Monday, November 16, 2009
Just another local news report of someone having a reaction to the flue shot. I could post several more of these but how many do we need to see before we get the idea that these are unsafe. We have posted more info in our
archives over and over again but still the word doesn't get out for these people.
archives over and over again but still the word doesn't get out for these people.
Posted by The Info Revolution at 12:10 PM
Mark Dice tries to sell a one ounce pure cold coin for $50 but nobody has a clue how much gold is worth, and nobody wanted it. I have been trying to tell people myself that they should move money over to gold. Every thing we look at in relation to gold, and the future value of gold, points to the idea that gold will climb to heights never before seen. Right now its around $1,150 per ounce, and its climbing every day. It has been announced over and over agin that the dollar is going to fall. Foreign countries are moving away from american dollars to gold at an alarming rate, but Americans have no idea what is going on. A clueless society that is more educated in pop culture and pro sports then current affairs. And what's worse is that the few that actually try and keep up on the news has no idea that they are being lied to daily by a corporate media with agendas. When you watch this video try not to fall into a full blown depression when thinking about how stupid most people have become.
Posted by The Info Revolution at 11:59 AM
(SURREY TODAY) A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for “doing his duty”.
(SURREY TODAY) A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for “doing his duty”.
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year’s imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: “I didn’t think for one moment I would be arrested.
“I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets.”
The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.
In his statement, he said: “I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.
“I didn’t know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.
“At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall.”
Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.
Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke’s garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.
He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included “reporting found firearms”.
Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: “Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?”
To which, Mr Garnett replied: “No, I don’t believe so.”
Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a “strict liability” charge – therefore Mr Clarke’s allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.
Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.
But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.
He said: “This is a very small case with a very big principle.
“You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.
“Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?”
Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.
Judge Christopher Critchlow said: “This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.
Posted by The Info Revolution at 11:32 AM
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, November 16, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
The predictable response to criticism surrounding Obama’s botched bow to Emperor Akihito this weekend has been to claim that the outrage is a contrived creation of the political right-wing. However, the Japanese themselves are obviously just as embarrassed about the whole spectacle.
Despite the fact that Obama was widely criticized for bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, an incident the White House ludicrously tried to deny even though it was plain as day on video, he again prostrated himself before royalty by awkwardly lurching forward at a near 90 degree angle to show his fealty to the Japanese Emperor and his wife at the Imperial Palace on Saturday.
Top Japanese newspapers like Kyodo have refused to print the image out of embarrassment. Video footage of the entire exchange shows Obama profusely bowing like a house servant no less than seven times in the space of under 30 seconds.
“Kyodo News is running his appropriate and reciprocated nod and shake with the Empress, certainly to show the president as dignified, and not in the form of a first year English teacher trying to impress with Karate Kid-level knowledge of Japanese customs,” writes a source quoted by ABC News’ Jake Tapper.
“Obama’s handshake/forward lurch was so jarring and inappropriate it recalls Bush’s back-rub of Merkel,” he adds.
“The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms….The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.”Tapper’s source highlights the fact that it’s not just right-wingers in America who are unhappy about Obama’s body language.
Why is this important? On every single occasion, Obama has gone out of his way to display inferiority and fealty to foreign royalty. Not only is this considered a violation of state department protocol, which decrees that presidents bow to no one, it also goes against the grain of historical American opposition to Kings and Emperors.
Obama is communicating a strong message when he engages in this type of behavior. He is essentially re-affirming the fact that he does not serve the American people, and is displaying his loyal obedience to the global elite. For America’s first black president to present himself as a lowly house servant would when he meets foreign dignitaries is also a damning indictment of what he truly represents – not an icon of the final confirmation of black people throwing off the chains of slavery, but merely a front man put in place to pacify the masses while all along firmly taking his orders from the generationally inbred and virulently racist global elite.
No finer example was there of this than when Obama and his wife met the Queen and her notoriously racist husband, Prince Philip, earlier this year. Obama was seen groveling and hastily following barked out orders from Philip, the same man who trained in the Hitler Youth, attended funerals with top Nazis, and sympathized with Hitler’s attitudes towards Jews in the 1930’s.
Philip also helped start the World Wildlife Fund with former Nazi SS Officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who is closely affiliated with the founders of the Bilderberg international power group.
Philip has repeatedly expressed his desire to return to earth as a deadly virus in order to wipe out 80% of the population, the majority of whom would most likely be the numerous races of people he has consistently offended with racist jokes over the decades.
Obama also famously performed another bizarre bow in front of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Photographs and video clearly show the President stooping to a near 90 degree angle to express his fealty to the 84-year-old monarch, an action “befitting a king’s subjects, not his peer,” according to the Washington Times. Subsequent denials by the White House only heightened the controversy.
As we have painstakingly documented in both The Obama Deception and Fall Of The Republic, Obama, billed as the people’s President, is in fact the ultimate puppet of the global elite. He is the black face of the new world order – carefully groomed and installed as president to neutralize the left-wing activists and provide justification to demonize conservative opposition to his policies as racism. Obama’s behavior in front of foreign royalty only confirms what we already knew – that he too is a subject of the real power structure that controls the world, and he is at their service to carry the ball for their agenda until such a time when his usefulness has been outlived.
Posted by The Info Revolution at 11:23 AM
November 16, 2009
November 16, 2009
The White House went ahead on November 12th, according to the 11/13/09 Washington Post, and charged Major Nidal M. Hasan with 13 counts of murder. It also reported that “Hasan has not cooperated with federal investigators seeking to interview him. His attorney, retired Col. John Galligan, told the Associated Press that military officials charged Hasan in the hospital without his Army lawyers present.”
|Using the press to prosecute before any full investigation has been made.|
He went on to say, “What I find disturbing is that my client is in ICU, and he’s 150 miles south of his defense counsel, and he’s being served with the charges. Given his status as a patient, I’m troubled by this procedure and that I’m not there. I’m in the dark, and that shouldn’t be the case. I am mad.” It would seem the military officials are violating the rights of the accused.
Also, the WP states that “Guy Womack, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who practices military law in Houston, said Hasan’s defense counsel probably will argue that Hasan was mentally unstable at the time of the shootings.”
He added, “’The defense argument will be that Major Hasan knew that he would be identified, he knew that he would be captured, and he did it anyway, so clearly he was insane, that his mental defect was so severe that he couldn’t control his actions from right and wrong,’ Womack said.”
That also seems a little premature, especially from a lawyer. Using the press to prosecute before any full investigation has been made.
Again, what happened to that article from CNN that I mentioned in my article Major Nidal Malik Hasan, jihadist or patsy? Again, here is the quote, “(CNN) — A senior officer who was playing golf Thursday near Fort Hood, Texas, told CNN he witnessed the arrest of one of the two surviving suspects of the shooting at the Army installation.
“’Shortly after the shooting,’ the officer said, ‘military police told him to clear the course and he saw other MPs surround the building that held the golf carts.’ The senior officer said he ducked into a nearby house for cover as 30 to 40 cars carrying MPs approached.
“He said he saw a soldier in battle-dress uniform, his hands in the air. The MPs ordered him to lie on the ground and open his uniform, presumably to ensure he was not carrying explosives, the senior officer said.” They found no bomb.
“He said an MP told him that authorities considered the man to be a suspect in the shootings after having overheard the man say he was with the shooter. The man was surrounded for 25 to 30 minutes, until a convoy of vehicles arrived, led by a Ford Crown Victoria and carrying men in suits, and he was taken away, the senior officer said.” And who was the soldier in battle dress uniform? Who is the other suspect? Who was the MP? And where are they now? Answer the questions, please, somebody.
Additionally, the Washington Post states, now “Investigators say they think he [Hasan] was the only gunman [the classic lone gunman overnight]…” Why? In another place, Christopher Grey, a spokesman for the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division and for the joint task force investigating the crime, “left open the possibility that someone else may have helped instigate the attack [Who?]. He said military prosecutors may charge Hasan with additional crimes.” But in fact, Hasan plus two other military men were originally all held as the shooters on the day of the shooting, 11/5/09. Later, the two were released. Yet it begs the question, who shot the four SWAT police if Hasan was still sprawled on the transit hall floor with four bullets in him, nearly dead?
Beyond that, the Post’s story gets even stranger. In the section sub-headed “Ending the shooting,’ Grey declined to specify who did what in the exchange of fire. Saying those details must wait until the evidence is analyzed.”
Yet on Wednesday we have a television interview with Oprah no less, talking with Senior Sgt. Police officer Mark Todd, who was described: “approaching Hasan’s prone body, kicking his weapon and handcuffing him.” Todd was one of two police persons that allegedly brought down Hasan. He also told Oprah, “We’re trained to shoot until there is no longer a threat… And once he was lying down on his back, his weapon just fell into [out of?] his hand and I’m like, ‘Okay, now’s the time to rush him and secure him.’”
The other police person was Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who was wounded. As the Washington Post described her NBC Today Show appearance, “Munley, sitting in a wheelchair with a blanket on her legs…said the knowledge that so many were killed ‘was devastating.’” She added, “I wish that we would have gotten there faster, to prevent any lives from being lost,’ with tears in her eyes, ‘Because I know there’s a lot of families out there suffering right now….I just wish the call would have came even quicker.” So do we all.
Drill or real event?
These quotes also open up another can of worms, noted by Webster Tarpley in his His subhead states that “Troops thought it was a drill – did Major Hasan think so too?” This is reminiscent of 9/11 air controllers and pilots, questioning if the 9/11 attack was a drill or real. Tarpley writes (on page 3) that “Many of them [the troops] are on record agreeing that the events of November 5 were initially interpreted by those on the scene as an exercise, as a drill…”
Tarpley quotes an ABC report of the following testimony: “Soldier Keara Bono told “Good Morning America” today that she initially thought the scene of Hasan standing up, praising Allah and starting to fire was a drill. She didn’t believe it was real even when she felt her own blood, she said. ‘Then I looked to my left and right and I saw people that were bleeding,’ she said. That’s when Bono realizedthat Hasan’s rampage wasn’t a drill [bold face, Tarpley’s).
In the middle of all this, we now have President Obama ordering “an immediate analysis of all intelligence about Hasan…and asking his top homeland security and counter-terrorism official to oversee the inquiry and to report back at the end of the month.”
Obama’s order re the unfortunate killing of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood also reminds us of the exposure and vulnerability of those soldiers, sick from over deployment and other stresses at that Army base. Too often they’re patched up and sent out again.
In an interview on CNN, General Casey admitted that they could not keep up with the increasing need for help for the many soldiers suffering from PTSD, increasing suicide rates, et al. But instead of the interviewer suggesting that perhaps ending the war in Afghanistan would solve the problems, he spoke of creating special training units to help the men deal with the realities of war. As a reader suggested, “To me this means teaching them how to kill without guilt, refrain from questioning their missions (which many are) and generally creating automatons (as the Nazis in Germany). And are you a liability if you fall apart?”
Meanwhile, Obama is still mulling over how many troops to send to Afghanistan regardless of increasing advice to get out. So, who are the real crazies in this tableau representing the "true patriots" defending our country's interests and giving military advice for decision-making to our increasingly lost-in-the clouds president?
It will be extremely dangerous to continue in Afghanistan when we don't have the means for taking care of the urgent domestic needs in the U.S. and more disturbing, allowing the worst military extremists to dictate American “policy.” And of course, there is always an oil pipeline to be considered and the money being currently raked in from poppy growing which is going to the occupiers.
Obama's speech at Ft. Hood was in fact a jarring indicator of his personal priorities, using the tragedy to emphasize the military as solution to our problems and an emphasis on might makes right, etc. which points the way to his decisions about Afghanistan and other problem areas. This may make the need for a swift prosecution of Hasan more pressing.
Obama’s actions came after Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), “top Republican on the House intelligence committee,” the Post reports, “said the review may suggest ‘a failure to connect the dots.” He also “called for a similar review.” This was due to “The failure to brief [members of Congress] on Saturday raise[ing] red flags …that the intelligence community had done a lot of information-gathering that they felt uncomfortable sharing with Congress—not because it was an incomplete package, but that it would raise questions that they might not have been ready to answer.” This too is very reminiscent of 9/11, a refusal by agencies to communicate with themselves and Congress, before, during and after the horrific event.
The relevant side barHoekstra then stepped into never-never-land, saying that sources beyond the intelligence community told him “Hasan had wired money to and communicated with people in Pakistan. He said he “didn’t know what the transfers were…” But he did say, “It could simply be innocent money transfers, who knows, for earthquake relief,” adding he had not been able to verify the allegation, ‘But the sources were pretty good.” Pretty good? Hasan’s life hangs in the balance as still another inference of alliances with Mid-Eastern powers [we are threatening] are being made.
On nearby fronts, the New York Times ran the article, Key 9/11 Suspect to Be Tried in New York. That would be the forlorn Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-named mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who has been cooling his heels in Gitmo for several years, and who is probably ready to confess to planning Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Maine. Four others accused of being in the plot will be prosecuted in New York City’s federal court as well. What follows from the Times is the real kicker…
“The decisions about how to prosecute Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Nashiri have been particularly difficult because their defense lawyers are expected to argue that they were illegally tortured by theduring their confinement, tainting any evidence gathered from their . The Bush administration later sent a so-called ‘clean team’ to re-question the prisoners in preparations for military commission trials.” A “clean team?” Did that include Procter and Gamble’s original “Mr. Clean?” Pardon the levity but it’s induced by stretching belief like an old rubber band. It snaps.
The Times’ key paragraph states, “Documents have shown that the C.I.A. used— a controlled drowning technique — against Mr. Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. Mr. Nashiri is one of two other detainees known to have been waterboarded before the Bush administration shut down the program, which high-level officials had approved after the Justice Department wrote legal memorandums arguing that the president, as commander in chief, could authorize interrogators to bypass antitorture laws.”
“Arguing that the president…could authorize interrogators to bypass antitorture laws,” and basically do whatever he pleased and have US citizens and the victims swallow it. That’s all I will say about this. Except that it’s this kind of madness that Hasan, whether he’s guilty, crazy, neither or both, may be facing in the near future, if he’s lucky enough to survive his hospital stay, and not be visited by a contemporary Jack Ruby, citizen gangster.
I leave the Times article to you, reader, to peruse and reach your own conclusions about our own voids in justice. Dying to prosecute these long-held prisoners at this time adds still another layer of purported Muslim madness to fairly prosecuting the short-lived Hasan case. There are no coincidences in these affairs, only intentional happenings. I hope that in the “rush to judgment” that both justice and the real truth are not the victims as well.
Another reader, Glenn Dormer, writing under the penname “mouser,” sent me his article from the Daily Paul, Fort Hood was a false flag by CIA/Mossad, Hasan is the patsy. Dormer has given me permission to print his full piece, which, though out of the box, is worth airing: “There were two stories running parallel on the day of the shooting. The true story leaking out over the internet via e-mail, telephones, twitter, and the ‘official story’ being planted in sequence at ABC, NBC, CBS and AP.
“That’s why there was a mixture of information, honest misinformation and planted disinformation. 24 hours later everything had been boiled down to the ‘official story’ where a single crazed Muslim gunman killed 13 and wounds 31.
“The plants and spins give this away to be a full-out false flag. This is evidenced by the ‘bogus suicide grenade-bomb article’ being written and planted WEEKS BEFORE the 5 November 2009 and then ‘found’ four hours after the shooting and RELEASED to AP (when the FBI believed Hasan was already dead). The spun Rambo female police gunfire take-down. The spun terrorist Imam ‘electronic’ connection to Yemeni. The spun Al-Qaida connection. The spun 9/11 terrorist connection. Please, do not believe any of those lies.”
He purports that, “Hasan was laying on the transit hall floor with four bullets in him when the real gunmen (government agents – likely CIA/Mossad based on prior 9/11 experience) made their escape and shot several SWAT and civil police before being apprehended and then released.”
He also purports that “The real shooters were dressed in army fatigues; they pumped Hasan with 4 bullets and believed him to be totally dead. One of the real gunmen may have been shot and killed during their escape. The real gunmen who escaped were apprehended and then released back into the hands of the CIA.
“What do you think Hasan (if he isn’t suicided instead) will say – that he is a member of Al-Qaida and that he did it because he hates America’s freedoms? This was a false flag by CIA/Mossad just like 9/11 to garner further support for the exploitative and genocidal wars in middle eastern Muslim countries and to prepare the public for the unprovoked coming invasion of MUSLIM Iran by US and Israel to force Iran to accept a Rothschildean controlled central bank, as was done a few years ago to Iraq.
“In summary, Hasan did not fire a single shot, he did not even hold a gun on Thursday 5 November 2009 in Fort Hood.” Whether or not this article pushes the envelope of believability, it is within the realm of possibility. We have come to understand that fact from previous false-flag operations and assassination attempts.
In fact, another reader, who desires anonymity writes ”Snap judgment: Hasan was (a) shooter. We havent seen forensic evidence linking all the rounds fired to Hasan’s gun, and Hasan’s gun to Hasan’s hands. Any other rounds from other guns fired, either friendlies or ’suspects’? No one is talking.” The reader goes on suggest…
”Pure patsy? Unlikely. Shooting down of Hasan by Ft Hood cop Todd implies a spontaneous event, and that Hasan was engaging as a shooter. But 100+ rounds fired off from two handguns, even with 15-20 round clips?
”My curiosity — the much-ballyhooed ‘al Qaeda’ angle to Hasan. Who is this mysterious Imam Anwar al-Awlaki?
”…from a Facebook post:
…”The ‘radical imam’ Anwar al-Awlaki— who is pictured in classic al Qaeda fiery cleric gear, plus obligatory glasses plus beard, is linked by email and mosque to Major Hasan, is born in New Mexico, an American of Yemeni descent (unclear if Yemeni Arab, Jewish, or other); lived in VA & was caught transporting hookers from DC to his home in Virginia, (Mann Act violation, observed by Federal agents in 90s!), implying surveillance already.
”Awlaki shows up as a handler of San Diego-based ‘9/11 hijackers’ Alhamzi & Al-Midhar, making phone calls to their first Clairemont [apartments’] landlord, preaching at Rabat mosque near their second lemon grove/La mesa housing spot.
”Then he moves to Falls Church in late 2000, where he preaches in the Dar al-Hajrah mosque ‘frequented by Alhamzi &Midhar’ – and Hasan – 9/11 happens — (see link below); al-Awlaki departs to Yemen & returns to US as he pleases in fall 2002, above…despite all of the above…
*(True, Awlaki was briefly detained on re-entry in 2002 based on his flags, but despite tight connections with alleged hijackers, the order to arrest rescinded.)
“The restricted database log shows that Aulaqi was released from custody at JFK International Airport after agents there got word from D.C. that an arrest warrant for him ‘had been pulled back’ the day before he arrived.” Later, American Awlaki moved to London then to Yemen permanently. Never called or questioned by 9/11 Commission. Makes sense, right?
”Take-home message? Hasan is kept as a pawn and patsy-watcher on the chess board, despite ‘warning signs’. Awlaki is moved around like a ‘Bishop’, supporting roles everywhere. Useful for 9/11 mythology, critical for Hasan legend.” I couldn’t agree more on that last point.
My thanks to the three readers for allowing me to print their comments. Misspelling of names and minor grammatical errors were corrected. Nevertheless it seems the process of justice has not been corrected. We are left with the notion of a scripted and orchestrated event to cultivate and utilize Muslim patsies as the dominant theme in a complex op, as complex as media, government, and the military can make it, to keep the Mid-East hostilities going and America worrying as it sinks in ever deepening debt.
Posted by The Info Revolution at 11:18 AM
November 16, 2009
November 16, 2009
|“Military Keynesianism” — using military spending to stimulate the economy — has been U.S. policy for half a century.|
PhD economist Marc Faber predictsthat the U.S. will launch a war to distract people from the bad economy.
China’s largest media outlet – Sohu.com – wrote in October 2008 that the Rand corporation, a leading U.S. military advisor, lobbied the Pentagon for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy:
According to French media, well-known U.S. think tank RAND Corporation … has submitted [to the Pentagon] an evaluation report assessing the wage a war to shift the feasibility of the current economic crisis…
Continued deepening of the U.S. sub-prime mortgage crisis and economic downturn, developed to a certain extent, is likely to trigger a war in order to achieve the purpose of the crisis passed.
(Google’s translation services are crude approximations, but Yihan Dai confirmed the translation of the original).
Is Faber right? Is the Sohu.com report accurate?
I don’t know. For example, I won’t take the Sohu.com claim very seriously until someone can point to the French media source, so that I can assess it’s credibility.
However, “military Keynesianism” – using military spending to stimulate the economy – has been U.S. policy for half a century. And the economist who coined that term said that such a policy always and “inexorably” leads to “an actual war” in order to justify all of the military spending.
Therefore, any studies which disprove the efficacy of war as an economic stimulus -see this and this – are important for balance.
In addition, contrary to popular belief, some writers say that the reason that WWII actually stimulated the U.S. economy was not because of America fighting the war. Specifically, they argue that America’s ramped-up production of armaments for the British before the U.S. entered the war was the thing which stimulated our economy.
To try to sort some of this out, I spoke with a PhD professor of economics with a background in international conflict in July 2008 to find out whether war is really good for the economy.
I asked if conventional wisdom that war is good for the economy is true, especially given that all of the spending on the war in Iraq seems to have weakened America’s economy (or at least, greatly increased its debt).
The economist explained the seeming paradox:
“War always causes recession. Well, if it is a very short war, then it may stimulate the economy in the short-run. But if there is not a quick victory and it drags on, then wars always put the nation waging war into a recession and hurt its economy.”
Given that America has been fighting both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars longer than it fought WWII, the exception obviously doesn’t apply.
Can America go beat up some poorly-armed country to get a quick war?
It is more unlikely than many assume. Given that many believe that the U.S. started the Iraq war based on false pretenses, and that the Iraq war was really about oil (see this, this, this, this andthis), I am skeptical that many would buy America’s stated justifications for another war.
Indeed, the Sohu.com article – even if wholly untrue – proves my point.
In addition, even a war against a small, poorly-armed and resource-poor country could be considered a proxy war. In other words, other heavily-armed countries might fight the U.S. through local proxies, dragging the war out for years, just as the U.S. did with Russia in Afghanistan. America today is not the empire it was even 10 years ago, and – as Afghanistan and Iraq show – America no longer has the financial resources to project force and impose its will world-wide.
The bottom line is that anyone advocating for war to help our economy is mistaken.
Posted by The Info Revolution at 11:15 AM
The Corbett Report
November 15, 2009
The Corbett Report
November 15, 2009
|G20 finance ministers pose for mug shots.|
As The Corbett Reportreported yesterday, veteran Bilderberg researcher Daniel Estulin has obtained documents from inside last week’s G20 Finance Minister’s meeting in St. Andrews, Scotland. The documents—including attendee lists, drafts of the conference’s communique and handwritten notes with deatils about who said what during deliberations—were snuck out of the conference by Estulin’s sources despite security measures which were high “even by Bilderberg standards.” The documents can be viewed atBilderbergBook.com and have been in PDF format.
Listen to The Corbett Report’s exclusive interview with Estulin about these documents byor listen in the player below:
In addition to the expansion of the African Union and the population reduction goals that Estulin has identified as key G20 talking points, the documents also shed light on how the financial oligarchs hope to establish a global fund of “predictable public finance” to fight the phoney global warming problem. Startlingly, the draft document admits that the fund could be administered by “an existing international financial institution.” Although this potentially explosive language was removed from the bland, politically palatable final version of the G20 communique, attendee notes indicate the nature and operation of this fund was a key discussion point during the conference.
Although the paragraph on climate change in the final version of the document seems like an afterthought, inserted as the last point before the summation, the draft communique indicates it was in fact one of the highest priorities, originally coming right after the opening preamble. The final version has also exorcised all but the most mealy-mouthed political language.
Compare this sentence in the final version: “Public finance can leverage significant private investment” to the original: “Substantial additional and predictable public finance from developed countries is essential, and should serve as a foundation for private finance, carbon markets and domestic public resources of developing countries to contribute to climate action. Public finance can also leverage significant private investment.”
Perhaps the most egregious language in the draft document comes from the final sentences of the climate change paragraph, also replaced by bland platitudes in the final communique:The draft text opens the kimono on the financier’s plan to establish a process for systematic wealth transfer from developed countries not to aid developing countries (who will also contributing “domestic public resources” to fight the non-existent carbon dioxide scare) but to help prop up private financiers and carbon markets. This “public finance” will of course be raised by the developed nations through taxation, thus amounting to an indirect carbon tax on the population of the developed world.
“…serious consideration should be given to the creation of a new fund, as a complement to existing mechanisms, to support projects, programmes and policies, possibly with multiple windows, to support adaptation and mitigation, technology cooperation and capacity building in developing countries. It should have balanced representation and operate under the policy guidance of, and be accountable to, the Conference of the Parties, with its operation possibly entrusted to an existing international financial institution.”
In other words, the carbon tax revenue deposited in this new wealth transfer fund will be given directly to the very institutions that have been shown as a tool of Anglo-American imperialist hegemony againand again and again.
Ultimately, the G20 defers the decision on what type of carbon tax/wealth transfer mechanism to set up to the UNFCCC, the similarly unelected and unaccountable United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that will be meeting in Copenhagen next month. Although it is clear the UNFCCC is fully on board with the global carbon tax scheme, the controlled corporate media is now reporting that the Copenhagen summit is unlikely to finalize a broad international treaty. Once again, however, the smuggled G20 documents again say otherwise.
One attendee’s handwritten note under the heading “US-Geithner” reads: “President optimistic have basic elements in place in US in next year.” Another, under the heading “Address issues ahead of Copenhagen – Wayne Swan” reads: “More agreement than think. Need find public way of communicating.” Perhaps such self-consciousness about the deep unpopularity of the proposed bankster carbon tax explains why the more controversial elements of the draft communique were removed.
Posted by The Info Revolution at 11:11 AM
November 14, 2009
November 14, 2009
“(…) Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DC’s and LDC’s, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and or each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” John P. Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977
The Copenhagen conference on climate change at the beginning of next month seeks to, according to its creators, “reach a new global accord to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions of greenhouse gases”. UN-front man Ban Ki-Moon remarked at a preparation speech on the road to Copenhagen that “sooner or later there will be a higher price on carbon – imposed either by policy or by market forces.” All this just rolls off the tongs of these transnationalist as if they are whistling a tune while tending their garden. If there was no such thing as historic fact, it would sound noble, urgent, and necessary. Unfortunately, we know precisely what motivates the initiators of this global effort: profit, absolute control and- I almost forgot- depopulation of the world’s inhabitants. This garden the elite is cultivating is by no means a place of joy. It stinks of rotten weeds and dead foliage.
In this first of several articles, I set out to identify the blueprint of modern day eugenics and its intimate ties to the environmental movement. In fact, the more one researches this union, forged in the blood of millions in the last century, the more one realises that the anthropogenic global warming swindle is not just tied to eugenics. It is eugenics.
In 1968 a think-tank emerged out of the back alleys of the face-lifted eugenics movement called the Club of Rome. Nurtured from its very conception as a beacon of light to which all environmentalist ships should navigate, its creators knew that the green movement they had set out to create, was designed to blame man for the supposed predicament the earth was in. As a consequence the number of people should be reduced lest the earth crumble under his crushing weight. The only thing to be done, so argued the Club, was for a global body of power to enforce depopulation goals as decided upon by the global elite.
Of what people does this global elite consist? Well just google ‘Club of Rome members’ and compare the names on the membership lists with those on the list of attendants of the annual Bilderberg conferences and you will discover the very same cast of characters, setting up the rules in the New World Order. You’ll find Al Gore, David Rockefeller, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and all the other enemies of all free humanity and their cronies.
In 1972, the self described “group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity” published their (in)famous “The Limits to Growth”. In this document the authors point-blank argue for the population to shrink if mother earth is to survive much longer: “The overwhelming growth in world population”, claim the authors, “caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind’s very successful reduction of worldwide mortality.”
This development is highly worrisome, says the Club of Rome. As possible solutions for this “problem” it proposes either the birthrate to be brought down “to equal the new, lower death rate”, or “the death rate must rise again.” The following example will show that these statements by the world’s upper elites are in no way innocent musings without consequence.
Contrary to popular belief, the original architect of China’s policies was neither Mao Zedong in a power-drunk whim nor a Party-sadist hatching eugenics in some sub-level torture chamber. According to anthropologist Susan Greenhalgh in her study ‘Just One Child: Science and Policy in Deng’s China’ the inspiration for the tyrannical move by the Chinese Communist Party was inspired first and foremost by the Club of Rome.
In the early seventies, a group of Chinese scientists visited several scientific conferences in Europe, and readily picked up on the ideas distributed by the Club of Rome. At the head of this Chinese delegation was a man credited for introducing China’s notorious one-child policies, source of so much hardship suffered by the Chinese people in the last decades.
Greenhalgh points out that the infamous policy “had roots in missile scientists’ exposure to and import of Club of Rome population concepts through international conferences in the 1970s.”
The ‘missile scientists’ Greenhalgh mentions, are Dr. Song Jian and company, visiting several conferences in Europe in the 1970s designed to further the glory and prestige of the People’s Republic of China around the world. They picked up and further developed several methods to calculate population rates on blueprint models used by the Club of Rome to calculate their scams into creation.
In order to force a rising death rate into being one needs to create “a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in a vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”The fact that the Club of Rome stands at the cradle of one-child policies may not come as a complete surprise to those who have read all the policy-papers issued from the seventies onward. The same Malthusian idea that triggered our current green movement and its obsession with man-made global warming mythology once inspired hardcore involuntary sterilization policies in the decades preceding World War II.
In the 1991 publication “The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome” by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, the common denominator that the world would need to rally around was identified in all clarity:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
This contrived and purposeful enemy arrived in the shape of man-made global warming. And to think that all of us gullible gadgets were fooled into believing that any climate change was caused by that big lamp in the sky, determining not just earth’s overall temperatures but those of all planets in the solar system.
It just goes to show that the scam is perpetrated on such an unprecedented scale, that few dare question its validity. The entire thing of course boils down to the old Nazi proverb: the bigger the lie, the easier the sell. The United Nations, the globalist foremost salesman, was designated to carry the message along to all the world’s ‘regions’ and all nation-states falling under her jurisdiction. The division of the UN deemed most qualified to do the job was UNESCO, the scientific arm deciding what educational programs are to be distributed amongst the world’s universities and primary schools. On June 15th of this year, Martin Lees, Secretary General of the Club of Rome gave ato UNESCO- social engineers in which he admits that:
“We in the Club of Rome have had a long relationship with UNESCO. We look forward to developing our future collaboration so that we can advance our understanding and cooperation to promote action on the critical global issues which will determine the future of us all at this difficult moment in history.”
To understand what this collaboration between the Club of Rome and UNESCO will specifically entail, Mr. Lees provides us with the agenda leading up to and following the Copenhagen conference next month. Just so you know what to expect from the social engineers in the year to come:
“In October 2009, we will focus at our Annual General Assembly in Amsterdam on “Environment, Energy and Economic Recovery” focused on the key issues for the Copenhagen Climate Conference. In February 2010 we will tackle Cluster Three, on International Development. In April 2010 we will focus on Cluster Four, Social Transformation and in July 2010, on Peace and Security. The Programme will conclude with a major event in November 2010.”
The agenda shows that the Copenhagen conference is not an isolated happening. It is just one piece of the overall global architecture the elite is constructing and with which it means to consolidate power in the 21st century. Or, as the Secretary General of the Club of Rome puts it:
“Issues of international governance and institutional architecture will be critical in particular to theeffective implementation of a post-Kyoto Treaty. To address the underlying drivers of climate change, institutional mechanisms must be introduced or adapted to implement and coordinate new policies in key areas of concentration such as: finance; science and technology; human resource development; information and communications; and capacity building. And the issue of “climate justice” will be central to achieving any agreement and to the acceptance of any treaty.”
Irrespective of these world players’ vested interest in such an architecture, they all dance to the tune of eugenics- whether they are aware of it or not. It can be to further their career or some sadist pleasure in usurping innocence; whatever their motivation, they have openly declared themselves to be on the opposite site of humanity.
Posted by The Info Revolution at 11:09 AM