast: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire and New Jersey.

A third of residences for sale in those states were reduced at least once, Trulia said. New York, California and Florida accounted for 35 percent of the total value of price cuts nationally. In Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, Wyoming, Hawaii, Utah and California, sellers have dropped an average of 13 percent off the original price, according to Trulia.

Inventories at U.S. wholesalers dropped in August for a 12th consecutive month, clearing the way for a pickup in orders as sales improve.

The 1.3 percent decrease in stockpiles was larger than anticipated and followed a revised 1.6 percent drop in July, figures from the Commerce Department showed today in Washington. Wholesale inventories have had the longest series of declines since records began in 1992. Sales climbed 1 percent, the biggest gain since June 2008.

Distributors will likely increase bookings after companies drew down inventories at a record pace in the first half of the year. The gains may give the world’s largest economy a boost in the early stages of a recovery as American factories rev up assembly lines to prevent stockpiles from dwindling even more.

[This is truly unbelievable, this is the same man that is extending the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan. It shows you how much control the Illuminati has. Next we will read the President’s dog has been made ambassador to Kenya.] U.S. President Barack Obama was named the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday: “For his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

The announcement came early this morning, and comes as President Obama is considering how much to increase troop levels in the war in Afghanistan.

As the sky hinted at dawn, U.S. soldiers went hunting for Taliban in the Arghandab Valley. They had satellite-linked monocles to display the locations of platoons. They could summon an aerial drone to buzz overhead with a surveillance camera. They could call on Kiowa helicopters for search-and-destroy missions.

On this mission, however, one of their most valuable assets was an informant: a farmer with a taste for opium.

“It all came down to one guy who said, ‘The Taliban stole my motorcycle.’ He was high, and he was pissed, and he give us the tip on where to find them,” said Sgt. Kenneth Rickman, 34, of Vandalia, Ill.

The U.S. trade deficit unexpectedly narrowed in August as exports climbed to the highest level of the year and oil imports plunged.

The gap fell 3.6 percent to $30.7 billion from a revised $31.9 billion in July, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. A rebound in auto making contributed to a jump in exports to Canada, while a drop in the number of barrels of petroleum bought abroad swamped an increase in fuel prices.

More than $2 trillion in government stimulus programs are reviving demand from Asia to Europe, ensuring American factories benefit from growing sales overseas as the dollar falls. Gains in production and the need to replenish depleted inventories mean imports will probably also grow in coming months.

“The credit crisis has forged an even larger gap between the rich and poor, though it might not last for long,” writes Ian Mathias in today’s issue of The 5. “The richest 10% of Americans made at least $138,000 each this year, according to Census data released last week. That’s a record high 11.4 times the average income for the opposite end of the spectrum: the poverty line around $12,000. Pre-crisis multiples were closer to 11.2.

“The middle class is getting credit crunched too. The median household income has fallen $1,860 over the last year – wiping out a decade of slow gains – to $50,303.

“But if history is any guide, this trend may be near its peak. At present, about a quarter of America’s total income is earned by 1% of its population (amazing, eh?). That level has only been attained once in US history – ironically, 1928, right around the start of the last economic depression. What followed then was a 50-year trend in the other direction.

If the dollar collapses, it would spell economic disaster not just for the United States, but for the world, says Gerald Celente, director of the Trade Research Institute.

“It is more than just the demise of the dollar – this is going to be felt worldwide. There’s a major financial crisis ahead. The United States, the world’s superpower, is failing on its most basic level,” Celente told RT.

And the reason for the future demise of the American currency, Celente says, is the disproportionate financial system:

“We can’t print money out of thin air, backed by nothing and producing practically nothing.”

The researcher believes the crisis of the dollar is irreversible, since America is losing its gold – the value of its currency.

Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary, always takes calls from his bankster bosses on Wall Street, according to an Associated Press report.

“Even during his most frenzied days, when Congress is demanding answers or the president himself is calling, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner makes time to talk to a select group of powerful Wall Street bankers,” write Matt Apuzzo and Daniel Wagner. “When they call, Geithner answers. He has spoken with them immediately after hanging up with President Barack Obama and before heading up to Capitol Hill, between phone calls with senators and after talking with the Federal Reserve chairman.”

AP obtained Geithner’s appointment calendars through a FOIA request. The calendars reveal what readers of Infowars already knew — Geithner and the Treasury Department take orders from Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Geithner is a consummate Wall Street insider. He was the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He was a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the Group of Thirty (a Rockefeller operation), worked for Kissinger Associates, and is a member of the Trilateral Commission. Lawrence Summers was his mentor. He is a Robert Rubin protégé. Rubin, Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, was Chairman of Citigroup. Summers, also a Clinton Treasury Secretary, was Chief Economist for the World Bank and was tapped by Obama to be the director of the White House National Economic Council. Geithner also sits on the board of the Bank for International Settlements, the mega-globalist outfit that enjoys immunity from virtually all regulation, scrutiny and accountability.

“Geithner had more contacts with Citigroup than he did with Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the lawmaker leading the effort to approve Geithner’s overhaul of the financial system. Geithner’s contacts with [Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs] alone outnumber his contacts with Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.”

Goldman stacked the Bush and Obama administrations with minions in order to profit from the bankster bailout. It is the motivating force behind the cap-and-trade swindle now taking form. “Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago, but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues,” writes Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone.

The Federal Reserve, a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and the international bankers, is the primary instrument for creating so-called bubbles and economic depressions. “Using a central bank to create alternate periods of inflation and deflation, and thus whipsawing the public for vast profits, had been worked out by the international bankers to an exact science,” writes the late Gary Allen. “Having built the Federal Reserve as a tool to consolidate and control wealth, the international bankers were now ready to make a major killing. Between 1923 and 1929, the Federal Reserve expanded (inflated) the money supply by sixty-two percent. Much of this new money was used to bid the stock market up to dizzying heights.”

“It [the depression] 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 the rulers of us all,” declared Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s.

But you wouldn’t know this if all you read is the Associated Press. “There is nothing inherently wrong with senior Treasury Department officials speaking regularly with industry executives, or even with the secretary keeping tabs on the market’s biggest players, even though critics say Geithner risks succumbing too much to these bankers’ self-interested worldview.”

Succumbing? Timothy Geithner is instrumental to the bankster scam. He is a key player in a long-running bankster plot specifically designed to “reign supreme over everyone, everywhere, as one whole super-national control mechanism,” as Montagu Norman of the Bank of England wrote in 1942.

The battle to reform the American banking system needs to include reimposing the barrier between investment banking and depository banking (Glass-Steagall), pay incentives based on what is best for Americans and not just the top executives, the end of too big to fail, and other changes which are frequently discussed by financial writers. These are vital issues.

New York Versus the Rest of the Country

If you are happy with the banking system, and don’t think it needs to be reformed, then you probably work for one of the banks headquartered in New York.

Indeed, the banks outside of New York have acted much more conservatively, used more conservative capital ratios and less leverage and gotten less involved in credit derivatives and other speculative investments.

Buy a banker in the Midwest a drink, and he will probably rail against the giant New York banks for causing the financial crisis, costing the smaller, better run banks a lot of money and huge fees, and driving many smaller banks out of business.

And even within the Federal Reserve, what the New York Fed and Bernanke are saying is wholly different from what the heads of the regional Fed banks are saying. The Fed banks in Philadelphia and Kansas City and Dallas and elsewhere disagree with what the New York Fed and Fed’s Open Market Committee are doing. See this and this.

So the battle isn’t between bankers versus outsiders. It is between the giant New York money-centered banks and the rest of the country.

Remember, Milton Friedman – the monetary economist worshipped as the guy with all of the answers in the latter part of the 20th century – advocated for 100% reserves.

Forget 100 to 1 or even 10 to 1. Friedman said the capital ratio should be 1 to 1, where banks only lend out the amount they actually have as deposits on hand.

Friedman has been deified as the economist to follow. But his views on reserve requirements have been completely ignored.

As everyone knows, Goldman became a “bank holding company” in September, to be able to access funds from the Fed at essentially zero percent interest.

But in a new interview with Bill Moyers, Simon Johnson noted that in August of 2009, Goldman switched again – to a “financial holding company”.

Johnson says that being a financial holding company means that Goldman can borrow money from the Fed at essentially no cost, and then invest it in any thing it wants. For example, Johnson says that Goldman has bought a large share of the stock of a Chinese automaker. Johnson says that if the investment succeeds, Goldman will reap the profits; but if it fails, the taxpayers are on the hook.

Well, in First National Bank v. Daly (often referred to as the “Credit River” case) the court found that the bank created money without having the reserves:

As PhD economist Steve Keen pointed out recently, 2 Nobel-prize winning economists have shown that the assumption that reserves are created from excess deposits is not true:

In other words, if the conventional view that excess reserves (stemming either from customer deposits or government infusions of money) lead to increased lending were correct, then Kydland and Prescott would have found that credit is extended by the banks (i.e. loaned out to customers) after the banks received infusions of money from the government. Instead, they found that the extension of credit preceded the receipt of government monies.

Keen explained in an interview Friday that 25 years of research shows that creation of debt by banks precedes creation of government money, and that debt money is created first and precedes creation of credit money.

This angle of the banking system has actually been discussed for many years by leading experts:

Indeed, PhD economist and candidate for Florida governor Farid Khavari wants to create a Bank of the State of Florida, to create credit without burdening the state and its citizens with high interest charges by private banks.

The bottom line is that monetary reformers argue that letting banks create credit and money and then charge high interest rates creates massive levels of debt for states and taxpayers. They argue that the power to create money should be reclaimed by the government and taken away from the private banks.

Personally, I agree with the monetary reformers. But even for those who think this is too radical a proposition, the question is whether a system where debt has to constantly and continually expand to keep the economy afloat is sustainable.

In a hearing held on September 30, 1941 in the House Committee on Banking and Currency, then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve (Mariner S. Eccles) said:

Indeed, Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said:

A Short Review of chapters 1 - 3 of Ron Paul's End the Fed

So far, Ron Paul has once again hit it out of the park on his points, resolutions, ideologies

and understandings of the topic he's addressing. In End the Fed Ron Paul goes into explaining

how it is not only fiscally responsible, but is also a wise choice for one to understand

money; it's value, where it comes from, how it's created and who is responsible for it. Those

who are stuck on the idea that "money sucks" or that "money is the problem", are really just

uniformed and uneducated on the fiscal responsibility and role that money plays in a

Libertarian based society. It is not money in itself that is the problem, but rather the form it

is taken.

A civilized, well working and proper functioning civilization (society) needs a form of

money in order to continue and to progress. It needs a SOUND money system, a currency

backed by more than just a fed chairman's word. The currency (money) must also be

created, distributed and kept in a proper form. Unlike today, how we have a central

banking system (cartel) over printing an already weak and debt ridden form of a currency.

Creating a currency out of thin air will only lead to one direction, downward. This takes

the entire economy with it, in such a way none but the fed chairman can be held

responsible for. Most folks wont be willing to admit it, but remember a few months ago,

as in April, well most people do not know, but at that time we were recovering from "The

Great Recession" of 2008 - 2009. A Recession spanning from September 2008 all the way

to May of 2009. Yes, the economy has not gotten any better, but rather worse. This was

triggered by the influx of "stimulus" that was passed during that time of "Recession".

Unfortunately since no one out there in the D.C. crime house knows proper and real

Economics, we are now forced to suffer through a "Greatest Depression". While during

that "Great Recession", if taken the proper steps (steps offered by Ron Paul, Peter Schiff,

Max Keiser, Ludwig Von Mises, etc.) we could actually be, right now, going through a

slow, painful, but yet much more positive recovery scenario. But, as said before, the mass

influx of "stimulus" has shattered that hope forever, permanently.

You see, though depending on its form, money can be very evil, sinister, and

devastating it is also crucial for survival. It is necessary for maintaining a free society, a

healthy economy depends on it. Sound money is also crucial for preventing unnecessary

wars. Limiting Political power is also impossible without it. To understand money, one

must completely understand the role, the power, and the regulations a central banking

system can make, and does. In the United states, we have the Federal Reserve, where the

UK has the Bank of England, the instruments by which our money and credit are constantly

manipulated for a privileged class. Ron Paul also goes into how more than half of

Americans have no idea where their money comes from, who's in control of it, and how it

is created. By the Fed of course, the "Independent" Banking reserve.

The Origin of the Fed. The Average American does not really think much about the fed,

rather than it is a strange entity that makes their money for them. And not, the fact that it

is a private central reserve with controls and powers beyond that of congress and even

the president. They simply accept that it as though it has always been there, where as that

is not the case. Anyone visiting Washington D.C. can see the huge monument of the

Federal reserve, which opened it's doors for operation in 1937. Since then, we've had

numerous fed chairmen come before congress and the supreme courts, spouting coplex

data, making predictions, and attempting to intimidate anyone who would take issue with

them. Though one would never really begin tothink of corruption, and mismanagement

with these words of the chairman, at least those who do not know of the proper forms of

money and the economy.

Though I am only on Chapter 3 of the book, I can already tell, this is going to be a great

read. Definately up there with Dr. Paul's work, such as his "The Revolution, A Manifesto"

and "Pillars of Prosperity", and of course "A Foreign Policy of Freedom". End the Fed is

great read for anyone, and I mean anyone; (anyone with an open mind that is). This book

even goes into counter arguments for conversations with Keynesian Economist and just

the average marketeer. I highly Recommend this book, for End the Fed goes into great

detail on what is happening to the Economy, not just ours, but also world wide. The first

chapter even goes into how important it is for a person to understand how the economy

work, how their money works, is used and created, as well as why the fed is there, how it

got there, and why it now needs to be shut down and ended. Quoted from the book; A

person who is well informed and has a good level of knowledge on how the economy

works and how their money works, and is suppose to work, is more likely to come out of

this economic catastrophe better off than the average "consumer" and "spender".

Scary times ahead? Perhaps, if you take credence in what Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, says.

Paul, who had a strong grassroots following during the 2008 presidential election, explained on Glenn Beck’s Sept. 30 radio program that perilous times lie ahead due to the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. Host Glenn Beck asked how an Israeli strike against Iran might trigger problems with the American financial system.
“What happens when Israel strikes Iran or Iran has the earth rays and we know that they now have a nuclear weapon, what happens to our financial system at that point?” Beck asked.

The libertarian Paul maintained China would become the world’s financial heavyweight and they were already making preparations to be the world’s top dog.

“I think the Chinese take over,” Paul said. “If there’s a real panic and oil shoots up to a couple of hundred bucks, the Chinese will dump their dollars. Chinese are maneuvering for this. The more we threaten Iran, the stronger the Chinese influence gets because they’re using the dollars that they have earned from us and saved, they have a trillion, and they are starting to buy up assets in Iran and build plants and get involved in their energy. So the whole thing is backfiring on us. We’re getting ready to put tougher sanctions on the Iranians and that will make things that much worse. It won’t help the dissidents in Iran. It’s going to cost us a lot of money, and there will be a bombing and that will be a big, big event. I think it will crash the dollar is what I think it would do.”

And what does the country look like after the dollar crashes? Not good the Texas congressman said.

“We think it was bad with the financial crisis,” Paul said. “When you have a dollar crisis, the whole thing quits functioning. The checks bounce and literally the federal government’s checks bounce if you have – if inflation goes up.”

But the situation deteriorates even more Paul – with states leaving the union.

“I think we’re going to have a de facto 10th Amendment, secession,” Paul said “People are just going to ignore the federal government because they won’t – and there’s, you know, a total loss of credibility.”

Beck alluded to media charges and warnings from others that there would be violence and contended the right is being set up to take the fall for it.

“Congressman Paul, the media and even [Rep.] Patrick Kennedy said this, we heard this from two people, Muammar Gaddafi and I believe the other one was Ahmadinejad that both spoke last week and they – we’re hearing it all the time that there’s going to be violence here in America, that people are targeting,” Beck said. “Basically everyone is going to blame this on the right, any kind of violence.”

There would be violence, but not before a dollar crisis happens as some Democratic politicians and media personalities have warned, but afterward Paul said.

“I think that there will be violence,” he explained. “I hope we don’t have to go through, you know, a very violent period of time, but that’s what happens too often when the government runs out of money and runs out of wealth, the people argue over, you know, a shrinking pie and, of course, the people who have to produce are sick and tired of producing.”

This past week there has been a lot of discussion and debate on the continuing war in Afghanistan. Lasting twice as long as World War II and with no end in sight, the war in Afghanistan has been one of the longest conflicts in which our country has ever been involved. The situation has only gotten worse with recent escalations.

The current debate is focused entirely on the question of troop levels. How many more troops should be sent over in order to pursue the war? The administration has already approved an additional 21,000 American service men and women to be deployed by November, which will increase our troop levels to 68,000. Will another 40,000 do the job? Or should we eventually build up the levels to 100,000? Why not 500,000 -- just to be "safe"? And how will public support be brought back around to supporting this war again when 58% are now against it?

I get quite annoyed at this very narrow line of questioning. I have other questions. We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10,000 American troops. Why does it now seem that the more troops we send, the worse things get? If the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan with troop levels of 100,000 and were eventually forced to leave in humiliating defeat, why are we determined to follow their example? Most importantly, what is there to be gained from all this? We’ve invested billions of dollars and thousands of precious lives -- for what?

The truth is it is no coincidence that the more troops we send the worse things get. Things are getting worse precisely because we are sending more troops and escalating the violence. We are hoping that good leadership wins out in Afghanistan, but the pool of potential honest leaders from which to draw have been fleeing the violence, leaving a tremendous power vacuum behind. War does not quell bad leaders. It creates them. And the more war we visit on this country, the more bad leaders we will inadvertently create.

Another thing that war does is create anger with its indiscriminate violence and injustice. How many innocent civilians have been harmed from clumsy bombings and mistakes that end up costing lives? People die from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a war zone, but the killers never face consequences. Imagine the resentment and anger survivors must feel when a family member is killed and nothing is done about it. When there are no other jobs available because all the businesses have fled, what else is there to do, but join ranks with the resistance where there is a paycheck and also an opportunity for revenge? This is no justification for our enemies over there, but we have to accept that when we push people, they will push back.

The real question is why are we there at all? What do our efforts now have to do with the original authorization of the use of force? We are no longer dealing with anything or anyone involved in the attacks of 9/11. At this point we are only strengthening the resolve and the ranks of our enemies. We have nothing left to win. We are only there to save face, and in the end we will not even be able to do that.

Raymond McGovern is a retired CIA officer turned political activist. McGovern was a Federal employee under seven U.S. presidents over 27 years, presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the White House for many of them.

Greg Thielmann is a Senior Fellow at the Arms Control Association, located in Washington, DC. Thielmann came to fame in 2003 when he quit his position as director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office at the State Department’s Intelligence Bureau, citing the manufacturing of intelligence concerning the Iraqi government’s weapons program. He openly criticized the false information that was then used to gain support for launching the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. This brought an end to a 25-year career in the US foreign service officer.

A senior U.S. official traveling with Clinton had said before her meetings that she would press Russian leaders on “what specific forms of pressure Russia would be prepared to join us and our other allies in if Iran fails to live up to its obligations” on the nuclear dispute.

But Clinton told a media briefing after talks with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that no requests had been made.

Photos of Military Deaths in Afghanistan Banned

NEW YORK The U.S. military in eastern Afghanistan recently changed its media embed rules to ban pictures of troops killed in the war.

“Media will not be allowed to photograph or record video of U.S. personnel killed in action,” says a ground rules document issued Sept. 15 by Regional Command East at Bagram Air Field.

This language is new. A version of the same document dated July 23 says, “Media will not be prohibited from covering casualties” as long as a series of conditions are met.

Pictures of American military deaths are rare, but until now they have not been officially banned during either of the ongoing wars.

The new language was added in early September, according to a military spokesperson, Master Sgt. Tom Clementson of Regional Command East Public Affairs. Clementson described it as “a clarification rather than a new rule.”

Full article here

I had just walked back into my hotel room yesterday after chaining myself to the White House fence and being arrested, when I saw White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, say that removing troops from Afghanistan was “not an option.”

Hundreds of us were out in front of the White House as this nation is heading into the 9th year of what is the longest overt military misadventure, next to Vietnam.

Sixty-one other people were arrested with me. Organizations calling for the end to torture and for single-payer Medicare for all were in attendance, along with Vet groups and other pro-peace organizations and leaders.

When I saw such a quick response to our protest, I was angry, of course, but I was also excited. First of all, when Obama said that we had to “make him do it,” I knew Obama was just blowing smoke out of his hind end, like he blows cigarette smoke out of his mouth. Secondly, I know we are being heard and I have complete realistic hope that this is the time for US in the USA to make a difference.

The anti-war, peace movement must step our efforts up and take it to the next level of severe militant resistance.

Not only is this country borrowing or printing billions of dollars each month for the military; almost one out of four of us do not have a job, or are grossly underemployed; millions of us have or will lose our homes due to foreclosure or eviction; and 1/6 of us don’t have health insurance.

The police state is getting out of control and if we don’t intensely exercise our rights immediately, we will lose them.

To that end, we are organizing the most ambitious anti-war, peace event ever. We are planning what we are calling, Peace of the Action which will be the largest, most aggressive and sustained action ever done in DC.

We are not calling for this commitment for a day, a week, or a month. We are not even interested in making symbolic gestures. We are calling for this commitment until our demands of: All troops and para-military mercenaries, are ordered out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone bombings in the tribal regions of Af-Pak are discontinued and we get about the business of healing, reconciliation and REPARATIONS.

I am going to move to DC to help coordinate these actions and I will be 100% committed with you to be: “all in it to win it.” This time true change will happen, it must.

We must sacrifice a few of our creature comforts to rein in the Empire we live in before it’s too late. We will not start Peace of the Action until we have 5000 people who are willing to join us.

This plan is ambitious, audacious and bold. However, I truly think we have a chance to be successful. We are looking for many coordinators, helpers and hell raisers and are hoping to house, (or tent) and feed everyone until Peace happens. This will take massive infrastructure and financial support.

Hopefully we can begin Peace of the Action by the 7th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq on March 19th.

Please email with any questions, or if you are ready to make a commitment to change the future for the better.

It took 25 years longer than George Orwell thought for the slogans of 1984 to become reality.

The Nobel Committee has awarded the 2009 Peace Prize to President Obama, the person who started a new war in Pakistan, upped the war in Afghanistan, and continues to threaten Iran with attack unless Iran does what the US government demands and relinquishes its rights as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.

The Nobel committee chairman, Thorbjoern Jagland said, “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”

Obama, the committee gushed, has created “a new climate in international politics.”

Tell that to the 2 million displaced Pakistanis and the unknown numbers of dead ones that Obama has racked up in his few months in office. Tell that to the Afghans where civilian deaths continue to mount as Obama’s “war of necessity” drones on indeterminably.

No Bush policy has changed. Iraq is still occupied. The Guantanamo torture prison is still functioning. Rendition and assassinations are still occurring. Spying on Americans without warrants is still the order of the day. Civil liberties are continuing to be violated in the name of Oceania’s “war on terror.”

Apparently, the Nobel committee is suffering from the delusion that, being a minority, Obama is going to put a stop to Western hegemony over darker-skinned peoples.

The non-cynical can say that the Nobel committee is seizing on Obama’s rhetoric to lock him into the pursuit of peace instead of war. We can all hope that it works. But the more likely result is that the award has made “War is Peace” the reality.

The US Ministry of Truth is delivering the Obama administration’s propaganda that Iran only notified the IAEA of its “secret” new nuclear facility because Iran discovered that US intelligence had discovered the “secret” facility. This propaganda is designed to undercut the fact of Iran’s compliance with the Safeguards Agreement and to continue the momentum for a military attack on Iran.

When justifications for war become almost endless–oil, hegemony, women’s rights, democracy, revenge for 9/11, denying bases to al Qaeda and protecting against terrorists–war becomes the path to peace.

The Nobel committee has bestowed the prestige of its Peace Prize on Newspeak and Doublethink.

In a world where war criminals like Tony Blair are rewarded and those that oppose war criminals, like the Iraqi shoe thrower Muntadhar al-Zeidi, are imprisoned and tortured, it comes as no surprise that another war criminal – Barack H. Obama – has been rewarded for his stoic service to imperial bloodletting with the Nobel Peace Prize.

The man who gallantly promised “change” from the Bush regime’s illegal wars and a return to diplomacy over belligerency in dealing with Iran, has perpetuated the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while expanding another in Pakistan and becoming belligerent towards Iran.

Obama has done nothing to dismantle the sprawling network of well over 700 U.S. military bases all over the world.

Instead of coming to an understanding with Iran over their nuclear power program, Obama gleefully read from his trusty teleprompter and crafted the hoax that the Iranian nuclear facility at Qom was an evil secret that the Iranians had kept hidden from America as part of a clandestine agenda to build nuclear weapons. In reality, Iran had followed precisely the guidelines set out by the IAEA on when to report the facility and the U.S. had known about it for several years anyway.

Obama’s slick propaganda in expressing his shock at the “discovery” of the plant was worthy of an Oscar but not a Nobel Peace Prize, since the scam has increased the likelihood of sanctions on Iran that will only accelerate the path to war.

By dutifully playing his part in this contrived hoax, Obama was mimicking the tactics of how George W. Bush sold the attack on Iraq.

As Paul Craig Roberts wrote, “By accusing Iran of having a secret “nuclear weapons program” and demanding that Iran “come clean” about the nonexistent program, adding that he does not rule out a military attack on Iran, Obama mimics the discredited Bush regime’s use of nonexistent Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” to set up Iraq for invasion.”

The fact that Obama launched himself into the role of war hawk in an effort to propagandize for belligerency towards Iran completely discredits the claim by Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland that Obama “Has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations.”

Obama’s acting skills in front of a teleprompter and his slick rhetoric about peace and diplomacy may look good on the surface, but the reality of what he has actually done to further the PNAC agenda for endless war underlines why the award of the Peace Prize is a sick joke.

If Obama is such a huge peacenik, then why has he sent 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan already, with tens of thousands more at least on the way?

If Obama plans to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and bring peace to the region, then why has he gone back on his promise and ensured that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in the country?

If Obama is so interested in promoting peace, then why does he protect war criminals who have violated the Geneva Conventions from prosecution?

Beyond the meaningless platitudes served up by his fellow elitist snobs, the true hilarity of Obama receiving the prize was illustrated by just a couple of individuals who the corporate media dared to quote.

Issam al-Khazraji, a day laborer in Baghdad, told Reuters: “He doesn’t deserve this prize. All these problems — Iraq, Afghanistan — have not been solved…The man of ‘change’ hasn’t changed anything yet.”

“Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative religious party in Pakistan, called the award an embarrassing “joke.”

“By implementing his war continuation plan, Obama will complete the work of Bush and his militarist clique,” writes author Chris Floyd, and in doing so send, “an apparently endless stream of American troops to die — and, in even greater numbers, to kill — in a criminal action that has helped bankrupt our own country while sending waves of violent instability and extremism around the world. It will further enfilth a cesspool of corruption and war profiteering that has already reached staggering, world-historical proportions.”

Floyd encapsulates perfectly why Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize award is a disgusting farce, an insult to those who really are fighting for peace in the world, and just another reminder that the Nobel Peace Prize represents little more than a gaggle of back-slapping elitists who bestow awards upon each other so that they can pose as global saviors to the public when in reality they are mostly a bunch of crooks, con-artists and deceivers.

Democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead.” —From the Club of Rome’s “The First Global Revolution” p. 71,75 1993

“Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.”—John Donne (1572-1631)

The death knell for freedom has been tolling for some time, and only now are people starting to hear it. It started tolling faintly, decades back, and has slowly progressed in volume, until today its tolling is impossible to ignore.

The United States of America—that “shining city on a hill”—had a good run of it, and made a gallant effort at establishing liberty for all. But as the old saw would have it, all good things must come to an end.

Liberty, after all, is an aberration in mankind’s history—a light that has flared here and there over the centuries, only to dissolve back into the darkness.

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.




	Hate bill attached to defense legislation Obama may or may not veto.




Dr. Snyderman: “Forget the conspiracy… listen to our government agencies, these guys are telling the truth… Just get your damn vaccine.”




	Shoot up a few flu vaccines, rub your lucky rabbit’s foot, then spin around clockwise seven times and you, too, may be able to generate enough luck to avoid the flu this winter.




	Schwarzenegger’s SS Totenkopf death’s head belt buckle displayed on the cover of Time Magazine.




If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate.




Don’t think Obama deserved the Nobel? You’re a terrorist, according to DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse.




	Timothy Geithner is but one of several bankster operatives running the Obama administration.




	61 people, including Cinday Sheehan, were arrested on October 6. They had chained themselves to a White House fence as part of a protest against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.