By Rev. Ted Pike
28 July 10
ADL director Abe Foxman says that 45 years ago one third of Americans were “seriously infected” with anti-Semitism. Now, he says, 12 to 14 percent are in that category. This, he contends, amounts to 40 million Americans.
However, there are another 40 million who are “mildly” infected. They believe, he says, that Jews are “too powerful in finance,” “control the government,” and “control Hollywood.” Such “mild” anti-Semitism, Foxman claims, includes the belief that “the Jews killed Christ.” (Watch the v ideo of Foxman's comments at ADL.org)
Who most conspicuously asserts that Jews killed Christ? Answer: at least 150 million Bible-believing Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical Christians.
Who most conspicuously asserts that Jews control Hollywood and the US government? Answer: for the moment, veteran Hollywood insider and movie producer Oliver Stone. When asked by Britain's Sunday Times why so much emphasis has been placed on the Holocaust, Stone replied, “The Jewish domination of the media. There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f****d up United States foreign policy for years.”
Here we see ADL making tens of millions of Americans anti-Semitic for simply accepting what Jews tell us about themselves. Many Jewish film historians and reference sources now document how Jews founded the Hollywood movie and Big Three TV industries. Neal Gabler in his classic An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood exhaustively chronicles such control. So does the prestigious Encyclopedia Judaica: “Thus, all the large Hollywood companies, with the exception of United Artists, were founded and controlled by Jews.” ("Motion Pictures," p. 449) The Judaica has separate articles detailing how David Sarnoff, William S. Paley, and Leonard Goldenson founded and controlled NBC, CBS, and ABC.
ADL’s main quarrel is not with anti-Semitism. It’s with reality. It’s with the fact that many people believe what the Jews say and repeat it on the internet, especially the Jewish accomplishment of attaining staggering control in media, government and finance. Such repetition of what Jews have told us, especially if spoken in a critical way, now becomes for ADL “virulent anti-Semitism.”
In ADL’s perfect world, Jews should be able to boast of their incredible emergence from persecution to dominance of the most influential sectors of society, and receive Gentile praise for that, without enduring suspicion or criticism.
To the delight of ADL, such utopia is now realized from tens of millions of evangelicals. Yet ADL, in its Department of Global Anti-Semitism in the US State Department, accuses evangelicals of “classic anti-Semitism” for believing the New Testament account that Jews had Christ killed. (See, Bible is Hate, Says U.S. Government). Nevertheless, "Israel-first" believers abhor any suspicion that ADL is conspiring against them. Believing that any criticism of a Jew will incur divine wrath, most evangelicals and their leaders are theologically sworn to silence against even mentioning the name “ADL” in public.
ADL Masks Its True Intention
Foxman says that ADL’s role in helping pass Georgia’s anti-masking law in the 1950s seriously crippled the KKK because they could no longer promote hatred and bigotry anonymously. But the internet today, Foxman believes, is like the hoods of KKK bigots, allowing hate to flourish anonymously. His implication? Something like the masking law should be effected to end internet freedom to hate.
The problem, however, is that, like KKK masks, which had a hateful, possibly murderous intention behind them, ADL's "noose" of the charge of anti-Semitism placed around 80 million Americans, also has malevolent intent.
ADL is architect of the federal hate crimes law. It has a sordid record of inciting persecution of Christians who criticize abortion and homosexuality in countries like Canada.
ADL’s nooses are made to be tightened.
Source
Thursday, July 29, 2010
White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity
Ellen Nakashima – Washington Post July 29, 2010
The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.
The administration wants to add just four words – "electronic communication transactional records" – to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.
But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.
Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau's authority. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data," said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. "And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL."
Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say. One senior administration government official, who would discuss the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that "most" Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data.
To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.
The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order. "You're bringing a big category of data – records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information – outside of judicial review," said Michael Sussmann, a Justice Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents Internet and other firms.
Privacy concerns
The use of the national security letters to obtain personal data on Americans has prompted concern. The Justice Department issued 192,500 national security letters from 2003 to 2006, according to a 2008 inspector general report, which did not indicate how many were demands for Internet records. A 2007 IG report found numerous possible violations of FBI regulations, including the issuance of NSLs without having an approved investigation to justify the request. In two cases, the report found, agents used NSLs to request content information "not permitted by the [surveillance] statute."
One issue with both the proposal and the current law is that the phrase "electronic communication transactional records" is not defined anywhere in statute. "Our biggest concern is that an expanded NSL power might be used to obtain Internet search queries and Web histories detailing every Web site visited and every file downloaded," said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T for assisting the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program.
Read more...
The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.
The administration wants to add just four words – "electronic communication transactional records" – to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.
But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.
Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau's authority. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data," said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. "And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL."
Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say. One senior administration government official, who would discuss the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that "most" Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data.
To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.
The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order. "You're bringing a big category of data – records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information – outside of judicial review," said Michael Sussmann, a Justice Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents Internet and other firms.
Privacy concerns
The use of the national security letters to obtain personal data on Americans has prompted concern. The Justice Department issued 192,500 national security letters from 2003 to 2006, according to a 2008 inspector general report, which did not indicate how many were demands for Internet records. A 2007 IG report found numerous possible violations of FBI regulations, including the issuance of NSLs without having an approved investigation to justify the request. In two cases, the report found, agents used NSLs to request content information "not permitted by the [surveillance] statute."
One issue with both the proposal and the current law is that the phrase "electronic communication transactional records" is not defined anywhere in statute. "Our biggest concern is that an expanded NSL power might be used to obtain Internet search queries and Web histories detailing every Web site visited and every file downloaded," said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T for assisting the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program.
Read more...
End Middle East Wars To Boost Economy
By Sherwood Ross
The solution to our fiscal crisis, The Nation magazine editorializes, is to “end the wars, allow the tax cuts to expire and restore robust growth.” That’s because nearly the entire deficit this year and those projected at least for the short term are the result of “the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession,” the publication says in its lead editorial of August 2nd.
Yet, while the Obama administration has just pushed through $59 billion more to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan to intensify that war and for "nation-building", it has done way too little to help the States maintain needed jobs. “Spending on local projects plummets,” was a June 25th headline in “USA Today.”
“The cutbacks are hitting the nation’s 90,000 state and local governments, including cities, counties, school districts, universities and utilities,” reports Dennis Cauchon. “States and local governments are slashing spending on schools, roads, offices and other construction projects so fast that even federal stimulus money hasn’t filled in the gap,” he wrote.
Of course, the big reason local and state governments are broke is because the Federal government---which is siphoning off more than $2 trillion annually from the public--- is fleecing taxpayers for its wars. As a result, broke taxpayers are voting down bond issues for needed local improvements. They don’t have any money left to fund them. Schools are being built in Iraq, not Iowa.
About 54 cents of every dollar spent by the Feds last year went for past and present conflicts, says the pacifist War Resisters League of New York. Put another way, Washington spends more for war each year than all 50 state governments combined spend for the health, education, safety and general welfare of 308 million Americans.
In 2008, for example, the states collected $781 billion in taxes, according to the Tax Foundation of Washington, D.C. And that’s, essentially, to run the entire United States. For a rough comparison, the Pentagon this year, says Wikipedia, will spend between $880 billion and $1 trillion on war----more than the next high-spending 45 countries combined.
It now costs $1.1 million a year to keep a soldier in Afghanistan, according to The New York Times of July 25th. While some of this money flows back into America in point of fact a number of non-military outlays do more to stimulate the American economy in terms of jobs created and wages and benefits, studies show. If Congress wants to get America moving, morals aside, it’s far better off investing our taxes in education, health care, transportation, and construction than in war.
Besides, the Pentagon is so incredibly fiscally irresponsible that, according to an Associated Press report of July 27th, a U.S. audit found the Pentagon “cannot account for over 95 percent of $9.1 billion in Iraq reconstruction money”---that it took from the people of Iraqi it was supposedly managing in their behalf.
Instead of bribing our enemies in Afghanistan not to shoot up our wagon trains, the Obama administration might invest those dollars in creating jobs at home that will put purchasing power back into the hands of American workers. It needs urgently to slash that 9.8 percent unemployment level. “More than 14 million people are out of work and many more are either underemployed or so discouraged they’ve just stopped looking,” writes Bob Herbert in The New York Times of July 27th.
While “big American companies are sitting on a gigantic pile of money” from second quarter profits, notes former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, they continue to invest in their overseas ops rather than in U.S. production. General Motors, he observes, has slashed its U.S. work force from 468,000 in 1970 to 52,000 hourly workers today---while building its Chinese labor force to 32,000.
Reich writes, “Bottom line: Higher corporate profits no longer lead to higher employment. We're witnessing a great decoupling of company profits from jobs.” So don’t look to the private sector to get the stimulus ball rolling.
“Long-term solutions that have to do with extensive job creation and a strengthening of the safety net are required. But that doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s agenda,” Herbert adds.
One way to give purchasing power a boost would be to reduce payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security. Help the working folk at the bottom of the economic pyramid keep more of what they earn. Another way would be Federal job creation: say half a million more nurses and like numbers of day care workers and teachers for openers. "We're told we can't extend unemployment or pay to keep cops on the beat or teachers in the classroom, but we're asked to borrow another $33 billion for nation-building in Afghanistan," Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) is quoted as saying by the Associated Press. "I think we need to do more nation-building here at home."
That nation-building could include legislation that will allow workers to vote in labor unions once again. The relentless decline in good-paying union jobs has been a big factor in taking the purchasing punch out of the economy.
If you oppose on principle federal subsidies for hiring nurses and others, how do you feel about subsidizing Afghan warlords?
(Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based media consultant. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)
The solution to our fiscal crisis, The Nation magazine editorializes, is to “end the wars, allow the tax cuts to expire and restore robust growth.” That’s because nearly the entire deficit this year and those projected at least for the short term are the result of “the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession,” the publication says in its lead editorial of August 2nd.
Yet, while the Obama administration has just pushed through $59 billion more to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan to intensify that war and for "nation-building", it has done way too little to help the States maintain needed jobs. “Spending on local projects plummets,” was a June 25th headline in “USA Today.”
“The cutbacks are hitting the nation’s 90,000 state and local governments, including cities, counties, school districts, universities and utilities,” reports Dennis Cauchon. “States and local governments are slashing spending on schools, roads, offices and other construction projects so fast that even federal stimulus money hasn’t filled in the gap,” he wrote.
Of course, the big reason local and state governments are broke is because the Federal government---which is siphoning off more than $2 trillion annually from the public--- is fleecing taxpayers for its wars. As a result, broke taxpayers are voting down bond issues for needed local improvements. They don’t have any money left to fund them. Schools are being built in Iraq, not Iowa.
About 54 cents of every dollar spent by the Feds last year went for past and present conflicts, says the pacifist War Resisters League of New York. Put another way, Washington spends more for war each year than all 50 state governments combined spend for the health, education, safety and general welfare of 308 million Americans.
In 2008, for example, the states collected $781 billion in taxes, according to the Tax Foundation of Washington, D.C. And that’s, essentially, to run the entire United States. For a rough comparison, the Pentagon this year, says Wikipedia, will spend between $880 billion and $1 trillion on war----more than the next high-spending 45 countries combined.
It now costs $1.1 million a year to keep a soldier in Afghanistan, according to The New York Times of July 25th. While some of this money flows back into America in point of fact a number of non-military outlays do more to stimulate the American economy in terms of jobs created and wages and benefits, studies show. If Congress wants to get America moving, morals aside, it’s far better off investing our taxes in education, health care, transportation, and construction than in war.
Besides, the Pentagon is so incredibly fiscally irresponsible that, according to an Associated Press report of July 27th, a U.S. audit found the Pentagon “cannot account for over 95 percent of $9.1 billion in Iraq reconstruction money”---that it took from the people of Iraqi it was supposedly managing in their behalf.
Instead of bribing our enemies in Afghanistan not to shoot up our wagon trains, the Obama administration might invest those dollars in creating jobs at home that will put purchasing power back into the hands of American workers. It needs urgently to slash that 9.8 percent unemployment level. “More than 14 million people are out of work and many more are either underemployed or so discouraged they’ve just stopped looking,” writes Bob Herbert in The New York Times of July 27th.
While “big American companies are sitting on a gigantic pile of money” from second quarter profits, notes former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, they continue to invest in their overseas ops rather than in U.S. production. General Motors, he observes, has slashed its U.S. work force from 468,000 in 1970 to 52,000 hourly workers today---while building its Chinese labor force to 32,000.
Reich writes, “Bottom line: Higher corporate profits no longer lead to higher employment. We're witnessing a great decoupling of company profits from jobs.” So don’t look to the private sector to get the stimulus ball rolling.
“Long-term solutions that have to do with extensive job creation and a strengthening of the safety net are required. But that doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s agenda,” Herbert adds.
One way to give purchasing power a boost would be to reduce payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security. Help the working folk at the bottom of the economic pyramid keep more of what they earn. Another way would be Federal job creation: say half a million more nurses and like numbers of day care workers and teachers for openers. "We're told we can't extend unemployment or pay to keep cops on the beat or teachers in the classroom, but we're asked to borrow another $33 billion for nation-building in Afghanistan," Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) is quoted as saying by the Associated Press. "I think we need to do more nation-building here at home."
That nation-building could include legislation that will allow workers to vote in labor unions once again. The relentless decline in good-paying union jobs has been a big factor in taking the purchasing punch out of the economy.
If you oppose on principle federal subsidies for hiring nurses and others, how do you feel about subsidizing Afghan warlords?
(Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based media consultant. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)
Pharmaceutical drug contamination of waterways threatens life on our planet
(NaturalNews) The President's Cancer Panel (PCP) recently released its yearly report to the President outlining the status of cancer in America. This year's report focuses primarily on environmental factors that contribute to cancer risk. According to the report, pharmaceutical drugs are a serious environmental pollutant, particularly in the way they continue to contaminate waterways across the country (and the world).
Many reports have recently appeared about pharmaceutical contamination of water supplies, rivers, lakes and other waterways, but spokespersons from the drug and chemical industries have denied that this pollution poses any risk whatsoever to the environment. But this report, issued directly from PCP, provides a stunning indictment of the dangers associated with pharmaceutical pollution.
The executive summary of the PCP report includes the following statements:
"[P]harmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown."
It's important to note that PCP is required by law to assess the National Cancer Program and offer a truthful evaluation of the various things it finds to be responsible for causing cancer. The panel is a division of the National Cancer Institute itself, so its findings hold fairly considerable weight in the scientific world (or they should, if the reaction wasn't so politicized).
The report itself is quite extensive, evaluating everything from the environmental and health impacts of drug and pesticide pollution to cell phone radiation and nuclear testing residue. But the section on pharmaceutical drugs is especially interesting when considering the fact that numerous reports have shown that drugs and drug residue that ends up in water supplies typically isn't filtered out by municipal treatment plants.
According to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study conducted back in 2002, antidepressants, blood pressure and diabetes medications, anticonvulsants, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy drugs, chemotherapy drugs, antibiotics, heart medications and even codeine are all showing up in the water supplies of American cities. This study was the first national-scale evaluation of pharmaceutical drug contamination in streams, and roughly 80 percent of the streams tested were found to be contaminated as well.
In 2008, an AP investigation found that at least 46 million Americans are drinking water contaminated with trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. Even though every city tested has its water treated and "purified" prior to being delivered to the public, trace amounts of pharmaceutical drugs are making their way through to the tap. (Since not all major metropolitan areas were tested, the number of people affected is likely far higher than what was reported by AP.)
In spite of all this, water quality reports don't disclose the levels of pharmaceuticals found in tap water. Since the EPA and FDA have failed to establish any proper guidelines for drug contamination in water, most people have no idea that their water contains a dangerous cocktail of prescription medications.
Read More...
Many reports have recently appeared about pharmaceutical contamination of water supplies, rivers, lakes and other waterways, but spokespersons from the drug and chemical industries have denied that this pollution poses any risk whatsoever to the environment. But this report, issued directly from PCP, provides a stunning indictment of the dangers associated with pharmaceutical pollution.
The executive summary of the PCP report includes the following statements:
"[P]harmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown."
It's important to note that PCP is required by law to assess the National Cancer Program and offer a truthful evaluation of the various things it finds to be responsible for causing cancer. The panel is a division of the National Cancer Institute itself, so its findings hold fairly considerable weight in the scientific world (or they should, if the reaction wasn't so politicized).
The report itself is quite extensive, evaluating everything from the environmental and health impacts of drug and pesticide pollution to cell phone radiation and nuclear testing residue. But the section on pharmaceutical drugs is especially interesting when considering the fact that numerous reports have shown that drugs and drug residue that ends up in water supplies typically isn't filtered out by municipal treatment plants.
No laws exist to protect the public from pharmaceuticals
Many chemicals are highly regulated because they are known to negatively affect human and environmental health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with regulating exposure to these chemicals, but pharmaceuticals are not included in its regulatory scheme. Despite years of prodding by environmental scientists, the EPA has given very little attention to the dangers posed by widespread pharmaceutical contamination.According to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study conducted back in 2002, antidepressants, blood pressure and diabetes medications, anticonvulsants, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy drugs, chemotherapy drugs, antibiotics, heart medications and even codeine are all showing up in the water supplies of American cities. This study was the first national-scale evaluation of pharmaceutical drug contamination in streams, and roughly 80 percent of the streams tested were found to be contaminated as well.
In 2008, an AP investigation found that at least 46 million Americans are drinking water contaminated with trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. Even though every city tested has its water treated and "purified" prior to being delivered to the public, trace amounts of pharmaceutical drugs are making their way through to the tap. (Since not all major metropolitan areas were tested, the number of people affected is likely far higher than what was reported by AP.)
In spite of all this, water quality reports don't disclose the levels of pharmaceuticals found in tap water. Since the EPA and FDA have failed to establish any proper guidelines for drug contamination in water, most people have no idea that their water contains a dangerous cocktail of prescription medications.
Read More...
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Eustace Mullins presents: The World Order
Eustace Mullins argues that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, drafted by German banker Paul Warburg and others in a secret meeting, defies Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5 of the US Constitution by creating a "central bank of issue" for the United States. Mullins goes on to claim that World War I, the Agricultural Depression of 1920, the Great Depression of 1929, and Adolf Hitler's rise to power were brought about by international banking interests in order to profit from conflict and economic instability. Help support the producer of this video by purchasing the original on DVD: http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/index.php#media
The United States Remains a British Colony III
By Paul Drockton
When the English Aristocracy and their Bankster Allies opposed Lincoln, in favor of the South, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The British people were opposed to slavery and the Proclamation drove a wedge between them and the Crown. In one stroke, Lincoln destroyed any hope the Southern States had of an open alliance with England and France.
The Banksters took a new approach. They focused their efforts at regaining control of Congress and the Republican Party. Money is the "milk-blood" of politics, and they prevailed. Lincoln was forced into a series of compromises near the end of the Civil War that doomed any chance of economic independence from the Bank of England and her minions in the US. In the words of the Chancellor of Germany (Otto Von Bismarck):
"The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the US, if they remained as one block, and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world." (Source)
With the passage of the National Bank Act, Lincoln's plans for true independence from Great Britain vanished.
"From this point on the entire US money supply would be created out of debt by bankers buying US government bonds and issuing them from reserves for bank notes. The greenbacks continued to be in circulation until 1994, their numbers were not increased but in fact decreased. "In numerous years following the war, the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not (however) pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply." (Ibid)
The reality is, that the banksters and the Bank of England lend our government its currency and charge us interest for using it (via the bonds backing it). The other reality is, that the Southern States were manipulated into a war with the North by their plantation aristocracy, who, in turn were manipulated by the Banksters of England. The whole goal was to create debt and financial slavery for ALL of the United States. The political goal was to keep us chained down to colonial status and destroy the Republic.
If the Civil War had succeeded, the Northern States would have been claimed by France, and the South would have gone to England, just as Hamilton had predicted in the "Federalist". The Rothschilds in France and England wanted to end the "Great Experiment" once and for all.
Fortunately for the North, the Czar of Russia had also resisted Rothschild demands to establish a central bank in his empire. He threatened war with France and England if they declared war on the Northern States. He even sent the Russian Navy to back up the threat with force.
The North was able to win the war and Lincoln had the political clout necessary to destroy the endless outflow of wealth to the English and French, via the Rothschilds, once and for all. As a result, he was murdered by their agents. Rothschild agents in Russia, posing as anarchists, also tried to dispatch the Czar through various assassination attempts starting in 1866. They finally succeeded in 1881.
Next came the attack on the interest-free greenbacks:
"On April 12th in 1866, the American congress passed the Contraction Act, allowing the treasury to call in and retire some of Lincoln's greenbacks... To give the American public the false impression that they would be better off under the gold standard, the money changers used the control they had to cause economic instability and panic the people. This was fairly easy to do by calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new ones, a tried and proven method of causing depression." (ibid)
The gold standard was held up by the Banksters as a means of weaning people off of their free paper currency. Economic instability made the American public desperate for a solution. The Bankster owned media railed against Lincoln's Greenbacks as the villain, when in fact, it was the removal of Greenbacks from the system that was causing the chaos.
"The supply of Greenbacks went from:
$1.8 billion in circulation in 1866 allowing $50.46 per person,
to $1.3 billion in 1867 allowing $44.00 per person,
to $0.6 billion in 1876 making only $14.60 per person and down
to $0.4 billion only ten years later leaving only $6.67 per person
and a continually growing population." (ibid)
With the retraction of the "Greenback", the Bank of England next sought to remove silver, as legal tender currency in the United States:
"By 1872 the American public was beginning to feel the squeeze, so the Bank of England... sent Ernest Seyd, with lots of money, to bribe congress into de-monetizing silver. Ernest drafted the legislation himself, which came into law with the passing of the Coinage Act, effectively stopping the minting of silver that year. Here's what he said about his trip, obviously pleased with himself. "I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorized to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetizing silver. It was in the interest of those I represented - the governors of the Bank of England - to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money." (ibid.)
Gold is such a rare commodity that it is impossible to use it as the only National currency. Silver and Gold together, have formed the foundation of solid economies throughout the ages. By removing silver from the equation, the Satanic Psychopaths were able to create an artificial demand for whatever currency they wanted to foist upon an unsuspecting public.
More in the next article....
Is the United States a Dictatorship?
UK, July 28, (Pal telegraph – By Peter Eyre) Unfortunately for some decades now the past Presidents and key members of the US Government have been on one continuous war footing. They have embarked on an extremely aggressive foreign policy and taken over the role of policing the world in place of the United Nations. It is clearly evident that as far as the United States is concern you had better “Do as I say or else.”
This aggressiveness is so advanced it is no longer possible to negotiate with them on a fair and balanced playing field. This policy is not only confined to the US but also extends over in the UK, France, Germany and Israel which has basically made each of their leaders and respective governments very unpopular with the people.
It is a known fact that when a leader or government reaches an all time low it is time to assert your authority, spread fear or mass hysteria amongst your populations and then take your country to war, all of which in on false pretenses.
We have seen this time and time again with the wars in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, Pakistan and now Yemen and Somalia. One can now see two other wars on the horizon as a direct result of their big bully tactics.
What gives the US and its allies the right to police the world and say who should be allowed to develop nuclear energy or nuclear weapons when they themselves remain unchecked? What gives these countries the right to dictate what any country can or cannot do when they themselves are carrying out a massive programme of deceit?
What allows them to hide behind this so called Non Proliferation Treaty in reducing the amount of WMD’s when they are not only developing them bus also using them on a daily basis?
It is clearly evident that the US, UK, NATO Members and Israel are using their weapons of “Mass Destruction” totally unchecked in all the past and current areas of conflict. The aftermath of this totally irresponsible action has basically contaminated the entire Middle East and the world beyond.
To prove that this is not just hearsay we have to look at the gallant efforts of a small group of dedicated people who put themselves at great risk to reveal the truth to the world.
On such person is Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster who recently compiled a report on a survey carried out in the Iraqi city of Fallujah.
The city of Fallujah as we all know received a bombardment of WMD weapons by the US and coalition forces resulting in an horrific rise in birth defects and many forms of cancer. One could go well beyond Fallujah to learn that as a direct result of the use of these weapons, almost every location in the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza and the entire Middle East and beyond have been severely contaminated with weapons that contain uranium components.
Let’s just take a look at some comments made in the UK’s Independent newspaper on Saturday as written by Patrick Cockburn: Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs.
Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi are the authors of a report titled: “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009"
The survey was carried out by a team of 11 researchers in January and February this year who visited 711 houses in Fallujah. A questionnaire was filled in by householders giving (4,800 individuals) details of cancers, birth outcomes and infant mortality. It was interesting to note that the Iraqi Government tried to encourage people not to take part in this survey!
The report revealed evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report also stated that the types of cancer are “similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout.”
Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says “what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people.”
The findings also revealed dramatic changes in the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.
What we are looking at in Fallujah also applies to the City of Basrah and many other locations around the region. I am convinced that the amount of weapons used in Afghanistan for instance is much higher than those used in Iraq. These same weapons are also being used by the US in Northern Pakistan and as we have seen so many times before the contamination does not identify any borders. The radioactive nano particles drift on the wind and carry out their deadly work well beyond the fields of battle.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the Israeli Government allowed both US and Israeli made “Weapons of Mass Destruction” to be used in and around the Gaza Strip with exactly the same projected outcome. This contamination also crossed over the border into Israel itself, West Bank and all adjacent countries such as Jordon, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria etc.
This now brings us back onto the topic of the US/Israeli threat currently being made against Iran. We can clearly see that they are both geared up for conflict with the doubling up of the weapons stockpile in both Israel and Diego Garcia. In the Persian Gulf there are several US Carrier groups with supporting vessels armed with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles including US Marine amphibious vessels and attack submarines. As one would expect the US are supported by other NATO vessels and also the Israeli Navy with its Dolphin Class Submarines that are armed with nuclear missiles.
There is also another large battle group in the Eastern Mediterranean, consisting of a large US Carrier group from the 6th Fleet, A French carrier and several other naval vessels from Germany, Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece and Spain etc. On could also expect a carrier group to be operational in the Red Sea all of whom are capable of a united strike on Iran.
As we have seen before this build-up is not only significant but would appear to be an indication of some pending action. In the case of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s now a matter of waiting for the right time.
One can expect a significant “False Flag” incident to take place in the near future in order for the US to justify an attack on Iran…..this could be at any location within the US, UK or other NATO partner country and obviously this will then be blamed onto Iran. As we have seen so many times before any US led plan will implicate all other NATO countries based on “An attack on one is an attack on all.”
This strategy by the US of manipulating all NATO countries is done so as not to tarnish the US too much as being the instigator and immediately allows the US to control the conflict as well as demanding that all NATO countries provide suitable forces to combat the problem.
The current US Foreign Policy towards Iran is not only heavy handed but is also operating outside of the United Nations. Any attack on Iran would be considered catastrophic to say the least and would involve thousands of weapons that contain depleted uranium components as well as real nuclear weapons. Should this attack take place it will spread radiation charged nano particles around the entire Middle East within 2 days and the rest of the world within 1-2 weeks.
What makes this US intimidation of Iran so absurd is the fact that it is secretly assisting Israel to develop its own nuclear programme. Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and therefore this is a very clever way for the US to assist in nuclear development and use that to its own advantage. This evil and sinister under the table deal will allow Israel to increase its stockpile and at the same time allow the US to share that stockpile in much the same way it has done when Obama allowed the US military to double the US arms stockpile in Israel. This extremely clever covert operation now allows the transfer of arms from military to military without going through Congress in the normal way (US Department of Defense Transmittal Notice).
Over on the other side of the world we have the same situation developing between the US/South Korea and North Korea with a massive military build up on both sides. What makes this entire scenario absurd is that it has nothing to do with nuclear development or towing the line but rather a Geo Political stance by the US in attempting to control the world’s natural resources or to acquire world markets for its own companies etc.
So the big showdown looms on the horizon and all are on full standby waiting for the US to find justification to attack one or both locations. We could also assume that because of the sensitivity of such an attack China would be pulled into the conflict as well as possible support from Syria, and Lebanon etc. Either way it again reveals the total arrogance of the Obama regime who now has the full support of the US, France, Germany and Israel.
It is my opinion that the West has miscalculated the military might of Iran and could well regret such an attack. Iran is very well prepared and is likely to respond with a significant retaliatory attack that could be extremely devastating for Israel in so many ways.
Environmentally speaking it would be catastrophic for the entire Middle East and the world leading to mass genocide in many countries. From the New World Order perspective this type of depopulation is what they have been working on for some considerable time. No doubt the likes of Kissinger and Cheney would be rubbing there hands together with great joy should this conflict eventuate.
It is time for Congress and the people of the US and the world to read between the lines and to fully understand that Obama and his NPT is a total cover up and that the true “Axis of Evil” is right in the heart of the White House, Wall Street and Central London.
Source
This aggressiveness is so advanced it is no longer possible to negotiate with them on a fair and balanced playing field. This policy is not only confined to the US but also extends over in the UK, France, Germany and Israel which has basically made each of their leaders and respective governments very unpopular with the people.
It is a known fact that when a leader or government reaches an all time low it is time to assert your authority, spread fear or mass hysteria amongst your populations and then take your country to war, all of which in on false pretenses.
We have seen this time and time again with the wars in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, Pakistan and now Yemen and Somalia. One can now see two other wars on the horizon as a direct result of their big bully tactics.
What gives the US and its allies the right to police the world and say who should be allowed to develop nuclear energy or nuclear weapons when they themselves remain unchecked? What gives these countries the right to dictate what any country can or cannot do when they themselves are carrying out a massive programme of deceit?
What allows them to hide behind this so called Non Proliferation Treaty in reducing the amount of WMD’s when they are not only developing them bus also using them on a daily basis?
It is clearly evident that the US, UK, NATO Members and Israel are using their weapons of “Mass Destruction” totally unchecked in all the past and current areas of conflict. The aftermath of this totally irresponsible action has basically contaminated the entire Middle East and the world beyond.
To prove that this is not just hearsay we have to look at the gallant efforts of a small group of dedicated people who put themselves at great risk to reveal the truth to the world.
On such person is Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster who recently compiled a report on a survey carried out in the Iraqi city of Fallujah.
The city of Fallujah as we all know received a bombardment of WMD weapons by the US and coalition forces resulting in an horrific rise in birth defects and many forms of cancer. One could go well beyond Fallujah to learn that as a direct result of the use of these weapons, almost every location in the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza and the entire Middle East and beyond have been severely contaminated with weapons that contain uranium components.
Let’s just take a look at some comments made in the UK’s Independent newspaper on Saturday as written by Patrick Cockburn: Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs.
Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi are the authors of a report titled: “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009"
The survey was carried out by a team of 11 researchers in January and February this year who visited 711 houses in Fallujah. A questionnaire was filled in by householders giving (4,800 individuals) details of cancers, birth outcomes and infant mortality. It was interesting to note that the Iraqi Government tried to encourage people not to take part in this survey!
The report revealed evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report also stated that the types of cancer are “similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout.”
Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says “what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people.”
The findings also revealed dramatic changes in the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.
What we are looking at in Fallujah also applies to the City of Basrah and many other locations around the region. I am convinced that the amount of weapons used in Afghanistan for instance is much higher than those used in Iraq. These same weapons are also being used by the US in Northern Pakistan and as we have seen so many times before the contamination does not identify any borders. The radioactive nano particles drift on the wind and carry out their deadly work well beyond the fields of battle.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the Israeli Government allowed both US and Israeli made “Weapons of Mass Destruction” to be used in and around the Gaza Strip with exactly the same projected outcome. This contamination also crossed over the border into Israel itself, West Bank and all adjacent countries such as Jordon, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria etc.
This now brings us back onto the topic of the US/Israeli threat currently being made against Iran. We can clearly see that they are both geared up for conflict with the doubling up of the weapons stockpile in both Israel and Diego Garcia. In the Persian Gulf there are several US Carrier groups with supporting vessels armed with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles including US Marine amphibious vessels and attack submarines. As one would expect the US are supported by other NATO vessels and also the Israeli Navy with its Dolphin Class Submarines that are armed with nuclear missiles.
There is also another large battle group in the Eastern Mediterranean, consisting of a large US Carrier group from the 6th Fleet, A French carrier and several other naval vessels from Germany, Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece and Spain etc. On could also expect a carrier group to be operational in the Red Sea all of whom are capable of a united strike on Iran.
As we have seen before this build-up is not only significant but would appear to be an indication of some pending action. In the case of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s now a matter of waiting for the right time.
One can expect a significant “False Flag” incident to take place in the near future in order for the US to justify an attack on Iran…..this could be at any location within the US, UK or other NATO partner country and obviously this will then be blamed onto Iran. As we have seen so many times before any US led plan will implicate all other NATO countries based on “An attack on one is an attack on all.”
This strategy by the US of manipulating all NATO countries is done so as not to tarnish the US too much as being the instigator and immediately allows the US to control the conflict as well as demanding that all NATO countries provide suitable forces to combat the problem.
The current US Foreign Policy towards Iran is not only heavy handed but is also operating outside of the United Nations. Any attack on Iran would be considered catastrophic to say the least and would involve thousands of weapons that contain depleted uranium components as well as real nuclear weapons. Should this attack take place it will spread radiation charged nano particles around the entire Middle East within 2 days and the rest of the world within 1-2 weeks.
What makes this US intimidation of Iran so absurd is the fact that it is secretly assisting Israel to develop its own nuclear programme. Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and therefore this is a very clever way for the US to assist in nuclear development and use that to its own advantage. This evil and sinister under the table deal will allow Israel to increase its stockpile and at the same time allow the US to share that stockpile in much the same way it has done when Obama allowed the US military to double the US arms stockpile in Israel. This extremely clever covert operation now allows the transfer of arms from military to military without going through Congress in the normal way (US Department of Defense Transmittal Notice).
Over on the other side of the world we have the same situation developing between the US/South Korea and North Korea with a massive military build up on both sides. What makes this entire scenario absurd is that it has nothing to do with nuclear development or towing the line but rather a Geo Political stance by the US in attempting to control the world’s natural resources or to acquire world markets for its own companies etc.
So the big showdown looms on the horizon and all are on full standby waiting for the US to find justification to attack one or both locations. We could also assume that because of the sensitivity of such an attack China would be pulled into the conflict as well as possible support from Syria, and Lebanon etc. Either way it again reveals the total arrogance of the Obama regime who now has the full support of the US, France, Germany and Israel.
It is my opinion that the West has miscalculated the military might of Iran and could well regret such an attack. Iran is very well prepared and is likely to respond with a significant retaliatory attack that could be extremely devastating for Israel in so many ways.
Environmentally speaking it would be catastrophic for the entire Middle East and the world leading to mass genocide in many countries. From the New World Order perspective this type of depopulation is what they have been working on for some considerable time. No doubt the likes of Kissinger and Cheney would be rubbing there hands together with great joy should this conflict eventuate.
It is time for Congress and the people of the US and the world to read between the lines and to fully understand that Obama and his NPT is a total cover up and that the true “Axis of Evil” is right in the heart of the White House, Wall Street and Central London.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)