Prevent Disease
October 30, 2009
Science dictates that only a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study can generate unbiased results in any clinical trial. In the history of vaccine development, no such study has ever been performed. It is only unscientific opinions and pharmaceutical propaganda which have propelled the mythological validity, safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Dozens of controlled studies have scientifically verified the immunotoxicty, neurotoxicity and sterility of common vaccine ingredients which destroy human health, yet they are all ignored by conventional medicine.
There should be a public outcry and challenge to every public health official, medical specialist or scientist (from any country) who justifies the inoculation of their population without providing the evidence of safety and effectiveness of the respective H1N1 vaccine in their country.
The public should be demanding that their governments materialize at least one vaccine trial which is randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled that can scientifically validate the assertions of public health officials.
Since the pharmacokinetic properties of vaccines are not studied, vaccine manufacturers cannot deny any of the toxic effects listed below. The reason they never analyze the absorption, distribution, metabolism or excretion of these ingredients is because it would eradicate the vaccine industry. However the individual effects of each ingredient and their toxic effects on cells are well documented.
Every Physician, Nurse or medical personnel who administers the H1N1 vaccine (or any vaccine) should be asking themselves why they are injecting the following ingredients into patients that have been scientifically proven to cause immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, sterility and cancer:
Novartis Focetria Adjuvanted H1N1
Influenza Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Polysorbate 80: Sterilie Agent
Potassium Chloride: Neurotoxin
Squalene: Neurotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin
Novartis H1N1 Monovalent Influenza Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Beta-Propiolactone: Carcinogen
Polymyxin: Neurotoxin
Neomycin: Immunotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin
GlaxoSmithKline Arepanrix Adjuvanted
H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Formaldehyde: Carcinogen
Polysorbate 80: Sterilie Agent
Sodium Deoxycholate: Immunotoxin
Squalene: Neurotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin
GlaxoSmithKline Pandemrix Adjuvanted
H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Octoxynol 10: Immunotoxin
Polysorbate 80: Sterilie Agent
Potassium Chloride: Neurotoxin
Sodium Deoxycholate: Immunotoxin
Squalene: Neurotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin
GlaxoSmithKline Fluarix 2009-2010
Formula Ingredients/Toxicity
Formaldehyde: Carcinogen
Octoxynol 10: Immunotoxin
Polysorbate 80: Sterilie Agent
Sodium Deoxycholate: Immunotoxin
Sanofi-Pasteur H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Formaldehyde: Carcinogen
Polyethylene Glycol: Systemic Toxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin
MedImmune H1N1 Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Monosodium Glutamate: Neurotoxin
Gentamicin Sulfate: Nephrotoxin
Monobasic Potassium Phosphate: Immunotoxin
FLUARIX 2009 Latest Package Insert Ingredients/Toxicity
Formaldehyde: Carcinogen
Gentamicin Sulfate: Nephrotoxic
Polysorbate 80: Sterilie Agent
Sodium Deoxycholate: Immunotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin
CSL PANVAX H1N1 Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Beta-Propiolactone: Carcinogen
Neomycin: Immunotoxin
Sodium Taurodeoxycholate: Carcinogen/Immunotoxin
Polymyxin: Neurotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin
CSL Afluria H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Ingredients/Toxicity
Beta-Propiolactone: Carcinogen
Neomycin Sulfate: Immunotoxin
Polymyxin B: Neurotoxin
Potassium Chloride: Neurotoxin
Sodium Taurodeoxycholate: Carcinogen/Immunotoxin
Thimerosal: Neurotoxin
Note: An additional CSL H1N1 Vaccine is Undergoing Trials with AS03 Adjuvant which contains Squalene.
Adverse Reactions of Vaccines
Serious adverse reactions are as follows:
* Pain
* Redness
* Swelling
* Fatigue
* Headaches
* Arthralgia (joint inflammation)
* Myalgia (muscle inflammation)
* Shivering
* Sweating
* Swollen lymph nodes
* Fever
* Vomiting
* Tingling or numbness of the hands or feet
* Shortness of breath
* Vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels)
* Blood and lymphatic system disorders (lymphadenopathy)
* Psychiatric disorders (insomnia)
* Nervous system disorders (dizziness, paraesthesia, inflammation of the central nervous system, inflammation of nerves, autoimmune disorders affecting myelin sheaths of nerves such as Guillain-Barré Syndrome)
* Ear and labyrinth disorders (vertigo)
* Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders (dyspnoea)
* Gastrointestinal disorders (nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, dyspepsia, stomach discomfort)
* Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (pruritus, rash)
* Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (back pain, musculoskeletal stiffness, neck pain, muscle spasms, pain in extremity)
* General disorders and administration site conditions (bruising, asthenia, chest pain, malaise)
Friday, October 30, 2009
This is a Post from the Blog Titled, "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?"
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that he is the antichrist, because I do not believe that he fulfills the requirements to be the "man of sin". That being said, however, he is a very good representation of the antichrist, and the way in which the world will become beguiled with him, and eventually worship him as god. I believe the world is pretty much ready to accept the antichrist, and as such, I believe that he is very, very close to being revealed. Stay tuned
Is Barack Obama the Messiah?
"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, June 05, 2008
"Another another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance"
“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. on Obama's winning the Democratic presidential nomination (Politico June 5, 2008).
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that he is the antichrist, because I do not believe that he fulfills the requirements to be the "man of sin". That being said, however, he is a very good representation of the antichrist, and the way in which the world will become beguiled with him, and eventually worship him as god. I believe the world is pretty much ready to accept the antichrist, and as such, I believe that he is very, very close to being revealed. Stay tuned
Is Barack Obama the Messiah?
"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, June 05, 2008
"Another another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance"
“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. on Obama's winning the Democratic presidential nomination (Politico June 5, 2008).
Sting: Obama is 'Sent from God'
Pop singer: 'We are here to evolve as 1 family, and we can't be separate anymore'
Posted: October 29, 2009
8:05 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
British recording artist Sting says President Barack Obama could be the answer to the world's problems – the divine answer.
"In many ways, he's sent from God, because the world's a mess," he said in a new interview with the Associated Press.
The comments from The Police's lead singer, whose real name is Gordon Sumner, are just the latest in a long series of statements suggesting Obama's connection to the supernatural.
WND previously reported when an artist who planned to unveil a portrait of Obama in a Christ-like pose with a crown of thorns upon his brow canceled the event, due to "overwhelming public outrage."
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan also was clear in a nearly religious adoration of Obama. As WND reported, Farrakhan declared last year that when Obama talks, "the Messiah is absolutely speaking."
Farrakhan pointed out that the man Nation of Islam followers refer to as "the Saviour," Fard Muhammad, had a black father and a white mother, just as Obama did.
"A black man with a white mother became a saviour to us," he said. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."
WND also previously reported a website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" capturing the wave of euphoria that followed the Democratic senator's remarkable rise.
The site was topped by an Obama quote strategically ripped from a Jan. 7 speech at Dartmouth College just before the New Hampshire Primary in which he told students, "A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote" for Obama.
The site includes this:
OBAMA BE THY NAME
THY CHANGE WILL COME
THY WILL BE DONE ...
Sting said in the AP interview he has spent time with Obama and described the president as "very genuine, very present, clearly supersmart, and exactly what we need in the world.
"I can't think of anyone better qualified because of his background, his education, particularly in regard to Islam," he told the news agency.
The 58-year-old said, "My hope is that we can start talking about real issues and not caring about whether God cares about your hemline or your color. We are here to evolve as one family, and we can't be separate anymore."
Posted: October 29, 2009
8:05 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
British recording artist Sting says President Barack Obama could be the answer to the world's problems – the divine answer.
"In many ways, he's sent from God, because the world's a mess," he said in a new interview with the Associated Press.
The comments from The Police's lead singer, whose real name is Gordon Sumner, are just the latest in a long series of statements suggesting Obama's connection to the supernatural.
WND previously reported when an artist who planned to unveil a portrait of Obama in a Christ-like pose with a crown of thorns upon his brow canceled the event, due to "overwhelming public outrage."
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan also was clear in a nearly religious adoration of Obama. As WND reported, Farrakhan declared last year that when Obama talks, "the Messiah is absolutely speaking."
Addressing a large crowd behind a podium with a Nation of Islam Saviours' Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan proclaimed, "You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."
"A black man with a white mother became a saviour to us," he said. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."
WND also previously reported a website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" capturing the wave of euphoria that followed the Democratic senator's remarkable rise.
The site was topped by an Obama quote strategically ripped from a Jan. 7 speech at Dartmouth College just before the New Hampshire Primary in which he told students, "A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote" for Obama.
The site includes this:
OBAMA BE THY NAME
THY CHANGE WILL COME
THY WILL BE DONE ...
Sting said in the AP interview he has spent time with Obama and described the president as "very genuine, very present, clearly supersmart, and exactly what we need in the world.
"I can't think of anyone better qualified because of his background, his education, particularly in regard to Islam," he told the news agency.
The 58-year-old said, "My hope is that we can start talking about real issues and not caring about whether God cares about your hemline or your color. We are here to evolve as one family, and we can't be separate anymore."
Monday, October 26, 2009
Obama’s H1N1 National Emergency Declaration Could Invoke FEMA Response to Pandemic
Mike Adams
Natural News
October 26, 2009
President Obama’s declaration of a national pandemic emergency is “no cause for alarm,” reported the mainstream media throughout the weekend. The declaration is nothing more than a “precaution,” they say. “It’s really more a continuation of our preparedness steps,” said Anne Schuchat, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in a USA Today story.
In other words, there’s not really any emergency at all. So why declare a national emergency in the first place? The media reports this was done to allow hospitals to bypass federal regulations concerning the setting up of large-scale triage sites — emergency medical camps quickly constructed to deal with large numbers of sick people.
But at the same time, H1N1 isn’t causing large-scale sickness. As USA Today reported, an expert on infectious disease, P.J. Brennan (the chief medical officer for the Penn Health System at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia) said, “The public ought to take some solace, some relief in this. It’s not a suggestion that things have deteriorated in any way. In no way is the virus more severe or more difficult to manage.”
So let me get this straight. The H1N1 virus remains mild. The CDC reports that swine flu infections already peaked out in mid-October. There have been no new developments in swine flu that would be cause for alarm and no reason to suspect huge numbers of sick people flooding into the hospitals. And yet, for some reason, the Obama administration has declared a national pandemic emergency specifically for the purpose of speeding the ability of hospitals to process large masses of sick people through emergency medical triage tents?
What are these people not telling us?
Something doesn’t add up here. Why would the U.S. government need to declare a national emergency to enable hospitals to handle a flood of sick people when there is no flood of sick people (and the pandemic seems to be fizzling out)?
This is more like the kind of preparation you might expect in advance of a biological terrorism attack, not for a flu that appears no more dangerous than the seasonal sniffles.
The National Emergencies Act and FEMA
Meanwhile, the media ignores the rest of the story about what dangerous powers a declaration of a national emergency puts into play. As reported here on NaturalNews, this declaration effectively ends many civil liberties in America and, at least on paper, puts the U.S. government in the position of having the legal authority to force vaccinations on the entire population at gunpoint (if they wanted to).
The National Emergencies Act passed in 1976 has some peculiar realities attached to it. In particular, as Wikipedia reports:
A federal emergency declaration allows the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to exercise its power to deal with emergency situations … Typically, a state of emergency empowers the executive to name coordinating officials to deal with the emergency and to override normal administrative processes regarding the passage of administrative rules.
Got that yet? By declaring a national emergency, Obama invokes a set of laws that not only override important sections of the U.S. Constitution, but that also activate FEMA to take charge of “responding” to the emergency.
Now we know why they need all those emergency medical tent camps near the hospitals. FEMA’s in charge! And if FEMA handles the swine flu pandemic in the same way the agency handled the Hurricane Katrina disaster, we may indeed need all those emergency triage tents after all.
Those of you who have been following the ongoing march to destroy the freedoms of the American People already know about FEMA camps. These aren’t Boy Scout field trip camps; they’re detention centers designed to hold large numbers of people for “emergency” purposes. Many theories abound on what these FEMA camps might be used for (www.campFEMA.com) (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index….).
They could conceivably be used to quarantine people who are infected with a dangerous pandemic virus. On the other hand, they might also be used to isolated and detain people who refuse to be vaccinated against any declared pandemic. Under the National Emergencies Act and related U.S. law, FEMA would have two years of near-total control over the civilian population, during which people could be subjected to forced vaccinations, mandatory searches of their homes, gunpoint detainment and “involuntary transportation” to a FEMA detainment facility, and so on.
I’m not saying they’re going to do all this, but they could if they wanted to!
And that’s not freedom. Real freedom means you have the guaranteed right to be safe from being detained, or arrested without cause, or injected with a government-mandated chemical. Under a declaration of a national emergency, your “freedom” is at the whim of those who maintain police state powers over you. You’re only “free” if they decide to refrain from exercising the power they have over you. It’s the same kind of freedom you might get as a peasant in some Medieval kingdom where the king says, “You’re free to go.”
Now, some of these freedom-restricting actions might conceivably be justifiable if a truly dangerous pandemic virus were sweeping through the population killing millions, causing huge disruptions in the national infrastructure and threatening the nation with a partial or total shutdown of essential services.
But that is not happening here. H1N1 is a mild virus that rates astonishingly low on the severity scale. If H1N1 were a hurricane, it would be little more than a “tropical depression.” It is not a category five hurricane, nor a phase six pandemic. Virtually everyone who is exposed to H1N1 generates their own antibodies and cures themselves naturally. According to hospital reports, those who have died from the H1N1 virus are almost exclusively people who were already suffering from preexisting conditions that compromised their health such as asthma or extreme obesity.
By any measure, H1N1 as currently configured appears to present no extraordinary threat to the health of the population. So once again, we must ask: Why declare a national emergency and initiate a FEMA response to something that’s not really an emergency?
Why I’m concerned
For the first time in this whole pandemic situation, I’m concerned. Not due to the virus itself, because that’s a mild virus that presents no real threat to the population at large. I’m concerned about what we don’t know might be going on behind the scenes here.
These preparations for large-scale medical triage tents and the emergency activation of FEMA have me worried that the American people aren’t being told the whole story. Perhaps a terrorist organization is planning on releasing a wildly dangerous mutation of H1N1 in some major U.S. city. Or perhaps some vaccine maker is, in fact, that terrorist organization. (The best way to sell more vaccines would be to release a mutated form of H1N1 into the population and scare up some more sales…)
Or maybe, as some creative thinkers have suggested, the vaccine itself IS a bioweapon, and the U.S. government is preparation for large-scale fatalities it expects to see soon.
Or maybe these are just fleeting, dark visions from crazy people, and the U.S. government is a benevolent organization with all our best interests in mind, and they’re jumping through these bureaucratic hoops to make sure there are plenty of hospital beds to go ’round just in case more people get really sick.
But even that explanation doesn’t hold water. A “national emergency declaration” isn’t necessary to waive hospital tent rules. Obama could have easily accomplished the same thing with an Executive Order, without having to invoke the National Emergencies Act or put FEMA in charge at all.
He chose the emergency declaration for a specific reason. I guess we’ll all have to wait and see what that real reason turns out to be.
Natural News
October 26, 2009
President Obama’s declaration of a national pandemic emergency is “no cause for alarm,” reported the mainstream media throughout the weekend. The declaration is nothing more than a “precaution,” they say. “It’s really more a continuation of our preparedness steps,” said Anne Schuchat, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in a USA Today story.
In other words, there’s not really any emergency at all. So why declare a national emergency in the first place? The media reports this was done to allow hospitals to bypass federal regulations concerning the setting up of large-scale triage sites — emergency medical camps quickly constructed to deal with large numbers of sick people.
But at the same time, H1N1 isn’t causing large-scale sickness. As USA Today reported, an expert on infectious disease, P.J. Brennan (the chief medical officer for the Penn Health System at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia) said, “The public ought to take some solace, some relief in this. It’s not a suggestion that things have deteriorated in any way. In no way is the virus more severe or more difficult to manage.”
So let me get this straight. The H1N1 virus remains mild. The CDC reports that swine flu infections already peaked out in mid-October. There have been no new developments in swine flu that would be cause for alarm and no reason to suspect huge numbers of sick people flooding into the hospitals. And yet, for some reason, the Obama administration has declared a national pandemic emergency specifically for the purpose of speeding the ability of hospitals to process large masses of sick people through emergency medical triage tents?
What are these people not telling us?
Something doesn’t add up here. Why would the U.S. government need to declare a national emergency to enable hospitals to handle a flood of sick people when there is no flood of sick people (and the pandemic seems to be fizzling out)?
This is more like the kind of preparation you might expect in advance of a biological terrorism attack, not for a flu that appears no more dangerous than the seasonal sniffles.
The National Emergencies Act and FEMA
Meanwhile, the media ignores the rest of the story about what dangerous powers a declaration of a national emergency puts into play. As reported here on NaturalNews, this declaration effectively ends many civil liberties in America and, at least on paper, puts the U.S. government in the position of having the legal authority to force vaccinations on the entire population at gunpoint (if they wanted to).
The National Emergencies Act passed in 1976 has some peculiar realities attached to it. In particular, as Wikipedia reports:
A federal emergency declaration allows the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to exercise its power to deal with emergency situations … Typically, a state of emergency empowers the executive to name coordinating officials to deal with the emergency and to override normal administrative processes regarding the passage of administrative rules.
Got that yet? By declaring a national emergency, Obama invokes a set of laws that not only override important sections of the U.S. Constitution, but that also activate FEMA to take charge of “responding” to the emergency.
Now we know why they need all those emergency medical tent camps near the hospitals. FEMA’s in charge! And if FEMA handles the swine flu pandemic in the same way the agency handled the Hurricane Katrina disaster, we may indeed need all those emergency triage tents after all.
Those of you who have been following the ongoing march to destroy the freedoms of the American People already know about FEMA camps. These aren’t Boy Scout field trip camps; they’re detention centers designed to hold large numbers of people for “emergency” purposes. Many theories abound on what these FEMA camps might be used for (www.campFEMA.com) (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index….).
They could conceivably be used to quarantine people who are infected with a dangerous pandemic virus. On the other hand, they might also be used to isolated and detain people who refuse to be vaccinated against any declared pandemic. Under the National Emergencies Act and related U.S. law, FEMA would have two years of near-total control over the civilian population, during which people could be subjected to forced vaccinations, mandatory searches of their homes, gunpoint detainment and “involuntary transportation” to a FEMA detainment facility, and so on.
I’m not saying they’re going to do all this, but they could if they wanted to!
And that’s not freedom. Real freedom means you have the guaranteed right to be safe from being detained, or arrested without cause, or injected with a government-mandated chemical. Under a declaration of a national emergency, your “freedom” is at the whim of those who maintain police state powers over you. You’re only “free” if they decide to refrain from exercising the power they have over you. It’s the same kind of freedom you might get as a peasant in some Medieval kingdom where the king says, “You’re free to go.”
Now, some of these freedom-restricting actions might conceivably be justifiable if a truly dangerous pandemic virus were sweeping through the population killing millions, causing huge disruptions in the national infrastructure and threatening the nation with a partial or total shutdown of essential services.
But that is not happening here. H1N1 is a mild virus that rates astonishingly low on the severity scale. If H1N1 were a hurricane, it would be little more than a “tropical depression.” It is not a category five hurricane, nor a phase six pandemic. Virtually everyone who is exposed to H1N1 generates their own antibodies and cures themselves naturally. According to hospital reports, those who have died from the H1N1 virus are almost exclusively people who were already suffering from preexisting conditions that compromised their health such as asthma or extreme obesity.
By any measure, H1N1 as currently configured appears to present no extraordinary threat to the health of the population. So once again, we must ask: Why declare a national emergency and initiate a FEMA response to something that’s not really an emergency?
Why I’m concerned
For the first time in this whole pandemic situation, I’m concerned. Not due to the virus itself, because that’s a mild virus that presents no real threat to the population at large. I’m concerned about what we don’t know might be going on behind the scenes here.
These preparations for large-scale medical triage tents and the emergency activation of FEMA have me worried that the American people aren’t being told the whole story. Perhaps a terrorist organization is planning on releasing a wildly dangerous mutation of H1N1 in some major U.S. city. Or perhaps some vaccine maker is, in fact, that terrorist organization. (The best way to sell more vaccines would be to release a mutated form of H1N1 into the population and scare up some more sales…)
Or maybe, as some creative thinkers have suggested, the vaccine itself IS a bioweapon, and the U.S. government is preparation for large-scale fatalities it expects to see soon.
Or maybe these are just fleeting, dark visions from crazy people, and the U.S. government is a benevolent organization with all our best interests in mind, and they’re jumping through these bureaucratic hoops to make sure there are plenty of hospital beds to go ’round just in case more people get really sick.
But even that explanation doesn’t hold water. A “national emergency declaration” isn’t necessary to waive hospital tent rules. Obama could have easily accomplished the same thing with an Executive Order, without having to invoke the National Emergencies Act or put FEMA in charge at all.
He chose the emergency declaration for a specific reason. I guess we’ll all have to wait and see what that real reason turns out to be.
Insider Reveals Secrets of North America Plot
Posted: October 23, 2009
11:15 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
NEW YORK – The integration of the United States with Canada and Mexico, long deemed by many as little more than a fanciful "conspiracy theory," was actually an idea promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations and sold to President Bush as a means of increasing commerce and business interests throughout North America, according to a top Canadian businessman.
Thomas d’Aquino, CEO and president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives – the Canadian counterpart to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – confirmed in an interview recently published in Canada the accuracy of what WND first reported over three years ago: namely, that the Council on Foreign Relations was the prime mover in establishing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.
Published by the Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Oct. 4, the d’Aquino interview verifies that the creation of the SPP was not a "conspiracy theory" but a well-thought-out North American integration plan launched by his organization, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, along with the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States.
According to d'Aquino, President Obama wants to continue North American integration under the renamed North American Leaders Summit, provided the North American Competitiveness Council can be recast to include more environmentalists and union leaders.
In the interview, d'Aquino traced the origin of SPP to his concerns, following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, that "there was a pressing need to keep the border open for commerce while simultaneously addressing the security needs of the United States and North America as a whole."
With this goal in mind, d'Aquino explained that the CCCE by 2003 had "launched an agenda that we called the North American Security and Prosperity Initiative, or NASPI."
As WND reported in July 2007, the term "Security and Prosperity" was first used by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives in a January 23, 2003, report titled "Security and Prosperity: Toward a New Canada-United States Partnership in North America."
Then, in 2003, d'Aquino brought the idea to Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
"I helped convince Richard Haass at the Council on Foreign Relations that we should put together a trilateral task force to look at the future of North America," d'Aquino said. "We recruited John Manley on Canada's side, along with William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, and Pedro Aspe, the former Mexican economy minister, who had been so influential in promoting NAFTA."
The result was a CFR Task Force on the Future of North America created on Oct. 15, 2004, and chaired by Manley, Weld and Aspe, precisely as d'Aquino had recommended to Haass.
The CFR Task Force on the Future of North America issued an executive summary, titled "Creating a North American Community," that was issued March 14, 2005, just days before the March 23, 2005, trilateral summit at Waco, Texas, in which President George W. Bush, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox declared the Security and Prosperity Partnership on their own authority, without any approval from the U.S. Congress.
The final task force report, titled "Building a North American Community," was issued in March 2005, immediately following the Waco summit. (Read highlights of the controversial 59-page CFR report – including calls for increased financial aid to Mexico, the creation of a security border perimeter around all of North America, a reduction in border security between the U.S. and Mexico, and the creation of a new North American tribunal to settle disputes.)
D'Aquino agrees that the Council on Foreign Relations task force was instrumental to the trilateral summit in Waco during which the SPP's existence was declared, saying in the interview: "The result of all these efforts [by the CFR Task Force on the Future of North America] was that in 2005, Prime Minister Martin, President Bush and President Fox decided to sign what they called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America – the SPP."
WND has consistently reported that the two reports issued by the CFR Task Force on the Future of North America constituted the "blueprint" for the SPP unveiled at the Waco summit meeting.
The final CFR report included on page xvii a concise statement of purpose: "The Task Force's central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter."
D'Aquino also confirmed, as WND had previously reported, that the North American Competitiveness Council was hand-picked by the Chambers of Commerce in the three countries, without any legislative approval from any of the three nations.
"At their next summit meeting, in 2006, the three leaders invited leading members of the CEO communities in the three countries to provide private-sector input on issues related to competitiveness," he continued. "From that idea, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was born, to be composed of 10 frontline CEOs from each of Canada, the United States and Mexico." That plan was implemented.
"We produced 10 of our most senior CEOs while the Americans established an executive committee of 15 representing a broad range of large companies with rotating memberships. The Mexicans produced some heavy-duty people – many names you know well."
As WND reported at the time, the North American Competitiveness Council dominated the third annual SPP summit meeting held in Montebello, Quebec, in Aug. 2007, a fact confirmed by the interview with d'Aquino.
"The first meeting of the NACC with the three leaders took place in Montebello, Quebec, in 2007," d’Aquino acknowledged. "Our Mexican and American counterparts graciously asked us to write the first NACC report. It was very well received, albeit heavily criticized by unions on the left and others as elitist: 'Why did these people have access to the national leaders while everyone else was left out?'"
The NACC continued to advise SPP leaders behind closed doors at the fourth annual SPP summit meeting held in New Orleans, in April 2008, as WND reported and as d'Aquino now confirms: "The second meeting of the NACC with the three leaders took place at their summit in New Orleans in 2008 – we were in the room with the leaders for a full hour and a half."
Whereas Bush was sold on the SPP initiative as a means of enhancing business and commerce in North America, d'Aquino explained, Obama would continue with the SPP only if more environmentalists and union leaders were included in the private advisory group that had consisted entirely of business leaders under the aegis of the NACC.
"When President Obama came to power, he faced a lot of pressure to shelve the SPP and not follow through with the NACC because his advisers were looking for an institution that would also involve environmentalists, union leaders, et al."
D'Aquino argued that the NACC should continue, and, as WND has reported, the Obama administration is continuing the previous administration's pursuit of North American integration.
"But at the North American Leaders Summit in Guadalajara this summer, President Calderon and Prime Minister Harper both told President Obama that the NACC was very useful," d'Aquino said. "In fact, the Canadian NACC group met with our prime minister and his key ministers for an hour and a half on the eve of his departure for the Guadalajara summit. He said that, regardless of whether the NACC continues formally on a trilateral basis, he welcomes our advice on trilateral issues."
WND has regularly reported that the unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a North American Union, similar to the European Union, by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA into continental political integration through the creation of some 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American Competitiveness Council, composed of 30 North American business executives hand-picked, 10 each by the Chambers of Commerce of the three countries.
The Obama administration is continuing the SPP initiative under the "rebranded" and "refocused" banner of the less controversially renamed North American Leaders Summit that first met with Obama in Guadalajara, Mexico, last August.
11:15 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
NEW YORK – The integration of the United States with Canada and Mexico, long deemed by many as little more than a fanciful "conspiracy theory," was actually an idea promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations and sold to President Bush as a means of increasing commerce and business interests throughout North America, according to a top Canadian businessman.
Thomas d’Aquino, CEO and president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives – the Canadian counterpart to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – confirmed in an interview recently published in Canada the accuracy of what WND first reported over three years ago: namely, that the Council on Foreign Relations was the prime mover in establishing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.
Published by the Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Oct. 4, the d’Aquino interview verifies that the creation of the SPP was not a "conspiracy theory" but a well-thought-out North American integration plan launched by his organization, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, along with the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States.
According to d'Aquino, President Obama wants to continue North American integration under the renamed North American Leaders Summit, provided the North American Competitiveness Council can be recast to include more environmentalists and union leaders.
In the interview, d'Aquino traced the origin of SPP to his concerns, following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, that "there was a pressing need to keep the border open for commerce while simultaneously addressing the security needs of the United States and North America as a whole."
With this goal in mind, d'Aquino explained that the CCCE by 2003 had "launched an agenda that we called the North American Security and Prosperity Initiative, or NASPI."
As WND reported in July 2007, the term "Security and Prosperity" was first used by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives in a January 23, 2003, report titled "Security and Prosperity: Toward a New Canada-United States Partnership in North America."
Then, in 2003, d'Aquino brought the idea to Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
"I helped convince Richard Haass at the Council on Foreign Relations that we should put together a trilateral task force to look at the future of North America," d'Aquino said. "We recruited John Manley on Canada's side, along with William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, and Pedro Aspe, the former Mexican economy minister, who had been so influential in promoting NAFTA."
The result was a CFR Task Force on the Future of North America created on Oct. 15, 2004, and chaired by Manley, Weld and Aspe, precisely as d'Aquino had recommended to Haass.
The CFR Task Force on the Future of North America issued an executive summary, titled "Creating a North American Community," that was issued March 14, 2005, just days before the March 23, 2005, trilateral summit at Waco, Texas, in which President George W. Bush, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox declared the Security and Prosperity Partnership on their own authority, without any approval from the U.S. Congress.
The final task force report, titled "Building a North American Community," was issued in March 2005, immediately following the Waco summit. (Read highlights of the controversial 59-page CFR report – including calls for increased financial aid to Mexico, the creation of a security border perimeter around all of North America, a reduction in border security between the U.S. and Mexico, and the creation of a new North American tribunal to settle disputes.)
D'Aquino agrees that the Council on Foreign Relations task force was instrumental to the trilateral summit in Waco during which the SPP's existence was declared, saying in the interview: "The result of all these efforts [by the CFR Task Force on the Future of North America] was that in 2005, Prime Minister Martin, President Bush and President Fox decided to sign what they called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America – the SPP."
WND has consistently reported that the two reports issued by the CFR Task Force on the Future of North America constituted the "blueprint" for the SPP unveiled at the Waco summit meeting.
The final CFR report included on page xvii a concise statement of purpose: "The Task Force's central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter."
D'Aquino also confirmed, as WND had previously reported, that the North American Competitiveness Council was hand-picked by the Chambers of Commerce in the three countries, without any legislative approval from any of the three nations.
"At their next summit meeting, in 2006, the three leaders invited leading members of the CEO communities in the three countries to provide private-sector input on issues related to competitiveness," he continued. "From that idea, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was born, to be composed of 10 frontline CEOs from each of Canada, the United States and Mexico." That plan was implemented.
"We produced 10 of our most senior CEOs while the Americans established an executive committee of 15 representing a broad range of large companies with rotating memberships. The Mexicans produced some heavy-duty people – many names you know well."
As WND reported at the time, the North American Competitiveness Council dominated the third annual SPP summit meeting held in Montebello, Quebec, in Aug. 2007, a fact confirmed by the interview with d'Aquino.
"The first meeting of the NACC with the three leaders took place in Montebello, Quebec, in 2007," d’Aquino acknowledged. "Our Mexican and American counterparts graciously asked us to write the first NACC report. It was very well received, albeit heavily criticized by unions on the left and others as elitist: 'Why did these people have access to the national leaders while everyone else was left out?'"
The NACC continued to advise SPP leaders behind closed doors at the fourth annual SPP summit meeting held in New Orleans, in April 2008, as WND reported and as d'Aquino now confirms: "The second meeting of the NACC with the three leaders took place at their summit in New Orleans in 2008 – we were in the room with the leaders for a full hour and a half."
Whereas Bush was sold on the SPP initiative as a means of enhancing business and commerce in North America, d'Aquino explained, Obama would continue with the SPP only if more environmentalists and union leaders were included in the private advisory group that had consisted entirely of business leaders under the aegis of the NACC.
"When President Obama came to power, he faced a lot of pressure to shelve the SPP and not follow through with the NACC because his advisers were looking for an institution that would also involve environmentalists, union leaders, et al."
D'Aquino argued that the NACC should continue, and, as WND has reported, the Obama administration is continuing the previous administration's pursuit of North American integration.
"But at the North American Leaders Summit in Guadalajara this summer, President Calderon and Prime Minister Harper both told President Obama that the NACC was very useful," d'Aquino said. "In fact, the Canadian NACC group met with our prime minister and his key ministers for an hour and a half on the eve of his departure for the Guadalajara summit. He said that, regardless of whether the NACC continues formally on a trilateral basis, he welcomes our advice on trilateral issues."
WND has regularly reported that the unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a North American Union, similar to the European Union, by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA into continental political integration through the creation of some 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American Competitiveness Council, composed of 30 North American business executives hand-picked, 10 each by the Chambers of Commerce of the three countries.
The Obama administration is continuing the SPP initiative under the "rebranded" and "refocused" banner of the less controversially renamed North American Leaders Summit that first met with Obama in Guadalajara, Mexico, last August.
Obama’s H1N1 Emergency Declaration: Is Martial Law Unfolding?
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
October 24, 2009
Obama has declared a 2009 H1N1 swine flu a national emergency. It is not clear if this declaration falls under the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601–1651). The act is not mentioned in media reports.
The National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976. It has been extended six times. In 2007, the declaration was strengthened with the issuance of National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) which gave the president the authority to do whatever he deems necessary in a vaguely defined “catastrophic emergency” including everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution.
NSPD-51 (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive) is unconstitutional. It was created on May 4, 2007, as a “presidential directive” (bypassing Congress) and signed by George W. Bush. It claims the power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a “catastrophic emergency.” Such an emergency is construed as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”
In other words, it is a martial law directive. On May 10, 2007, The Washington Post characterized NSPD-51 is a “shadow government” directive.
The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 states that the military may be used during a “national emergency.” Sec 1076 is extremely explicit, notes Michel Chossudovsky, and “virtually creates a Pinochet style environment for the mass arrest of political dissidents without trial, the storming of public rallies, etc.”
NDAA specifically mentions “epidemic” as an excuse to declare martial law.
Prior to Warner and NSPD-51, legislation passed by the Clinton administration allowed the military to intervene in judicial and civilian law enforcement activities. In 1996, legislation was passed which allowed the military to intervene in the case of a national emergency. In 1999, Clinton’s Defense Authorization Act (DAA) extended those powers (under the 1996 legislation) by creating an “exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act, which permits the military to be involved in civilian affairs “regardless of whether there is an emergency,” according to Chossudovsky.
In 2005, a month after Hurricane Rita, a so-called bird flu “crisis” was hyped by the government and the corporate media. “I am concerned about avian flu. I’m concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world… I have thought through the scenarios of what an avian flu outbreak could mean,” Bush declared at the time. “One option is the use of a military that’s able to plan and move. So that’s why I put it on the table. I think it’s an important debate for Congress to have” (emphasis added).
Bush’s directive, signed two years later, did not bother to involve Congress in the “debate.”
Obama’s declaration of a national emergency sets the stage for forced vaccination and internment of people who refuse to be vaccinated.
In January, the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (HR 645) was introduced in Congress. It calls for the establishment of six national emergency centers in major regions in the US to be located on existing military installations to be used to quarantine people in the case of a public health emergency or forced vaccination program. HR 645 remains in committee.
The H1N1 “crisis” is a manufactured crisis. As noted earlier today, a CBS investigative report reveals that H1N1 flu cases are not as prevalent as we are told by the government, the CDC, WHO, and the corporate media. The so-called epidemic is bogus.
Millions of people are refusing to take the H1N1 vaccine. In the weeks ahead — if Obama’s emergency declaration falls under the above directives — we may witness a move toward martial law, forced vaccination, and internment of those who refuse.
At best, Obama’s declaration is a flimsy attempt to scare people into taking the toxic soft kill vaccination. Let’s hope this is the case.
Infowars
October 24, 2009
Obama has declared a 2009 H1N1 swine flu a national emergency. It is not clear if this declaration falls under the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601–1651). The act is not mentioned in media reports.
The National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976. It has been extended six times. In 2007, the declaration was strengthened with the issuance of National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) which gave the president the authority to do whatever he deems necessary in a vaguely defined “catastrophic emergency” including everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution.
NSPD-51 (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive) is unconstitutional. It was created on May 4, 2007, as a “presidential directive” (bypassing Congress) and signed by George W. Bush. It claims the power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a “catastrophic emergency.” Such an emergency is construed as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”
In other words, it is a martial law directive. On May 10, 2007, The Washington Post characterized NSPD-51 is a “shadow government” directive.
The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 states that the military may be used during a “national emergency.” Sec 1076 is extremely explicit, notes Michel Chossudovsky, and “virtually creates a Pinochet style environment for the mass arrest of political dissidents without trial, the storming of public rallies, etc.”
NDAA specifically mentions “epidemic” as an excuse to declare martial law.
Prior to Warner and NSPD-51, legislation passed by the Clinton administration allowed the military to intervene in judicial and civilian law enforcement activities. In 1996, legislation was passed which allowed the military to intervene in the case of a national emergency. In 1999, Clinton’s Defense Authorization Act (DAA) extended those powers (under the 1996 legislation) by creating an “exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act, which permits the military to be involved in civilian affairs “regardless of whether there is an emergency,” according to Chossudovsky.
In 2005, a month after Hurricane Rita, a so-called bird flu “crisis” was hyped by the government and the corporate media. “I am concerned about avian flu. I’m concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world… I have thought through the scenarios of what an avian flu outbreak could mean,” Bush declared at the time. “One option is the use of a military that’s able to plan and move. So that’s why I put it on the table. I think it’s an important debate for Congress to have” (emphasis added).
Bush’s directive, signed two years later, did not bother to involve Congress in the “debate.”
Obama’s declaration of a national emergency sets the stage for forced vaccination and internment of people who refuse to be vaccinated.
In January, the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (HR 645) was introduced in Congress. It calls for the establishment of six national emergency centers in major regions in the US to be located on existing military installations to be used to quarantine people in the case of a public health emergency or forced vaccination program. HR 645 remains in committee.
The H1N1 “crisis” is a manufactured crisis. As noted earlier today, a CBS investigative report reveals that H1N1 flu cases are not as prevalent as we are told by the government, the CDC, WHO, and the corporate media. The so-called epidemic is bogus.
Millions of people are refusing to take the H1N1 vaccine. In the weeks ahead — if Obama’s emergency declaration falls under the above directives — we may witness a move toward martial law, forced vaccination, and internment of those who refuse.
At best, Obama’s declaration is a flimsy attempt to scare people into taking the toxic soft kill vaccination. Let’s hope this is the case.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The United Nations Executive Council 2
The following post is, again, directly off the UN Executive Council website in their own words. Read it carefully, and think about what they are saying
http://www.theunitednationsexecutivecouncil.org/executive.html
In the face of our 21st century-sized social and economic challenges, we can’t afford to take 20th century approaches. The New Era demands an overhaul. It demands new approaches and tough choices. The New Era demands a better and more effective oversight.
Quite the tall order!
But the leadership that will take us forward into the New Era already exists. All that is needed is a vehicle that will help our leaders serve mankind as one — putting the emphasis back in “United.” That new vehicle, as detailed in The 7th Sense, will be called The United Nations Executive Council.
There was a missed opportunity for effective leadership five decades ago when the UN established The Economic and Social Council. That body was charged, among other things, with the task of initiating studies and reports on international economics, social, cultural, educational and health-related matters, and co-coordinating the activities of the specialized agencies. This council could have devolved by now into what is needed today to usher in the New Era.
Another opportunity was squandered after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The overwhelming outpouring of support and empathy for the United States later transformed into unease, irritation and even hostility.
The new body being proposed will have similar goals to The Economic and Social Council, but with far-reaching and loftier objectives. Most important, it will have real executive powers.
CLOSEUP ON THE UNITED NATIONS EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Will supersede the Security Council, which will report to the Executive Council and no longer have veto power. The Security Council’s influence in world affairs will be watered down.
In order to promote a spirit of compromise, no one member of the UN Executive Council will have veto power.
The UN Executive Council will include the Secretary General of the United Nations. His role is not being supplanted, but buffered so that he will have a more meaningful and executive function.
The Executive Council will have three tiers:
First tier
Manned by a handful of people, mostly elder statesmen with name and track-record recognition, who will run the ongoing affairs of the council (technocrats will run the day-to-day affairs).
Meet on a weekly or bi-weekly basis
Second Tier
Leaders of the G20 countries.
Meet on a monthly basis: in person at least six times a year; otherwise via video-conferencing.
Third Tier
Leaders of the remaining member states of the UN.
Meet in person at least four times a year.
http://www.theunitednationsexecutivecouncil.org/executive.html
In the face of our 21st century-sized social and economic challenges, we can’t afford to take 20th century approaches. The New Era demands an overhaul. It demands new approaches and tough choices. The New Era demands a better and more effective oversight.
Quite the tall order!
But the leadership that will take us forward into the New Era already exists. All that is needed is a vehicle that will help our leaders serve mankind as one — putting the emphasis back in “United.” That new vehicle, as detailed in The 7th Sense, will be called The United Nations Executive Council.
There was a missed opportunity for effective leadership five decades ago when the UN established The Economic and Social Council. That body was charged, among other things, with the task of initiating studies and reports on international economics, social, cultural, educational and health-related matters, and co-coordinating the activities of the specialized agencies. This council could have devolved by now into what is needed today to usher in the New Era.
Another opportunity was squandered after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The overwhelming outpouring of support and empathy for the United States later transformed into unease, irritation and even hostility.
The new body being proposed will have similar goals to The Economic and Social Council, but with far-reaching and loftier objectives. Most important, it will have real executive powers.
CLOSEUP ON THE UNITED NATIONS EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Will supersede the Security Council, which will report to the Executive Council and no longer have veto power. The Security Council’s influence in world affairs will be watered down.
In order to promote a spirit of compromise, no one member of the UN Executive Council will have veto power.
The UN Executive Council will include the Secretary General of the United Nations. His role is not being supplanted, but buffered so that he will have a more meaningful and executive function.
The Executive Council will have three tiers:
First tier
Manned by a handful of people, mostly elder statesmen with name and track-record recognition, who will run the ongoing affairs of the council (technocrats will run the day-to-day affairs).
Meet on a weekly or bi-weekly basis
Second Tier
Leaders of the G20 countries.
Meet on a monthly basis: in person at least six times a year; otherwise via video-conferencing.
Third Tier
Leaders of the remaining member states of the UN.
Meet in person at least four times a year.
The UNITED NATIONS EXECUTIVE COUNCIL: A New World Order
This information is directly off the newly formed UN Executive Council's website, in their own words!
Economic crises. Financial meltdown. Disease. Hunger. Terrorism. Climate change. Whether at home or across the globe, the threats facing our world affect all of us. In the “global village” of the 21st century, there are truly no boundaries. If we want to build a better tomorrow, we must take collective responsibility.
Over the years, crises have prodded nations to come together to address the many challenges that threaten the safety, economic and social fabrics of our lives. The current world recession is a prime example of what can be accomplished when leaders unite for the common good of mankind.
But why wait for the next economic catastrophe or the next famine before our leaders gather to take action? Why wait for the next health epidemic or the next war to erupt before checking in on our neighbors to see how they are doing? And why wait for the next drought before using our collective knowledge to put measures into place to ensure that no one again goes thirsty?
The United Nations is the one place where all the world’s peoples have the opportunity to come together to give voice to their concerns and to collaborate on actions that will advance the common good. Unfortunately, the annual meeting of the 192-member General Assembly has become a forum for bickering, rather than an opportunity to foster unity and peace.
Little wonder. The entire UN organization is sinking under a structure that continues to hamper efforts to make our world a better place in which to live.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has outlined a series of reforms aimed at making the UN more effective and more relevant so that it can “deliver concrete results in making people’s lives safer, healthier, more prosperous and free from fear and injustice.” Attempts to reform the UN — with Kofi Annan previously leading the way — have been ongoing for almost 20 years. To date, not much has changed.
Time to turn the Page
Our model for UN reform taps into the reality that is the 21st century: We live in an interconnected and interdependent world and, if we are to survive, we must act accordingly.
The current global financial mess hammers that message home: If we do not wish to rip the socio-economic fabric that binds us together, if we wish to avoid the debilitating mistakes of the past and if we intend to step into a future that the vast majority of mankind long for, then we must turn the page.
The past year has seen a major shift in perception for the vast majority of mankind, including our leaders. Many, not only Barack Obama in America, but leaders in Europe and beyond, now believe that “a better world” is not just the stuff of dreams, but an achievable goal.
As citizens, we depend on our leaders to take us forward. Their collective response to the current economic crisis has shown that they can indeed work together for the common good of all mankind, putting aside ideology and petty wrangling. It is crystal-clear to them that in the face of a potentially catastrophic common problem, our thousand and one so-called differences are indeed wholly insignificant.
While the economy will take centre-stage when leaders gather for the G20 London Summit on April 2, Veritas-Pax Publishing hopes they will use the meeting as an opportunity to get the ball rolling on other pressing issues, including long-overdue reform of the United Nations.
As the publisher of The 7th Sense, the spiritual guidebook that details how a restructuring of the UN can help create a kinder, gentler world, we get the discussion started here with this snapshot of the UN model envisioned by the author, the Rev. Magnus.
The Following is the "7th Sense" page from this new UN Council
A complete spiritual transformation
Want to travel the world teaching others — women and men — how to read and write, how to plant sustainable crops or how to prevent disease so that they can live in dignity and possess the tools to seek enlightenment?
The 7th Sense shows you how to make that happen.
This 600-plus page blockbuster book:
-Provides you with a spiritual perspective of life on Earth.
-Shatters mundane and archaic limitations that hold people back.
-Details the ample opportunities available to help your fellow Americans and the rest of mankind.
-Shows you how you can experience bliss on Earth, regardless of your station in life.
-Forms the bridge to the little-known next dimension.
-Brings you the clarity and conviction you need to journey as a spiritual being on the Path to Paradise, where you can live in a state of eternal bliss.
Find all the details on the United Nations Executive Council and more in The 7th Sense.
Economic crises. Financial meltdown. Disease. Hunger. Terrorism. Climate change. Whether at home or across the globe, the threats facing our world affect all of us. In the “global village” of the 21st century, there are truly no boundaries. If we want to build a better tomorrow, we must take collective responsibility.
Over the years, crises have prodded nations to come together to address the many challenges that threaten the safety, economic and social fabrics of our lives. The current world recession is a prime example of what can be accomplished when leaders unite for the common good of mankind.
But why wait for the next economic catastrophe or the next famine before our leaders gather to take action? Why wait for the next health epidemic or the next war to erupt before checking in on our neighbors to see how they are doing? And why wait for the next drought before using our collective knowledge to put measures into place to ensure that no one again goes thirsty?
The United Nations is the one place where all the world’s peoples have the opportunity to come together to give voice to their concerns and to collaborate on actions that will advance the common good. Unfortunately, the annual meeting of the 192-member General Assembly has become a forum for bickering, rather than an opportunity to foster unity and peace.
Little wonder. The entire UN organization is sinking under a structure that continues to hamper efforts to make our world a better place in which to live.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has outlined a series of reforms aimed at making the UN more effective and more relevant so that it can “deliver concrete results in making people’s lives safer, healthier, more prosperous and free from fear and injustice.” Attempts to reform the UN — with Kofi Annan previously leading the way — have been ongoing for almost 20 years. To date, not much has changed.
Time to turn the Page
Our model for UN reform taps into the reality that is the 21st century: We live in an interconnected and interdependent world and, if we are to survive, we must act accordingly.
The current global financial mess hammers that message home: If we do not wish to rip the socio-economic fabric that binds us together, if we wish to avoid the debilitating mistakes of the past and if we intend to step into a future that the vast majority of mankind long for, then we must turn the page.
The past year has seen a major shift in perception for the vast majority of mankind, including our leaders. Many, not only Barack Obama in America, but leaders in Europe and beyond, now believe that “a better world” is not just the stuff of dreams, but an achievable goal.
As citizens, we depend on our leaders to take us forward. Their collective response to the current economic crisis has shown that they can indeed work together for the common good of all mankind, putting aside ideology and petty wrangling. It is crystal-clear to them that in the face of a potentially catastrophic common problem, our thousand and one so-called differences are indeed wholly insignificant.
While the economy will take centre-stage when leaders gather for the G20 London Summit on April 2, Veritas-Pax Publishing hopes they will use the meeting as an opportunity to get the ball rolling on other pressing issues, including long-overdue reform of the United Nations.
As the publisher of The 7th Sense, the spiritual guidebook that details how a restructuring of the UN can help create a kinder, gentler world, we get the discussion started here with this snapshot of the UN model envisioned by the author, the Rev. Magnus.
The Following is the "7th Sense" page from this new UN Council
A complete spiritual transformation
Want to travel the world teaching others — women and men — how to read and write, how to plant sustainable crops or how to prevent disease so that they can live in dignity and possess the tools to seek enlightenment?
The 7th Sense shows you how to make that happen.
This 600-plus page blockbuster book:
-Provides you with a spiritual perspective of life on Earth.
-Shatters mundane and archaic limitations that hold people back.
-Details the ample opportunities available to help your fellow Americans and the rest of mankind.
-Shows you how you can experience bliss on Earth, regardless of your station in life.
-Forms the bridge to the little-known next dimension.
-Brings you the clarity and conviction you need to journey as a spiritual being on the Path to Paradise, where you can live in a state of eternal bliss.
Find all the details on the United Nations Executive Council and more in The 7th Sense.
The Lion & The Lamb
I feel in my spirit, stronger and stronger every day, that the Judgements of the Lord are not far off. I believe with all my being that our eyes will see all the events of Revelation in the not too distant future, and we will need to refocus ourselves in order to live thru the perilous times of the Great Tribulation. We know the Mercy & Grace of the Lamb well, but are we also acquainted with the Wrath & Judgements of the Lamb?
If you are of the belief that Christians will be raptured before the Great Tribulation, I encourage you to return to your Bible and see what Christ has to say about this topic. We will indeed go through this time of God's Judgements in order to bear witness to the world that God is Righteous & True in His Judgements. This time of our greatest trial will also be the time of our greatest witness for the Lord. In order to accomplish this, however, we will need to spend much time in the Word, including, and especially, the Book of Revelation. Did you know that Christ gives a special blessing to all those who read the Book of Revelation and take to heart what is written in it?
Did you also know that there are about 84 chapters in the Bible that talk about Jesus' death & resurrection, but there are over 150 chapters that speak of his 2nd Coming?
I encourage you to get into the Word, and let God speak to your heart regarding these things.
Let us not forget that Christ is not only the Lamb, but also the ferocious Lion of Judah.
God Bless
If you are of the belief that Christians will be raptured before the Great Tribulation, I encourage you to return to your Bible and see what Christ has to say about this topic. We will indeed go through this time of God's Judgements in order to bear witness to the world that God is Righteous & True in His Judgements. This time of our greatest trial will also be the time of our greatest witness for the Lord. In order to accomplish this, however, we will need to spend much time in the Word, including, and especially, the Book of Revelation. Did you know that Christ gives a special blessing to all those who read the Book of Revelation and take to heart what is written in it?
Did you also know that there are about 84 chapters in the Bible that talk about Jesus' death & resurrection, but there are over 150 chapters that speak of his 2nd Coming?
I encourage you to get into the Word, and let God speak to your heart regarding these things.
Let us not forget that Christ is not only the Lamb, but also the ferocious Lion of Judah.
God Bless
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
United Nations Copenhagen Climate Treaty 2009
Below I will post a small portion of the actual "climate" treaty that is going to be signed by 192 countries in December 2009, effectively establishing World Government that will supercede national sovereignty. It is quite concerning to say the least. Because of its complexity, I won't post it in its entirety. I will, however, post a link to the actual document itself for anyone who wishes to examine it more thoroughly.
The hour is very late indeed!
Option 3
The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall undertake reviews of this Protocol, including the consideration of commitments of the Parties for subsequent periods, in the light of the best available scientific information and assessments on climate change and its impacts, as well as relevant technical, social and economic information, bearing in mind the changes in circumstances of the Parties. The first review shall take place at least five years before the end of the commitment period, and further reviews shall take place at regular intervals and in a timely manner. Based on these reviews, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall take appropriate action, which may include the adoption of amendment to Annex B (commitments by developed country Parties) and Annex C (actions by developing country Parties).
The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first session or as soon as practicable thereafter, identify elements, including the economic development stages, response capabilities and shares of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, to be considered as criteria for changes in circumstances of the Parties.
36. The new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework to be established for the implementation, monitoring, reporting and verification of the global cooperative action for mitigation, adaptation, technology and financing, should be set under the Convention.
It should include a financial mechanism and a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate, in order to assure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention.
37. The new institutional arrangement will provide technical and financial support for developing countries in the following areas:
(a) preparation, implementation and follow-up through monitoring, reporting and verification of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) by developing countries. These activities could include options to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD);
(b) preparation, implementation and follow-up of national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs) or national communications in developing countries;
(c) technology needs assessments (TNAs) for adaptation and mitigation under the NAMAs and the NAPAs or national communications of developing countries;
(d) capacity-building and enabling environments for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries;
(e) education, awareness raising and public participation, focused on youth, women and indigenous peoples;
(f) design and implementation of adaptation programmes and projects;
(g) support for all technological cycle phases: research and development (R&D), diffusion and transfer, including acquisition of technologies for adaptation and mitigation, including the purchase or flexibility of patents.
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP (Copenhagen Agreement) with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2
Page 19
(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows:
(a) an Adaptation window,
(b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components,
(c) a Technology window;
(d) a Mitigation window;
(e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include:
(a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation;
(b) a long-term REDD process;
(c) a short-term technology action plan;
(d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification;
(e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.
Alternative to paragraph 1–38
[The shared vision shall take the form of preambular text that encapsulates both the long-term global goal and pulls together the other elements of the agreed outcome, in the following form:
The Conference of the Parties, Seeking to further implement the Convention, in light of evolving science and mindful of evolving economic development and emissions trends, Recognizing, in the light of Article 2 (objective) of the Convention, the importance of identifying one or more reference points in the mid-century timeframe that can guide the efforts of the Parties and the international community and against which aggregate global efforts can be continually assessed,
Considering, in that regard, that [ ] is/are desirable global indicator(s),
Having a shared vision of [summary that ties together the elements of the agreement], Hereby adopts [an implementing agreement].]
http://un%20copenhagen%20climate%20treaty%202009.pdf/
The hour is very late indeed!
Option 3
The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall undertake reviews of this Protocol, including the consideration of commitments of the Parties for subsequent periods, in the light of the best available scientific information and assessments on climate change and its impacts, as well as relevant technical, social and economic information, bearing in mind the changes in circumstances of the Parties. The first review shall take place at least five years before the end of the commitment period, and further reviews shall take place at regular intervals and in a timely manner. Based on these reviews, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall take appropriate action, which may include the adoption of amendment to Annex B (commitments by developed country Parties) and Annex C (actions by developing country Parties).
The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first session or as soon as practicable thereafter, identify elements, including the economic development stages, response capabilities and shares of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, to be considered as criteria for changes in circumstances of the Parties.
36. The new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework to be established for the implementation, monitoring, reporting and verification of the global cooperative action for mitigation, adaptation, technology and financing, should be set under the Convention.
It should include a financial mechanism and a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate, in order to assure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention.
37. The new institutional arrangement will provide technical and financial support for developing countries in the following areas:
(a) preparation, implementation and follow-up through monitoring, reporting and verification of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) by developing countries. These activities could include options to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD);
(b) preparation, implementation and follow-up of national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs) or national communications in developing countries;
(c) technology needs assessments (TNAs) for adaptation and mitigation under the NAMAs and the NAPAs or national communications of developing countries;
(d) capacity-building and enabling environments for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries;
(e) education, awareness raising and public participation, focused on youth, women and indigenous peoples;
(f) design and implementation of adaptation programmes and projects;
(g) support for all technological cycle phases: research and development (R&D), diffusion and transfer, including acquisition of technologies for adaptation and mitigation, including the purchase or flexibility of patents.
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP (Copenhagen Agreement) with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2
Page 19
(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows:
(a) an Adaptation window,
(b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components,
(c) a Technology window;
(d) a Mitigation window;
(e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include:
(a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation;
(b) a long-term REDD process;
(c) a short-term technology action plan;
(d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification;
(e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.
Alternative to paragraph 1–38
[The shared vision shall take the form of preambular text that encapsulates both the long-term global goal and pulls together the other elements of the agreed outcome, in the following form:
The Conference of the Parties, Seeking to further implement the Convention, in light of evolving science and mindful of evolving economic development and emissions trends, Recognizing, in the light of Article 2 (objective) of the Convention, the importance of identifying one or more reference points in the mid-century timeframe that can guide the efforts of the Parties and the international community and against which aggregate global efforts can be continually assessed,
Considering, in that regard, that [ ] is/are desirable global indicator(s),
Having a shared vision of [summary that ties together the elements of the agreement], Hereby adopts [an implementing agreement].]
http://un%20copenhagen%20climate%20treaty%202009.pdf/
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
CIA To Monitor Internet Chatter For Anti-Government Sentiment
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
In the 2005 movie V For Vendetta, a film about a totalitarian society ruled by a fascist government with an iron surveillance fist, there’s a scene where state spooks drive down a residential street with a gadget that records the conversations people are having inside their homes and gives them a rating on how antagonistic towards the authorities they are.
A frighteningly similar scenario is now on the horizon with the news that the CIA’s investment arm In-Q-Tel is putting cash into Visible Technologies, a company that monitors the output of social media, in order to “Read your blog posts, keep track of your Twitter updates — even check out your book reviews on Amazon,” reports Wired News.
Of course, the fact that the U.S. government and the military have been overloading the Internet with pro-war propaganda and trolls who are paid to cheerlead for the war on terror and attack critics is an admitted part of their cyberwarfare agenda, and Israel has done the same.
However, the prospect of the CIA closely monitoring social networking websites, whose content largely comprises of inane gossip and sophomoric blabber, shows just how afraid the establishment is of rising popular opposition to their agenda.
“Visible crawls over half a million web 2.0 sites a day, scraping more than a million posts and conversations taking place on blogs, online forums, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon. Customers get customized, real-time feeds of what’s being said on these sites, based on a series of keywords,” according to Wired.
The software scores whether each post is positive, neutral or negative on a particular topic and can judge who the most influential poster is in a conversation, for example on a comment board or forum.
According to In-Q-Tel, it wants to use the technology to see how international issues are playing out in foreign media, but as the report notes, “Of course, such a tool can also be pointed inward, at domestic bloggers or tweeters. Visible already keeps tabs on web 2.0 sites for Dell, AT&T and Verizon. For Microsoft, the company is monitoring the buzz on its Windows 7 rollout. For Spam-maker Hormel, Visible is tracking animal-right activists’ online campaigns against the company.”
Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists warns that the software could be used to track and target critics of the government, as well as political figures and journalists.
“Intelligence agencies or employees might be tempted to use the tools at their disposal to compile information on political figures, critics, journalists or others, and to exploit such information for political advantage,” Aftergood told Wired.
Visible chief executive officer Dan Vetras said that the CIA was just one of several government clients that were using the technology and that more were on the horizon.
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
In the 2005 movie V For Vendetta, a film about a totalitarian society ruled by a fascist government with an iron surveillance fist, there’s a scene where state spooks drive down a residential street with a gadget that records the conversations people are having inside their homes and gives them a rating on how antagonistic towards the authorities they are.
A frighteningly similar scenario is now on the horizon with the news that the CIA’s investment arm In-Q-Tel is putting cash into Visible Technologies, a company that monitors the output of social media, in order to “Read your blog posts, keep track of your Twitter updates — even check out your book reviews on Amazon,” reports Wired News.
Of course, the fact that the U.S. government and the military have been overloading the Internet with pro-war propaganda and trolls who are paid to cheerlead for the war on terror and attack critics is an admitted part of their cyberwarfare agenda, and Israel has done the same.
However, the prospect of the CIA closely monitoring social networking websites, whose content largely comprises of inane gossip and sophomoric blabber, shows just how afraid the establishment is of rising popular opposition to their agenda.
“Visible crawls over half a million web 2.0 sites a day, scraping more than a million posts and conversations taking place on blogs, online forums, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon. Customers get customized, real-time feeds of what’s being said on these sites, based on a series of keywords,” according to Wired.
The software scores whether each post is positive, neutral or negative on a particular topic and can judge who the most influential poster is in a conversation, for example on a comment board or forum.
According to In-Q-Tel, it wants to use the technology to see how international issues are playing out in foreign media, but as the report notes, “Of course, such a tool can also be pointed inward, at domestic bloggers or tweeters. Visible already keeps tabs on web 2.0 sites for Dell, AT&T and Verizon. For Microsoft, the company is monitoring the buzz on its Windows 7 rollout. For Spam-maker Hormel, Visible is tracking animal-right activists’ online campaigns against the company.”
Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists warns that the software could be used to track and target critics of the government, as well as political figures and journalists.
“Intelligence agencies or employees might be tempted to use the tools at their disposal to compile information on political figures, critics, journalists or others, and to exploit such information for political advantage,” Aftergood told Wired.
Visible chief executive officer Dan Vetras said that the CIA was just one of several government clients that were using the technology and that more were on the horizon.
Monday, October 19, 2009
OBAMA WILL ATTEMPT TO SLIP IT THROUGH CONGRESS TO ACHIEVE HIS GOAL OF MARXIST WORLD DOMINATION
by John Charlton
(Oct. 16, 2009) — One world government, ruled by heartless and godless Marxists might be here sooner than you think. And the objectives of international Communists might explain all the money and power behind putting Obama into power.
But the mechanism for establishing this one world Marxist government has only recently been revealed: The Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.
So says Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who, according to Fightin’ Words Blog, gave a scathing critique of the treaty at the recent Minnesota Freemarket Institute Conference:
Here are some excerpts of Lord Monckton’s closing speech, as transcribed by Fightin’ Words Blog, from the audio recording of the conference:
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.
The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once.
So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.
You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
There is a lot more to what Lord Moncton says, and The Post & Email urges its readers to stop over at Fightin’ Words blog to read more about it. Fightin’ Words also has a link to the recent Copenhagen Conference Working Document, so that you can read for yourself what is entailed in its subterfuge.
Notice: On Monday, Oct. 19th, 2009, from 9-11 pm EDLST, the blogger who broke the Lord Monckton story will be interviewed on The Awakening Blog Radio program:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio/2009/10/20/Lord-Moncktons-Blogger-MissTicklys-New-Bombshell
(Oct. 16, 2009) — One world government, ruled by heartless and godless Marxists might be here sooner than you think. And the objectives of international Communists might explain all the money and power behind putting Obama into power.
But the mechanism for establishing this one world Marxist government has only recently been revealed: The Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.
So says Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who, according to Fightin’ Words Blog, gave a scathing critique of the treaty at the recent Minnesota Freemarket Institute Conference:
Here are some excerpts of Lord Monckton’s closing speech, as transcribed by Fightin’ Words Blog, from the audio recording of the conference:
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.
The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once.
So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.
You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
There is a lot more to what Lord Moncton says, and The Post & Email urges its readers to stop over at Fightin’ Words blog to read more about it. Fightin’ Words also has a link to the recent Copenhagen Conference Working Document, so that you can read for yourself what is entailed in its subterfuge.
Notice: On Monday, Oct. 19th, 2009, from 9-11 pm EDLST, the blogger who broke the Lord Monckton story will be interviewed on The Awakening Blog Radio program:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio/2009/10/20/Lord-Moncktons-Blogger-MissTicklys-New-Bombshell
Thatcher Adviser: Copenhagen Goal is 1-World Government
'Global warming' to be used as 'pretext' for 'change'
Posted: October 17, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7-18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government.
"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed," Lord Christopher Monckton told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience on Thursday at Bethel University in St. Paul.
"Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it," he told the audience of some 700 attendees.
"I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.
"The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government is enforcement."
In an hour and a half lecture illustrated by slides featuring scientific data on a wide range of climate issues, Monckton refuted claims made by former Vice President Al Gore in his movie and book entitled "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as scientific arguments made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Monckton argued that President Obama will sign the Copenhagen treaty at the December meeting, without seeking a two-thirds ratification of the treaty by the Senate, or any other type of Congressional approval.
"So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free," he continued. "But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever.
"But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with the climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it."
Monckton is a well-known critic of the theory of anthropogenic causes for global warming who has argued repeatedly that global warming hysteria is an ideological position of the political Left advanced in the interest of imposing global taxes on the United States in the pursuit of international control of the U.S. economy under a one-world government to be administered by the U.N.
Monckton's lecture can be viewed online and his slides also can be accessed on the Internet.
Where's the global warming?
As evidence mounts that the United States is headed toward a cooling cycle that may last decades, global alarmists within the Obama administration remain resolved to push cap-and-trade legislation through Congress on the increasingly dubious theory that man-made carbon emissions are creating global warming.
In what has to be seen as increasingly bad news for global warming alarmists, scientific evidence is mounting that temperatures in the United States have cooled at a rate that would be projected to lower temperatures 7.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.
Maybe Obama's Science Czar is Right: Is a New Ice Age on the Horizon?
WND has reported White House science czar John Holdren's prediction that one billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.
Even though Holdren's current position is that the U.S. needs to enact cap-and-trade to slow global warming, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.
Holdren's prediction that one billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced by Malthusian population alarmist Ehrlich in his 1986 book entitled, "The Machinery of Nature."
Holdren based his prediction on a bizarre theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would cause global cooling with a resultant reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.
On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climactic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)
The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.
Posted: October 17, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7-18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government.
"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed," Lord Christopher Monckton told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience on Thursday at Bethel University in St. Paul.
"Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it," he told the audience of some 700 attendees.
"I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.
"The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government is enforcement."
In an hour and a half lecture illustrated by slides featuring scientific data on a wide range of climate issues, Monckton refuted claims made by former Vice President Al Gore in his movie and book entitled "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as scientific arguments made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Monckton argued that President Obama will sign the Copenhagen treaty at the December meeting, without seeking a two-thirds ratification of the treaty by the Senate, or any other type of Congressional approval.
"So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free," he continued. "But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever.
"But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with the climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it."
Monckton is a well-known critic of the theory of anthropogenic causes for global warming who has argued repeatedly that global warming hysteria is an ideological position of the political Left advanced in the interest of imposing global taxes on the United States in the pursuit of international control of the U.S. economy under a one-world government to be administered by the U.N.
Monckton's lecture can be viewed online and his slides also can be accessed on the Internet.
Where's the global warming?
As evidence mounts that the United States is headed toward a cooling cycle that may last decades, global alarmists within the Obama administration remain resolved to push cap-and-trade legislation through Congress on the increasingly dubious theory that man-made carbon emissions are creating global warming.
In what has to be seen as increasingly bad news for global warming alarmists, scientific evidence is mounting that temperatures in the United States have cooled at a rate that would be projected to lower temperatures 7.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.
Maybe Obama's Science Czar is Right: Is a New Ice Age on the Horizon?
WND has reported White House science czar John Holdren's prediction that one billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.
Even though Holdren's current position is that the U.S. needs to enact cap-and-trade to slow global warming, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.
Holdren's prediction that one billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced by Malthusian population alarmist Ehrlich in his 1986 book entitled, "The Machinery of Nature."
Holdren based his prediction on a bizarre theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would cause global cooling with a resultant reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.
On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climactic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)
The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord
The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.
A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.
Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
World Government (heading added)
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].
A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.
Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
World Government (heading added)
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].
Pittsburgh: Beta Test for a Police State
The G-20 police response in Pittsburgh was a beta test. “We spent months getting ready for this and it was a lot of preparation, but we’ll see the dividends of that for a long time to come,” Public Safety Director Michael Huss told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
In other words, Pittsburgh is not going to stand-down now that the G-20 has departed. The “dividend” is that it will remain a militarized police state.
![]()
During the G-20, there were 6,000 heavily armed and outfitted cops on the street in response to 5,000 demonstrators, the vast majority of them peaceful.
Pittsburgh is the poster child for the police state. In 2007, the cops rolled out a 20-ton armored truck with a blast-resistant body, armored rotating roof hatch and gunports in response to street crime and violence. The $250,000 armored vehicle was paid for with Homeland Security money.
“With scores of police agencies large and small, from Lexington, Ky., to Austin, Texas, buying armored vehicles at Homeland Security expense, some criminal justice experts warn that their use in fighting everyday crime could do more harm than good and represents a post-9/11, militaristic turn away from the more cooperative community-policing approach promoted in the 1990s,” writes Ramit Plushnick-Masti. “Law enforcement agencies say the growing use of the vehicles, a practice that also has its defenders in the academic field of criminal justice, helps ensure police have the tools they need to deal with hostage situations, heavy gunfire and acts of terrorism.”
In Pittsburgh during the G-20, there were no terrorists — unless you consider citizens opposed to globalism and the world government schemes of the banksters terrorists. No hostages were taken, no drug-running gang-bangers were shooting at the police.
All around the country local law enforcement is looking to the feds to provide high-tech military hardware. San Francisco wants $125,000 for an armored vehicle and $200,000 for a mobile command vehicle. Sparks, Nevada wants $600,000 to purchase a “live fire” house its SWAT team can shoot up, and another $420,000 for a SWAT armored vehicle. Gary, Indiana wants $750,000 for a host of “modernization” upgrades to its police department, including “sub-automatic machine guns” and an armored vehicle. Ottawa, Illinois (population: 18,307) wants $60,000 to purchase, among other things, five “tactical entry rifles.”
“Why is our civilian law enforcement in an arms race, and who are they arming against? Why us of course. What use to be six to ten man SWAT teams are now platoon size of 25 if not more. The City Police, Sheriffs etc, are armed to the teeth and resemble SS units, this is a way to circumvent Posse Comitatus in the coming Martial Law,” writes Open Dialogue Government. “They are not rounding up illegal aliens or criminal street gangs who reek havoc on our country. They are here for us.”
In addition to Homeland Security money, cities want to use “stimulus” funds to get up to speed on the high-tech surveillance state. The following cities requested stimulus funds to supplement, initiate, or upgrade public surveillance camera systems: Brockton, Massachusetts; Buffalo, New York; Burnsville, Minnesota; Caguas, Puerto Rico; Cerritos, California; Columbia, South Carolina; Compton, California; Homestead, Florida; Hormigueros, Puerto Rico; Indianapolis, Indiana; Inglewood, California; Lewiston, Maine; Lorain, Ohio; Lynn, Massachusetts; Marion, Ohio; Merced, California; New Rochelle, New York; North Richland Hills, Texas; Oakland, California; Orange, New Jersey; Orem, Utah; Orlando, Florida; Pembroke Pines, Florida; Ponce, Puerto Rico; Riverdale, Illinois; Shreveport, Louisiana; Silver City, New Mexico; Sumter, South Carolina; Tallahassee, Florida; Warren, Ohio; and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. (see Any Taxes You Pay Can and Will Be Used Against You.)
And you thought the “stimulus” was about jobs and the economy.
The in-your-face “militarization of domestic law enforcement is now coupled with the military’s own rapid development and deployment of ‘non-lethal weapons’ systems which inevitably, will be ’shared’ with civilian police for ‘crowd control.’ As with data mining, DHS spy-satellite surveillance, blanket CCTV coverage of American cities, illegal FBI deployment of infiltrators and provocateurs, ‘mission creep’ by the Pentagon into civil affairs are signs that stronger measures to blunt the crisis may be in the offing,” Tom Burghardt wrote in October, 2008.
Add to the list the deployment of combat-hardened troops in the U.S. and numerous “exercises” for “emergency preparedness” and we have the finishing touches on a police state ready to be unleashed provided the appropriate staged terror attack or — more likely — during the coming unrest in response to the unraveling economy.
Homeland security is officially defined by the National Strategy for Homeland Security as “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.” It has superseded that mission.
In fact, Homeland Security was never about al-Qaeda or external terrorist attacks. It was from day one about the American people, specifically those Americans outlined in the DHS report on “rightwing extremism” — advocates of the Second Amendment and those of us who are demanding a return to a constitutional republic and a drastically scaled back federal government.
Source:
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
October 14, 2009
In other words, Pittsburgh is not going to stand-down now that the G-20 has departed. The “dividend” is that it will remain a militarized police state.
All the Homeland Security training was not for naught. Deputy police Chief Paul Donaldson said the training involved 716 of the force’s 872 officers as well as 254 officers from the Allegheny County police, county Sheriff’s Office, Port Authority Transit and University of Pittsburgh. Cops were given riot gear and the latest anti-First Amendment technology, including the now infamous LRAD. “A federal grant of $200,000 allowed police to buy four Long Range Acoustic Devices, or LRADs, which were used to disperse protesters,” the newspaper reports.
During the G-20, there were 6,000 heavily armed and outfitted cops on the street in response to 5,000 demonstrators, the vast majority of them peaceful.
Pittsburgh is the poster child for the police state. In 2007, the cops rolled out a 20-ton armored truck with a blast-resistant body, armored rotating roof hatch and gunports in response to street crime and violence. The $250,000 armored vehicle was paid for with Homeland Security money.
“With scores of police agencies large and small, from Lexington, Ky., to Austin, Texas, buying armored vehicles at Homeland Security expense, some criminal justice experts warn that their use in fighting everyday crime could do more harm than good and represents a post-9/11, militaristic turn away from the more cooperative community-policing approach promoted in the 1990s,” writes Ramit Plushnick-Masti. “Law enforcement agencies say the growing use of the vehicles, a practice that also has its defenders in the academic field of criminal justice, helps ensure police have the tools they need to deal with hostage situations, heavy gunfire and acts of terrorism.”
In Pittsburgh during the G-20, there were no terrorists — unless you consider citizens opposed to globalism and the world government schemes of the banksters terrorists. No hostages were taken, no drug-running gang-bangers were shooting at the police.
All around the country local law enforcement is looking to the feds to provide high-tech military hardware. San Francisco wants $125,000 for an armored vehicle and $200,000 for a mobile command vehicle. Sparks, Nevada wants $600,000 to purchase a “live fire” house its SWAT team can shoot up, and another $420,000 for a SWAT armored vehicle. Gary, Indiana wants $750,000 for a host of “modernization” upgrades to its police department, including “sub-automatic machine guns” and an armored vehicle. Ottawa, Illinois (population: 18,307) wants $60,000 to purchase, among other things, five “tactical entry rifles.”
“Why is our civilian law enforcement in an arms race, and who are they arming against? Why us of course. What use to be six to ten man SWAT teams are now platoon size of 25 if not more. The City Police, Sheriffs etc, are armed to the teeth and resemble SS units, this is a way to circumvent Posse Comitatus in the coming Martial Law,” writes Open Dialogue Government. “They are not rounding up illegal aliens or criminal street gangs who reek havoc on our country. They are here for us.”
In addition to Homeland Security money, cities want to use “stimulus” funds to get up to speed on the high-tech surveillance state. The following cities requested stimulus funds to supplement, initiate, or upgrade public surveillance camera systems: Brockton, Massachusetts; Buffalo, New York; Burnsville, Minnesota; Caguas, Puerto Rico; Cerritos, California; Columbia, South Carolina; Compton, California; Homestead, Florida; Hormigueros, Puerto Rico; Indianapolis, Indiana; Inglewood, California; Lewiston, Maine; Lorain, Ohio; Lynn, Massachusetts; Marion, Ohio; Merced, California; New Rochelle, New York; North Richland Hills, Texas; Oakland, California; Orange, New Jersey; Orem, Utah; Orlando, Florida; Pembroke Pines, Florida; Ponce, Puerto Rico; Riverdale, Illinois; Shreveport, Louisiana; Silver City, New Mexico; Sumter, South Carolina; Tallahassee, Florida; Warren, Ohio; and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. (see Any Taxes You Pay Can and Will Be Used Against You.)
And you thought the “stimulus” was about jobs and the economy.
The in-your-face “militarization of domestic law enforcement is now coupled with the military’s own rapid development and deployment of ‘non-lethal weapons’ systems which inevitably, will be ’shared’ with civilian police for ‘crowd control.’ As with data mining, DHS spy-satellite surveillance, blanket CCTV coverage of American cities, illegal FBI deployment of infiltrators and provocateurs, ‘mission creep’ by the Pentagon into civil affairs are signs that stronger measures to blunt the crisis may be in the offing,” Tom Burghardt wrote in October, 2008.
Add to the list the deployment of combat-hardened troops in the U.S. and numerous “exercises” for “emergency preparedness” and we have the finishing touches on a police state ready to be unleashed provided the appropriate staged terror attack or — more likely — during the coming unrest in response to the unraveling economy.
Homeland security is officially defined by the National Strategy for Homeland Security as “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.” It has superseded that mission.
In fact, Homeland Security was never about al-Qaeda or external terrorist attacks. It was from day one about the American people, specifically those Americans outlined in the DHS report on “rightwing extremism” — advocates of the Second Amendment and those of us who are demanding a return to a constitutional republic and a drastically scaled back federal government.
Source:
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
October 14, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
G20 Votes to Fund Global Currency
The G20 summit meeting in London last week, through the International Monetary Fund, took an important step to create a new global currency to replace the dollar as the world's foreign exchange reserve currency of choice.
Appearing on Sean Hannity's Fox News Channel television show, political consultant Dick Morris and Hannity agreed the decision by the G20 proved the "conspiracy theorists were right" ("This video has been removed due to terms of use violation", according to YouTube. Uh-huh, right) and there is now clear evidence of a plan to create a one-world currency.
Point 19 of the final communiqué from the G20 summit in London April 2 specified, "We have agreed to support a general SDR which will inject $250 billion into the world economy and increase global liquidity," taking the first steps forward to implement China's proposal that Special Drawing Rights at the IMF should be created as a foreign exchange currency to replace the dollar.
"I think the dollar is now under question," billionaire investor and political activist George Soros told CNBC, commenting that the goal was to create an IMF currency to use in international trade.
Obama deficits frighten China
China is clearly worried its massive holdings of U.S. dollars are at risk of devaluation, with the Obama administration projecting trillion-dollar deficits into the foreseeable future.
At the beginning of this year, China's holdings of U.S. Treasury securities jumped to $739 billion, up dramatically from $535 billion in June 2008.
On March 17, the Moscow Times published an article revealing the Kremlin attended to use the April G20 meeting in London to push for the IMF to utilize SDRs as "a super-reserve currency widely accepted by the whole of the international community."
Then, a few days later, on March 24, the Financial Times in London reported China's central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan has proposed to utilize SDRs issued by the IMF as a world reserve currency.
The coincidence of the two announcements gave the impression Moscow and Beijing had coordinated their efforts to undermine the dollar.
The G20 final communiqué gave the strong impression the meeting adopted China's proposal.
China's proposal called for the IMF to issue at least $250 billion in SDRs to IMF-member states as a method of placing a safety net under developing countries that might otherwise have to declare bankruptcy.
International overdraft
As Red Alert previously reported, the proposal originally advanced by China and Russia would issue SDRs to central banks of IMF member states far in excess of any gold or currency reserves the member states have on deposit with the IMF.
The idea is to utilize the little-understood and largely ignored SDR's in a new capacity, as a sort of an international overdraft facility made available to bankrupt or financially failing IMF members originated with Ted Turner, formerly a senior official at both the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury.
The IMF created SDRs in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed–exchange-rate system.
"The international supply of two key reserve assets – gold and the U.S. dollar – proved inadequate for supporting the expansion of world trade and financial development that was taking place," a a document on the IMF website explains. "Therefore, the international community decided to create a new international reserve asset under the auspices of the IMF."
When the Bretton Woods fixed-rate system collapse, major world currencies, including the dollar, shifted to a floating exchange rate system where the price of the dollar and other major world currencies was created by trading on international currency exchanges.
Until the current global economic crisis, SDRs issued by the IMF have been used by IMF members primarily as a reserve account to support international trade transactions, not as an alternative international currency available to settle international debt transactions in danger of default.
Jerome R. Corsi is a staff reporter for WND. He received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including his best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "The Late Great USA." Other books include "Showdown with Nuclear Iran," "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," which he co-authored with WND columnist Craig. R. Smith, and "Atomic Iran."
Appearing on Sean Hannity's Fox News Channel television show, political consultant Dick Morris and Hannity agreed the decision by the G20 proved the "conspiracy theorists were right" ("This video has been removed due to terms of use violation", according to YouTube. Uh-huh, right) and there is now clear evidence of a plan to create a one-world currency.
Point 19 of the final communiqué from the G20 summit in London April 2 specified, "We have agreed to support a general SDR which will inject $250 billion into the world economy and increase global liquidity," taking the first steps forward to implement China's proposal that Special Drawing Rights at the IMF should be created as a foreign exchange currency to replace the dollar.
"I think the dollar is now under question," billionaire investor and political activist George Soros told CNBC, commenting that the goal was to create an IMF currency to use in international trade.
Obama deficits frighten China
China is clearly worried its massive holdings of U.S. dollars are at risk of devaluation, with the Obama administration projecting trillion-dollar deficits into the foreseeable future.
At the beginning of this year, China's holdings of U.S. Treasury securities jumped to $739 billion, up dramatically from $535 billion in June 2008.
On March 17, the Moscow Times published an article revealing the Kremlin attended to use the April G20 meeting in London to push for the IMF to utilize SDRs as "a super-reserve currency widely accepted by the whole of the international community."
Then, a few days later, on March 24, the Financial Times in London reported China's central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan has proposed to utilize SDRs issued by the IMF as a world reserve currency.
The coincidence of the two announcements gave the impression Moscow and Beijing had coordinated their efforts to undermine the dollar.
The G20 final communiqué gave the strong impression the meeting adopted China's proposal.
China's proposal called for the IMF to issue at least $250 billion in SDRs to IMF-member states as a method of placing a safety net under developing countries that might otherwise have to declare bankruptcy.
International overdraft
As Red Alert previously reported, the proposal originally advanced by China and Russia would issue SDRs to central banks of IMF member states far in excess of any gold or currency reserves the member states have on deposit with the IMF.
The idea is to utilize the little-understood and largely ignored SDR's in a new capacity, as a sort of an international overdraft facility made available to bankrupt or financially failing IMF members originated with Ted Turner, formerly a senior official at both the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury.
The IMF created SDRs in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed–exchange-rate system.
"The international supply of two key reserve assets – gold and the U.S. dollar – proved inadequate for supporting the expansion of world trade and financial development that was taking place," a a document on the IMF website explains. "Therefore, the international community decided to create a new international reserve asset under the auspices of the IMF."
When the Bretton Woods fixed-rate system collapse, major world currencies, including the dollar, shifted to a floating exchange rate system where the price of the dollar and other major world currencies was created by trading on international currency exchanges.
Until the current global economic crisis, SDRs issued by the IMF have been used by IMF members primarily as a reserve account to support international trade transactions, not as an alternative international currency available to settle international debt transactions in danger of default.
Jerome R. Corsi is a staff reporter for WND. He received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including his best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "The Late Great USA." Other books include "Showdown with Nuclear Iran," "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," which he co-authored with WND columnist Craig. R. Smith, and "Atomic Iran."
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Principal to Boy: Strip Off 'Insulting' Pro-Life Shirt
A Christian middle-school student is suing his school district after a principal ordered him to remove a T-shirt bearing the message "Abortion is not health care" on the day of President Obama's speech to schoolchildren.
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court against the West Shore School District in Lewisberry, Pa., Oct. 5 on behalf of a male, Christian middle-school student identified as E.B.
The boy's parents, identified as the Boyers, said they were concerned about the president's speech and the national health-care debate, including reported funding of abortion within proposed legislation.
"[T]he Boyers, like many others, felt that President Obama was bypassing them and speaking directly to their children without their permission," the complaint states. "… Like many others, the Boyers struggled with whether they should send their children to school on that day. E.B. attended school and decided to voice his religious viewpoint as it relates to the issue of abortion."
The boy wore the T-shirt to his classes at Crossroads Middle School and said he received no complaints until his fifth-period teacher ordered him to go to the principal's office to determine whether the shirt was "appropriate."
E.B. claims he was immediately told to remove his shirt "because it might insult somebody."
ADF is challenging the following policies enforced by Crossroads Middle School and the West Shore School District:
"'Policy 220: Student Expression,' prohibits speech which 'seeks[s] to establish the supremacy of a particular religious denomination, sect, or point of view' and that which contain[s] material otherwise deemed harmful to impressionable students.'"
"'Policy 221: Dress and Grooming' prohibits 'clothing which creates a hostile educational environment or evidences discriminatory bias or animus' or displays 'inappropriate words.'"
"These are highly unconstitutional policies that demonstrate that there's a widespread need for schools to be educated about the First Amendment," ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman said in a statement. "Under the current wording, a student could actually be prevented from saying that his beliefs are true. The policies also allow officials unrestricted discretion in determining what speech violates the policies. In this case, they clearly singled out this student's pro-life speech and illegitimately censored it."
According to the lawsuit, the school's "draconian censorship of plaintiff's religious and political speech, and the policies on which that censorship was based, violate First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."
The complaint states that E.B. wishes to wear T-shirts expressing his Christian faith and political views because he "desires to reach out to his peers and to offer them advice, assistance, and education" and to "discuss relevant issues facing students at school, including faith and religion, personal responsibility, sexual abstinence, keeping children in the event of pregnancy, just to name a few."
ADF's lawsuit argues, "Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate."
"Pro-life students shouldn't be censored for their views," Cortman said. "It's clearly unconstitutional for school officials to prohibit a student's message on the grounds that someone might not like it. The school routinely allows students to wear a wide variety of messages on their shirts without any concerns, but this student has been singled out even though his shirt caused no disruption and is clearly within the bounds of constitutionally guaranteed free speech."
Posted:
October 12, 2009
10:38 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court against the West Shore School District in Lewisberry, Pa., Oct. 5 on behalf of a male, Christian middle-school student identified as E.B.
The boy's parents, identified as the Boyers, said they were concerned about the president's speech and the national health-care debate, including reported funding of abortion within proposed legislation.
"[T]he Boyers, like many others, felt that President Obama was bypassing them and speaking directly to their children without their permission," the complaint states. "… Like many others, the Boyers struggled with whether they should send their children to school on that day. E.B. attended school and decided to voice his religious viewpoint as it relates to the issue of abortion."
The boy wore the T-shirt to his classes at Crossroads Middle School and said he received no complaints until his fifth-period teacher ordered him to go to the principal's office to determine whether the shirt was "appropriate."
E.B. claims he was immediately told to remove his shirt "because it might insult somebody."
ADF is challenging the following policies enforced by Crossroads Middle School and the West Shore School District:
"'Policy 220: Student Expression,' prohibits speech which 'seeks[s] to establish the supremacy of a particular religious denomination, sect, or point of view' and that which contain[s] material otherwise deemed harmful to impressionable students.'"
"'Policy 221: Dress and Grooming' prohibits 'clothing which creates a hostile educational environment or evidences discriminatory bias or animus' or displays 'inappropriate words.'"
"These are highly unconstitutional policies that demonstrate that there's a widespread need for schools to be educated about the First Amendment," ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman said in a statement. "Under the current wording, a student could actually be prevented from saying that his beliefs are true. The policies also allow officials unrestricted discretion in determining what speech violates the policies. In this case, they clearly singled out this student's pro-life speech and illegitimately censored it."
According to the lawsuit, the school's "draconian censorship of plaintiff's religious and political speech, and the policies on which that censorship was based, violate First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."
The complaint states that E.B. wishes to wear T-shirts expressing his Christian faith and political views because he "desires to reach out to his peers and to offer them advice, assistance, and education" and to "discuss relevant issues facing students at school, including faith and religion, personal responsibility, sexual abstinence, keeping children in the event of pregnancy, just to name a few."
ADF's lawsuit argues, "Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate."
"Pro-life students shouldn't be censored for their views," Cortman said. "It's clearly unconstitutional for school officials to prohibit a student's message on the grounds that someone might not like it. The school routinely allows students to wear a wide variety of messages on their shirts without any concerns, but this student has been singled out even though his shirt caused no disruption and is clearly within the bounds of constitutionally guaranteed free speech."
Posted:
October 12, 2009
10:38 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Dem Apparatchik Describes Millions of Americans as Terrorists
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:
“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party.
“The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore — it’s an embarrassing label to claim,” Woodhouse said.
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.
It didn’t create Hamas — that was left up to the Israelis.
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:
“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party.
“The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore — it’s an embarrassing label to claim,” Woodhouse said.
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.
It didn’t create Hamas — that was left up to the Israelis.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Why Bother???
I often get the same response from people when they find out that I closely follow and report on developments that are taking place in regards to the New World Order and One World Government plan.
"Why bother?"
"You can't change what happens anyways, so why waste your time?"
" I prefer to concentrate on the positive things in life."
These responses never cease to frustrate me. If this is your outlook and view in life, why protest or fight against any type of injustice or evil that takes place in the world?
What do you think the world would be like today if nobody thought it necessary or important enough to fight the evil of the Nazis in WWII?
What if no-one thought it worthwhile to stand against the evil of the Inquisition? Would we still boil people alive or torture them for their convictions?
What if we still burnt "witches" at the stake?
What if human sacrifice was still commonly accepted in society as it has been in history?
I could go on and on, but the point is this. If this type of evil is not worth standing up against, why should we bother fighting against anything evil in our society?
How can we as Christians, say that we are followers God if we refuse to stand against those forces that actively hate him and fight against Him?
How can we be witnesses and examples to our children if our faith means nothing in the real world, and our religion consists of 1 hour a week?
If this is the kind of Christians we are, count me out, because I follow a God that stood against evil on Calvary, regardless of the personal cost.
I follow a God that still stands against evil today.
I follow a God that thinks that the "negative" things in this world are worth thinking and praying about.
I follow a God that believes evil needs to be confronted and fought against.
"Why bother?"
"You can't change what happens anyways, so why waste your time?"
" I prefer to concentrate on the positive things in life."
These responses never cease to frustrate me. If this is your outlook and view in life, why protest or fight against any type of injustice or evil that takes place in the world?
What do you think the world would be like today if nobody thought it necessary or important enough to fight the evil of the Nazis in WWII?
What if no-one thought it worthwhile to stand against the evil of the Inquisition? Would we still boil people alive or torture them for their convictions?
What if we still burnt "witches" at the stake?
What if human sacrifice was still commonly accepted in society as it has been in history?
I could go on and on, but the point is this. If this type of evil is not worth standing up against, why should we bother fighting against anything evil in our society?
How can we as Christians, say that we are followers God if we refuse to stand against those forces that actively hate him and fight against Him?
How can we be witnesses and examples to our children if our faith means nothing in the real world, and our religion consists of 1 hour a week?
If this is the kind of Christians we are, count me out, because I follow a God that stood against evil on Calvary, regardless of the personal cost.
I follow a God that still stands against evil today.
I follow a God that thinks that the "negative" things in this world are worth thinking and praying about.
I follow a God that believes evil needs to be confronted and fought against.
Holdren: Ice Age Will Kill 1 Billion
White House science czar John Holdren has predicted 1 billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.
As WND previously reported, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.
Holdren's prediction that 1 billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced in Ehrlich's 1986 book "The Machinery of Nature."
Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would cause global cooling with a consequent reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.
On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climactic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)
"Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"
The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.
![]()
Holdren and Ehrlich had previously articulated the theory in their 1973 textbook "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions" in which they argued on page 198 that the main effect of carbon-dioxide-induced global warming "might be to speed up circulation patterns and to bring arctic cold farther south and Antarctic cold farther north."
In their 1970s textbook, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment," last revised in 1977, Holdren together with co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich argued on page 687 that "a man-made warming trend might cancel out a natural cooling trend."
Equivocating between whether human-caused global warming or global cooling were the more likely future trend, the authors concluded that, either way, any rapid climate change would produce an eco-disaster because any rapid change in climate, regardless whether toward global warming or global cooling, would produce hazardous effects upon agriculture and food production.
Still, worrying that human-caused climate changes either toward global warming or global cooling would be rapid, the authors concluded "there is no leeway in the world situation to absorb a significant climate-induced drop in production over broad areas of the world."
"Whatever adjustments in crop characteristics and cultivation patterns might eventually be made in response to rapid climate change would come too late to save hundreds of millions from famine," the authors argued on page 688. (Emphasis in original text.)
On page 377, the authors returned to their constant theme: The only way to control a foreseen increasing global food crisis was to control population.
Noting that a 1967 presidential science advisory commission had concluded that the solution to the "world food problem" likely after 1985 "demands that programs of population control be initiated now." (Emphasis in original text.)
Commenting on the conclusions of the 1967 presidential advisory report, the authors wrote, "We emphatically agreed then, and the situation is even more urgent today."
As WND previously reported, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.
Holdren's prediction that 1 billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced in Ehrlich's 1986 book "The Machinery of Nature."
Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would cause global cooling with a consequent reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.
On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climactic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)
"Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"
The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.
In their 1970s textbook, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment," last revised in 1977, Holdren together with co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich argued on page 687 that "a man-made warming trend might cancel out a natural cooling trend."
Equivocating between whether human-caused global warming or global cooling were the more likely future trend, the authors concluded that, either way, any rapid climate change would produce an eco-disaster because any rapid change in climate, regardless whether toward global warming or global cooling, would produce hazardous effects upon agriculture and food production.
Still, worrying that human-caused climate changes either toward global warming or global cooling would be rapid, the authors concluded "there is no leeway in the world situation to absorb a significant climate-induced drop in production over broad areas of the world."
"Whatever adjustments in crop characteristics and cultivation patterns might eventually be made in response to rapid climate change would come too late to save hundreds of millions from famine," the authors argued on page 688. (Emphasis in original text.)
On page 377, the authors returned to their constant theme: The only way to control a foreseen increasing global food crisis was to control population.
Noting that a 1967 presidential science advisory commission had concluded that the solution to the "world food problem" likely after 1985 "demands that programs of population control be initiated now." (Emphasis in original text.)
Commenting on the conclusions of the 1967 presidential advisory report, the authors wrote, "We emphatically agreed then, and the situation is even more urgent today."
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Great Poisoning of America Begins
Yesterday, while working outside, I had my small portable radio tuned to ABC, 790 AM. I heard Tim Conway, Junior, son of comedian Tim Conway, blather on endlessly about how dangerous and deadly the Swine Flu”outbreak” was and how very IMPORTANT it was to”protect” yourself and your family from being stricken dead by this killer flu and to get your Swine flu shot as soon as possible. While it was”necessary” to vaccinate health care workers, pregnant women, and school children FIRST,”there should be enough” vaccine available to cover everybody, so”just be patient” if you can’t get your vaccination right away.”I care most about my family”, he said, and”want them” vaccinated first, but ‘I care about you too, the listener, and want you around as well”.
So, do as Tim Conway Jr does and get yourself inoculated with a lethal cocktail of toxins and patented bio-weaponized germs with immune system-crippling adjuvant, so you can”protect” yourself.
Earlier in the day, I also heard the greatest outlet of Tavistock propaganda on radio, NPR (National Public Radio), tell me that the first million (or two million or four million?) doses of Swine Flu vaccine have “just” arrived in Los Angeles in the “nick” of time for the beginning of the school year, so there will be adequate Swine flu vaccine available” for all of Los Angeles’ school children.”
Isn’t that wonderful? Good News always seem to come in bucket loads on Sundays for some reason!
Are media whores, propagandizing on behalf of pharmaceutical companies and their whores in government, any less guilty of crippling and killing innocent people than the vaccine manufacturers themselves? Are they any less guilty than the Fort Detrick research team under Dr Jeffrey Taubenberger who went up to Alaska to retrieve DNA samples in 1997 in order to use it to map and REPLICATE the 1918 Spanish Flu virus, and THEN develop it into an even DEADLIER strain that eventually becomes part of the Swine flu vaccine cocktail?
I don’t think so.
Every player and every cog in the Swine Flu Hysteria Propaganda Machine, are as guilty as the Illuminated Club of Rome planners who were behind this covert population reduction agenda. Having failed, apparently, to poison us sufficiently with chemtrails for the past 11 years, they now turn to direct poisoning via inoculations. The Satanic underpinning of this Death ritual is clear when you recognize that they FIRST want to poison those human groups most responsible for carrying on and continuing life itself: pregnant women, little children, and healthcare workers!
Former Marine Drew Malone Raines, great grandnephew of Major General Smedley Butler, discovered in July of this year that a Navy ship headed out of San Diego in late April of 2009 for Phukette, Thailand, had an emergency crisis at sea and had to return to port. All 347 members of the ship’s crew were inoculated with the Swine flu vaccine three days before departing on April 21, 2009. By May 1, 2009 (about two weeks), 341 crew members came down with flu symptoms and approximately 260 of them had what was described as “very serious” flu symptoms. Two people died. About 50 medical personnel from another Navy ship, were brought on board to attend to the medical emergency and the ship was returned to port where it was quarantined. The wife of one of those seamen who had gotten very ill and nearly died, had reported the story to a group of Navy wives who were regular listeners to Drew Raines, A Marine’s Disquisition, internet radio show, and they, in turn, reported the story to Drew Raines. Subsequently, the wives of every seaman on that ship were visited by Navy Intelligence and other Navy brass and told to keep their mouths shut and say nothing of the episode to anyone as the incident was now classified and subject to”national security” classification.
After broadcasting a radio show on September 26, 2009 discussing the April-May events aboard that ship, Drew Raines and guest Bob Chapman discovered that an internet disinformation campaign was launched to label the entire story of the ship’s crew coming down with Swine Flu as a “hoax.” Naturally, this infuriated Drew, as he was given in depth details of what had transpired on the ship by the wives of some of the men involved and who had nearly died due to the Swine Flu vaccination. In more than one instance, seamen were placed in ice baths or placed inside the ship’s walk-in freezer in order to bring down fevers which were running as high as 106 degrees.
I read a very capable article by Jim Kirwan a few days ago addressing this latest “hoax” disinformation effort, and how it paralleled so closely with the disinformation effort in the wake of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Cole, branding the entire account ~ a”hoax.” Who else but the military could be behind these disinformation campaigns?
I can only HOPE that enough parents are aware of the tremendous dangers which the BIO-ENGINEERED Swine flu vaccine presents to the health and longevity of their children, that they either obtain vaccination exemptions (available in every state) or pull their kids out of public school altogether and home school them. .
I can only HOPE that”health care workers” care more about the sanctity of their blood (and of their lives) than to sacrifice both in the interest of collecting a paycheck.
I can only HOPE that there are enough people in this country who still have a brain in their head and will GET INVOLVED in protesting and CONDEMING those who are promoting the Swine Flu hoax and worst of all, urging people to take the Swine flu vaccine.
The Great Poisoning of America has begun. It will probably continue through November and maybe into December. MILLIONS of people will suffer IRREVERSIBLE damage as a result of being vaccinated with the Swine Flu vaccine and MANY THOUSANDS WILL DIE, some immediately, and some more slowly.
How bad it will get depends entirely on how many people take the deadly vaccine. I can only HOPE enough people will wake up in time.
Source:
Ken Adachi
Educate-Yourself
October 6, 2009
So, do as Tim Conway Jr does and get yourself inoculated with a lethal cocktail of toxins and patented bio-weaponized germs with immune system-crippling adjuvant, so you can”protect” yourself.
Earlier in the day, I also heard the greatest outlet of Tavistock propaganda on radio, NPR (National Public Radio), tell me that the first million (or two million or four million?) doses of Swine Flu vaccine have “just” arrived in Los Angeles in the “nick” of time for the beginning of the school year, so there will be adequate Swine flu vaccine available” for all of Los Angeles’ school children.”
Isn’t that wonderful? Good News always seem to come in bucket loads on Sundays for some reason!
Are media whores, propagandizing on behalf of pharmaceutical companies and their whores in government, any less guilty of crippling and killing innocent people than the vaccine manufacturers themselves? Are they any less guilty than the Fort Detrick research team under Dr Jeffrey Taubenberger who went up to Alaska to retrieve DNA samples in 1997 in order to use it to map and REPLICATE the 1918 Spanish Flu virus, and THEN develop it into an even DEADLIER strain that eventually becomes part of the Swine flu vaccine cocktail?
I don’t think so.
Every player and every cog in the Swine Flu Hysteria Propaganda Machine, are as guilty as the Illuminated Club of Rome planners who were behind this covert population reduction agenda. Having failed, apparently, to poison us sufficiently with chemtrails for the past 11 years, they now turn to direct poisoning via inoculations. The Satanic underpinning of this Death ritual is clear when you recognize that they FIRST want to poison those human groups most responsible for carrying on and continuing life itself: pregnant women, little children, and healthcare workers!
Former Marine Drew Malone Raines, great grandnephew of Major General Smedley Butler, discovered in July of this year that a Navy ship headed out of San Diego in late April of 2009 for Phukette, Thailand, had an emergency crisis at sea and had to return to port. All 347 members of the ship’s crew were inoculated with the Swine flu vaccine three days before departing on April 21, 2009. By May 1, 2009 (about two weeks), 341 crew members came down with flu symptoms and approximately 260 of them had what was described as “very serious” flu symptoms. Two people died. About 50 medical personnel from another Navy ship, were brought on board to attend to the medical emergency and the ship was returned to port where it was quarantined. The wife of one of those seamen who had gotten very ill and nearly died, had reported the story to a group of Navy wives who were regular listeners to Drew Raines, A Marine’s Disquisition, internet radio show, and they, in turn, reported the story to Drew Raines. Subsequently, the wives of every seaman on that ship were visited by Navy Intelligence and other Navy brass and told to keep their mouths shut and say nothing of the episode to anyone as the incident was now classified and subject to”national security” classification.
After broadcasting a radio show on September 26, 2009 discussing the April-May events aboard that ship, Drew Raines and guest Bob Chapman discovered that an internet disinformation campaign was launched to label the entire story of the ship’s crew coming down with Swine Flu as a “hoax.” Naturally, this infuriated Drew, as he was given in depth details of what had transpired on the ship by the wives of some of the men involved and who had nearly died due to the Swine Flu vaccination. In more than one instance, seamen were placed in ice baths or placed inside the ship’s walk-in freezer in order to bring down fevers which were running as high as 106 degrees.
I read a very capable article by Jim Kirwan a few days ago addressing this latest “hoax” disinformation effort, and how it paralleled so closely with the disinformation effort in the wake of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Cole, branding the entire account ~ a”hoax.” Who else but the military could be behind these disinformation campaigns?
I can only HOPE that enough parents are aware of the tremendous dangers which the BIO-ENGINEERED Swine flu vaccine presents to the health and longevity of their children, that they either obtain vaccination exemptions (available in every state) or pull their kids out of public school altogether and home school them. .
I can only HOPE that”health care workers” care more about the sanctity of their blood (and of their lives) than to sacrifice both in the interest of collecting a paycheck.
I can only HOPE that there are enough people in this country who still have a brain in their head and will GET INVOLVED in protesting and CONDEMING those who are promoting the Swine Flu hoax and worst of all, urging people to take the Swine flu vaccine.
The Great Poisoning of America has begun. It will probably continue through November and maybe into December. MILLIONS of people will suffer IRREVERSIBLE damage as a result of being vaccinated with the Swine Flu vaccine and MANY THOUSANDS WILL DIE, some immediately, and some more slowly.
How bad it will get depends entirely on how many people take the deadly vaccine. I can only HOPE enough people will wake up in time.
Source:
Ken Adachi
Educate-Yourself
October 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)