Thursday, April 05, 2007

APOLOGIES




Recently there has been a "rash" of apologies. The last one I can recall, was President Bush apologizing to the Tuskeegee Airman, for 60 years of neglect and disrespect.


Prior to that, I heard an upper echelon General, apologizing for the deplorable conditions that some Veterans have had to live through at Walter Reed Army Hospital.


I believe that before that it was another General apologizing for having expressed that gays shouldn't be in the Armed Forces because they were immoral.


There have been several celebrities apologizing for things they said in the heat of the moment, and later regret having said them. That we've heard a flurry of such incidents is putting it mildly. Some (celebrities/politicians) have entered into rehab, to get treatment for their bad behavior; Or is it their speech? Doesn't anyone mean what they say any longer? Aren't people responsible for their actions, now? Is what they say now, going to be followed by an apology? I don't get it. Do these people need a script (like famous statesmen of today and yesteryear) to express themselves?


Anyway things are being repeated in cycles. Or is it the media that is repeating similar stories of repetitious (sitiuations/circumstances) drama?

CONTAMINATION ENIGMA




FIRST THERE WAS FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE OF CATTLE,


THEN, MAD COW'S DISEASE.


AFTERWARDS, IT WAS AVIAN (BIRD) FLU.


THE CONTAGION THEN LEPT TO THE PLANT KINDOM:


WHEN IT WENT TO THE VEGETABLES, WHEN THEY ANNOUNCED TOXIC SPINACH,


LETTUCE, ETC.


AFTER THAT IT BECAME PEANUT BUTTER, THAT WAS TOXIC.


IS ANY ONE KEEPING TRACK OF THIS PHENOMENON?


WELL, RECENTLY IT IS CONTAMINATED DOG & CAT FOOD BY MEANS OF PLASTIC IN THE "WHEAT GLUTTEN". THE CULPRIT (BEYOND TIANANMEN SQUARE), CHINA .


MY, MY, HOW FANTASTIC THAT THINGS CAN TWIST AND TURN THEIR WAY AROUND OUR MODERN-DAY WORLD; YET NO ONE IS REALLY LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THESE "ENIGMAS". THEY JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP. WHO AND WHAT IS BEHIND THESE PECULIAR OCCURENCES? THIS COULD BE A GOOD CASE FOR SHERLOCK HOLMES.


PERHARPS, PROFESSOR MORIARTY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS?

VIRUSES AS FOOD ADDITIVES


New Viruses to be sprayed on food!


Agency Approves First Use of Viruses as a Food Additive

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: August 19, 2006WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 (AP) ?

A mix of bacteria-killing viruses may be sprayed on cold cuts, wieners and sausages to combat common microbes that kill hundreds of people a year, federal health officials ruled Friday.The ruling, by the Food and Drug Administration, is the first approval of viruses as a food additive, said Andrew Zajac of the Office of Food Additive Safety at the agency. Treatments that use bacteriophages to attack harmful bacteria have been a part of folk medicine for hundreds of years in India and for decades in the former Soviet Union.The approved mix of six viruses is intended to be sprayed onto ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, including sliced ham and turkey, said John Vazzana, the president and chief executive of Intralytix, which developed the additive.
The viruses, called bacteriophages, are meant to kill strains of the Listeria monocytogenes bacterium, the food agency said. The bacterium can cause a serious infection called listeriosis, primarily in pregnant women, newborns and adults with weakened immune systems. In the United States, an estimated 2,500 people become seriously ill with listeriosis each year, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of those, 500 die.Luncheon meats are particularly vulnerable to Listeria because after they are bought they are typically not cooked or reheated, which can kill harmful bacteria like Listeria, Mr. Zajac said.The preparation of bacteriophages ? the name is from the Greek for ?bacteria eater? ? attacks only strains of the Listeria bacterium and not human or plant cells, the food agency said.?As long as it used in accordance with the regulations, we have concluded it?s safe,? Mr. Zajac said.People normally come into contact with bacteriophages through food, water and the environment, and they are found in our digestive tracts, the agency said.Consumers will not be aware which meat and poultry products have been treated with the spray, Mr. Zajac said. The Department of Agriculture will regulate the actual use of the product.
The viruses are grown in a preparation of the very bacteria they kill, and then purified. The food agency had concerns that the virus preparation could contain toxic residues from the bacteria, but testing did not reveal residues, which in small quantities are not likely to cause health problems anyway, the agency said.?The F.D.A. is applying one of the toughest food-safety standards which they have to find this is safe,? said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group. ?They couldn?t approve this product if they had questions about its safety.?Intralytix, based in Baltimore, first petitioned the food agency in 2002 to allow the viruses to be used as an additive. It has since licensed the product to a multinational company, which intends to market it worldwide, Mr. Vazzana said.

FREED BRITONS ARRIVE AT HEATHROW

Freed Britons Fly Home
British Sailors, Marines Held By Iran Since March 23
POSTED: 1:21 am CDT April 5, 2007
UPDATED: 6:32 am CDT April 5, 2007

TEHRAN, Iran -- Fifteen British sailors and marines who'd been held captive in Iran are back on British soil. Their flight has landed at London's Heathrow Airport.
Related: Video Images

The 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iranian forces on March 23 in disputed waters flew out of a Tehran airport early on Thursday morning aboard a commercial flight to London.
After nearly two tense weeks, they were suddenly freed Wednesday by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The British personnel arrived at Tehran's airport early Thursday in a convoy of sedans that drove directly to the presidential VIP section of the airport.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

RELEASE OF BRITISH SAILORS?

Release of British Sailors Leaves Unanswered Questions
By Gary Thomas
Washington
04 April 2007

The end of the standoff between Britain and Iran still leaves many questions unanswered. Chief among them is why Iran took such a deliberately provocative action as seizing British sailors and marines. As VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports, many analysts believe the heart of the matter lies in the struggle between Iran and the United States for influence in Iraq and the Middle East.

In January, U.S. forces arrested five Iranian men in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil. On March 23, Iran seized 15 British sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf.

British naval detainees with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (r) in Tehran, 4 Apr 2007

On Wednesday, Iranian President announced he was, to use his term, pardoning the 15 captured British service members for what Tehran claims was a violation of Iranian territorial waters. Meanwhile, Iran's official news agency, Irna, says an envoy will meet with the Iranians detained in Irbil in January, whom the U.S. says Tehran sent to Iraq to support militants. Iran says they are diplomats.
Also, on Tuesday, an Iranian diplomat held in Baghdad by unidentified gunmen was suddenly freed.
U.S., British, and Iraqi officials disavow any connection between the Iranians detained in Iraq and the Britons captured by Iran, and say there is no prisoner swap. But Reva Bhalla, an Iran specialist at the private intelligence firm Stratfor, is one of those analysts who says the two events are indeed linked as part of a struggle between Iran and the United States for influence in Iraq and the Middle East.
"Those incidents are very connected," said Reva Bhalla. "The U.S. kind of showed how aggressive it can get in Iraq, and that was a clear signal to the Iranians. And now this was just a way to come back. This is far from over. We're going to see more of these tit-for-tat moves. But the negotiations are certainly reaching a very intense point for Iraq."
In recent months President Bush has taken a tough line against Iran, not only for its alleged nuclear weapons ambitions, but for what the administration says is Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents.
Ken Katzman, an Iran analyst for the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, agrees that there is a strong linkage. Katzman believes the capture of the British sailors and marines was just one option that is part of a larger package of Iranian moves against the United States and its coalition partners in Iraq.
"I think there probably was a joint decision that once President Bush announced his much more robust or assertive policy against Iran inside Iraq, I think the Iranians put their heads together and came up with some sort of a package of steps that they might take that might counter President Bush's new policy," said Ken Katzman. "And seizing coalition sailors in the Iraq waterways was probably one on the menu that they developed, and they decided to go with it."
It is not known who in Iran actually ordered the operation against the British sailors and marines. But although President Ahmadinejad is a hardliner, some analysts believes the order may have come directly from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Katzman says Iran already felt its back was against the wall with U.N. sanctions imposed on the Iranian government over its alleged bid to build a nuclear weapon.
"In some ways Iran felt cornered," he said. "It's facing pressure in the Security Council. It's facing pressure in Iraq from the United States. It's facing pressure in the Gulf. It's facing pressure through sanctions, economic pressure, financial pressure, banking pressure. So I think Iran wanted to develop a package of options that would give it leverage back again. And I think this [seizure] was on that list."
Wayne White, a former senior State Department Middle East analyst, says the linkage between the U.S. detention of the Iranians in Iraq and the seizure of the British sailors would seem clear to Iran. He says that once Iran saw it was not going to get a prisoner swap, officials there decided to dump the problem.
"It could have been one reason why it wasn't linked overtly is that it was thought to be obvious on the part of the Iranians that there would be this link and that's why we might do something like this [Iranian capture], and recognizing that there was this negative blowback for what they did in whatever waters, that they couldn't hold out for a trade," said Wayne White.
White adds that the Iranian seizure has only reinforced the international image of Iran as, in his words, "irresponsible, dangerous, and unpredictable."

HARRY REID LAMBASTES BUSH


Nevada Senator, President Square Off Over Iraq

April 3, 2007 11:47 PM EDT



The latest volley of harsh words from Senator Harry Reid about the war in Iraq came from a National Guard training center in Las Vegas.
President George Bush is making it clear to senators that any troop funding bill with a withdrawal date would not become law.
CBS News: Bush, Dems Spar Over Iraq Funding


Nevada senator Harry Reid is in the middle of an increasingly nasty battle over the war in Iraq. Both he and President Bush are blaming the other for the standoff over funding the effort.
Senator Reid and democrats are taking a tougher tack on a timetable for withdrawal. The president is refusing to accept a date.
The latest volley of harsh words from Senator Harry Reid about the war in Iraq came from a National Guard training center in Las Vegas. The democrats and some republicans want a hard deadline to pull American troops out of the country.
The president says American troops should stay until the war is won. President George Bush is making it clear to senators that any troop funding bill with a withdrawal date would not become law.
"They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk and if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork, I'll veto it. Then we can get down to business," said the president.
The senate is considering a supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq that includes a mandate for troop re-deployment out of Iraq.
As Nevada Senator Harry Reid toured a new National Guard complex in Las Vegas, he says the president has been uncompromising and that's the reason the war has blown up in our face.
"The war has been a failure," said Reid. "There is chaos now. Whenever that day comes that our troops come out, it will be chaos. It's time for the Iraqis to resolve their own differences."
As Senate majority leader, Reid sets the agenda for his branch of congress. He also decides what bills are voted on. He says the troop supplemental funding bill will pass and the president must work with congress to change his failed policy.
"He should become in tune with the fact that he is President of the United States, not King of the United States," said Reid. "He has another branch of government, namely the legislative branch of government that he has to deal with."
President Bush countered that there will be consequences for sending a funding bill to his desk that he will veto.
"Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," said President Bush.
Each side is dug in. Both the president and Senator Reid promise they will give troops what they need as the war of words rages on.
President Bush says without the supplemental funding passed now, the troops will run out of money. Senator Reid says his own generals and an independent accounting office show the money running out in July.
As the debate continues, there are signs the military is spread thin. The Pentagon will send two large army units back to Iraq without a year's rest at home.


Note: Emphasis and bolds added by blogmaster.

Photeo: http://uniorb.com/RCHECK/kingbush.htm (MUST VISIT AND READ ARTICLE)

THE NEW WORLD ORDER COMMANDEERED




Satan Commandeers
the
New World Order

“Sunday is our mark of authority. The church is above the Bible, and this transference of sabbath observance is proof of that fact.” The Catholic Record, London, Ontario, September 1, 1923.


THROUGH Spiritualism, Satan appears as a benefactor of the race, healing the diseases of the people, and professing to present a new and more exalted system of religious faith; but at the same time he works as a destroyer. His temptations are leading multitudes to ruin. Intemperance dethrones reason; sensual indulgence, strife, and bloodshed follow. Satan delights in war, for it excites the worst passions of the soul and then sweeps into eternity its victims steeped in vice and blood. It is his object to incite the nations to war against one another, for he can thus divert the minds of the people from the work of preparation to stand in the day of God. Satan works through the elements also to garner his harvest of unprepared souls. He has studied the secrets of the laboratories of nature, and he uses all his power to control the elements as far as God allows. When he was suffered to afflict Job, how quickly flocks and herds, servants, houses, children, were swept away, one trouble succeeding another as in a moment. It is God that shields His creatures and hedges them in from the power of the destroyer. But the Christian world have shown contempt for the law of Jehovah; and the Lord will do just what He has declared that He would—He will withdraw His blessings from the earth and remove His protecting care from those who are rebelling against His law and teaching and forcing others to do the same. Satan has control of all whom God does not especially guard. He will favor and prosper some in order to further his own designs, and he will bring trouble upon others and lead men to believe that it is God who is afflicting them.
While appearing to the children of men as a great physician who can heal all their maladies, he will bring disease and disaster, until populous cities are reduced to ruin and desolation.

In regards to the recently established Pope John Paul Cultural Center building in Washington, D.C., the Pope says, “We will come to view this as our little vatican in the United States.” as reported by Paul Shepard AP writer. The Daily News, March 24, 2001.

Troublers Identified

And then the great deceiver will persuade men that those who serve God are causing these evils. The class that have provoked the displeasure of Heaven will charge all their troubles upon those whose obedience to God’s commandments is a perpetual reproof to transgressors. It will be declared that men are offending God by the violation of the Sunday sabbath; that this sin has brought calamities which will not cease until Sunday observance shall be strictly enforced; and that those who present the claims of the fourth commandment, thus destroying reverence for Sunday, are troublers of the people, preventing their restoration to divine favor and temporal prosperity. The miracle-working power manifested through Spiritualism will exert its influence against those who choose to obey God rather than men. Communications from the spirits will declare that God has sent them to convince the rejecters of Sunday of their error, affirming that the laws of the land should be obeyed as the law of God. They will lament the great wickedness in the world and second the testimony of religious teachers that the degraded state of morals is caused by the desecration of Sunday. Great will be the indignation excited against all who refuse to accept their testimony.

HIGH WINDS DAMAGE BUILDINGS


High Winds Damage Buildings in Western Chicago Suburbs
April 4, 2007



The National Weather Service has confirmed a tornado-like microburst caused damage to a number of buildings in towns west of Chicago and left 11 people injured over the weekend.
Winds reached between 95 and 105 mph during the storm that moved quickly across northern Illinois late Saturday, according to Carol Stream Police Chief Rick Willing.
The most severe damage was recorded at the Covered bridges apartment complex in Carol Stream, where more than 100 residents were forced from their homes.
The sudden winds peeled the roofs off three buildings and did extensive roof and wall damage to six others, rendering 65 units unsafe for habitation, according to Willing.
Willing said ambulances took six residents to area hospitals with injuries from flying debris, but all of them were ambulatory. He said another five people drove themselves to the hospitals for treatment.
"We don't have their conditions, but none of the injuries appeared to have been life-threatening,'' Willing said.
Winds also blew a hole in a wall at the nearby Wheaton Christian Center in Carol Stream, where a broken gas pipe ignited but was quickly extinguished by firefighters.
Meanwhile, in neighboring Aurora, Battalion Chief Dave Rygh of the Aurora Fire Department said that high winds did minor damage to and apartment building there. No injuries were reported.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

LESSONS FROM BELLO NOCK

REPUBLICANS ( or DEMOCRATS) SEEKING TO BUY THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008, MAY WANT THIS FELLOW'S (savoir-faire) ENDORSEMENT. AFTER ALL HE LEARNT THE TRICKS OF THE TRADE FROM RINGLING BROTHERS, BARNUM & BAILEY: THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH. INVENTORS OF "THE THREE RING CIRCUS" a.k.a. MALARKEY, MONEY, AND MAYHEM.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

ATTACK ON IRAN NEXT STEP


Attack on Iran is the next step in divide and conquer of Middle East

By Daan de Wit

Article posted Apr 02 2007, 9:57 PM


The march towards war with Iran continues unabated. As time goes by, the possibility that Iran will be attacked is not lessening, but growing. It will increase the level of chaos in the Middle East, but the question is whether this is an unfortunate consequence or a means to an end. While expansive war games are being conducted off the Iranian coast and new sanctions are being imposed on Iran, the heat is being turned up in other ways as well. Under the headline US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran, The Sunday Telegraph writes: 'In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials. [...] Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, [...] said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime." [...] Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.'

The current situation involving Iran and the 15 British Marines is reminiscent of the situation prior to the Vietnam War, when the U.S. was provoking Vietnam by way of Operation 34A. It was then that the American government seized upon an alleged incident in the Gulf of Tonkin in order to demonstrate Vietnamese agression, after which Congress gave President Johnson its approval to attack the country. For more details see this article by DeepJournal. Also see: Fake Maritime Boundaries, written by Craig Murray, former British Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.U.S. troop build-up in Persian Gulf On Tuesday of last week 'a high-ranking security source' told the Russian RIA Novosti that 'U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.' Professor A. Richard Norton, advisor to the Iraq Study Group, made a good point back in mid-February in reference to the American show of power in the Persian Gulf: 'Remember that in 1990-91 and then again in 2003 the very fact that the United States assembled a formidable array of forces in the Gulf region became an argument for using those forces and launching wars. The United States will soon have two carrier task forces on station, and perhaps a third carrier task force will soon be deployed. It will be difficult for the United States to step down from its combative perch without Iran accepting some fairly significant concessions. While many leading Iranian officials fully understand the gravity of the situation, it is nonetheless possible to imagine a series of real or contrived clashes that lead, perhaps unintentionally, to a serious aerial and naval campaign against Iran. Or - to put it simply - to yet another U.S. war of choice.' Tony Blair in a speech to the U.S. Congress: 'September 11th was not an isolated event, but a tragic prologue. Iraq; another Act; and many further struggles will be set upon this stage before it's over.'Religious strife Middle East: unintended fire to the flames or means to an end? From the moment he first gained any significance, right up until his death, the life of Saddam Hussein was intertwined with the West, as I wrote previously. Saddam provided his country with the order that the West desired, and together they saw how the country descended into chaos following the overthrow of the Baath regime. There are different viewpoints circulating as to how the Bush administration might be able to create order in Iraq. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh sees what he calls 'the redirection' of the Bush Administration: Out of fear for Shiite Iran, the U.S. would actively support the Sunnis in the region. Previously it were the Iraqi Shiites who received their support, to the detriment of the Sunni minority, which in general is seen as the core of the Iraqi resistance. The question though is whether or not there is any discussion of an adjustment to American plans. On the one hand, the fact that American plans have been frustrated by the resistance could indeed be an explanation for a reevaluation, but it could also be an explanation for the fact that, contrary to all predictions, Iran hasn't been attacked yet (the newest predictions are talking about this month). On the other hand, there are indications that the discord that exists between the two Muslim groups is the result of a preconceived plan: divide and conquer, culminating in an evenly divided future Middle East. And while two dogs are fighting for a bone...If there really is a 'Redirection', then the U.S. will end up profiting from the divisions that it itself brought about which resulted from the decision, often described as a blunder, to dismiss the constituent Sunni elements of the police and army en masse. In response to the Sunni insurgency, the Shiites were supported by the U.S. from the beginning. They received military support via Task Force 121, a team of specialists from Special Operations and the CIA. Additional American support came in the form of the coordination and cultivation of a large Iraqi militia. It may be this group that called itself 'Black Flag' in 2004 and took the fight to the insurgents. The resulting internecine conflict between the two Muslim groups not only divided Iraq, but it also put pressure on the situation in the region. Questions surrounding attack on Golden Mosque A relatively important moment in the fighting between the Sunnis and the Shiites was the attack on the Golden Mosque in February of 2006. Directly following the destruction of the Shiite mosque, 27 Sunni mosques were attacked and three Sunni imams were killed. Hundreds, if not thousands of people have died as a result of the attack. The strike seemed to be a clearcut case, but further examination raises questions as to who the actual perpetrators of the attack were. The suggestion is now being made that Western specialists were involved. Jassem Mohammed Jaafar, at that time Construction minister, said on Iraqi television: '"According to initial reports, the bombing was technically well conceived and could only have been carried out by specialists"', to which he added that the placement of the explosives had to have taken at least twelve hours. Jafaar: '[...] "holes were dug into the mausoleum's four main pillars and packed with explosives." "Then the charges were connected together and linked to another charge placed just under the dome. The wires were then linked to a detonator which was triggered at a distance'. These statements were borne out by the account of the caretaker of the mosque, as noted by The New York Times: 'The night before the explosion, he said, just before the 8 p.m. curfew on Feb. 21, 2006, on the Western calendar, men dressed in commando uniforms like those issued by the Interior Ministry entered the shrine. The caretaker said he had been beaten, tied up and locked in a room. Throughout the night, he said, he could hear the sound of drilling as the attackers positioned the explosives, apparently in such a way as to inflict maximum damage on the dome. [...] I can describe what was done as exactly like what happened to the World Trade Center," he said. "Bad people used this incident to divide Iraq on a detestable sectarian basis."' Journalist Mike Whitney writes: 'Eyewitness accounts verify that American troops and Iraqi National Guard were active in the area throughout the night and that their cars could be heard running "the whole night until next morning". People living around the mosque were told "to stay in your shop and don't leave the area". At 6:30 AM the American troops left, just 10 minutes before the bombs went off.' '"There are forces seeking to prevent democracy and obstruct the peaceful political and economic development of Iraq. They seek to achieve their goals in a number of ways. But, as I said before, promoting sectarian violence is one of them. There's nothing new here"', according to American spokesperson Adam Ereli. Pro-Sunni clandestine operations in and around IranAccording to Seymour Hersh, American foreign policy as it relates to Iran - based as it is on the mutual strife between Sunnis and Shiites - has been completely overturned. In his latest article The Redirection, he writes: 'The new strategy "is a major shift in American policy-it's a sea change," a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said.' He makes the argument that the rise of the Shiites in Iraq, combined with a powerful Shiite Iran no longer held in check by the threat of Saddam's Sunni-controlled army, has sent chills through Sunni countries in the region, such as Saudi Arabia: 'The Sunni states "were petrified of a Shiite resurgence, and there was growing resentment with our gambling on the moderate Shiites in Iraq," he said. "We cannot reverse the Shiite gain in Iraq, but we can contain it."' According to Hersh this fear explains the readiness of the Saudis to contribute financially to the clandestine pro-Sunni support operations: 'The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.' The money comes in part from the Saudis, and the execution of the operations takes place under the guidance of Vice-President Dick Cheney: '[...] former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. [...] American military and special-operations teams have escalated their activities in Iran to gather intelligence [...]'. Read more about clandestine operations in Iran in part 4 (October 2005) of this DeepJournal series.A new Cold War in the Middle East The divisions between Sunni and Shiite groups could be the beginning of a new Cold War in the Middle East. Following the Cold War against communism and during the subsequent War on Terror, a new war could now arise between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. 'Martin Indyk, a senior State Department official in the Clinton Administration who also served as Ambassador to Israel, said that "the Middle East is heading into a serious Sunni-Shiite Cold War." Indyk, who is the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, added that, in his opinion, it was not clear whether the White House was fully aware of the strategic implications of its new policy', writes Hersh. But just as with the Cold War, the War on Terror and the new religious divisions, the question is whether the U.S. is the victim or the perpetrator. Whichever the case may be, both Muslim groups are battling each other while Iran as a target is getting more and more in the picture, just as a relatively safe Israel, surrounded by a patchwork quilt of small and fragmented statelets in an oil-rich region. Influence of the Democratic majority on Bush Administration Some are pinning their hopes on the Democrats - who now hold a majority in Congress - to avert a military conflict with Iran. But their recent history doesn't offer much in the way of hope. In the years following the 9/11 attacks, they remained silent while the new media amassed fact upon fact, chipping away at the official conspiracy theory of what happened on and around September 11th. The Democratic party didn't exactly stand in the way of the radical legislation which came in the wake of 9/11 either, and what's more, they used the first hundred hours of their majority in Congress to adopt into law the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, whose findings were taken apart piece by piece by Professor David Ray Griffin in his book The New Pearl Harbor. And as to the question of what the most relevant Democrats are saying about Iran - the answer is disappointing. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama have all made clear that they are not opposed to military action against Iran. DNC Chairman Howard Dean was quite clear at the beginning of last year: '[...] under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power.' One year later he called the Iran of now a greater danger than the Iraq of then. Meanwhile Clinton is making similar statements, but feels that if Bush wants to declare war on Iran he should definitely ask Congress for approval. According to Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, this isn't necessary; under pressure from the Israeli lobby she has introduced legislation ensuring that Bush doesn't have to do this. The Democrats are echoing the rhetoric of the Republican administration. Under the motto 'Don't Let the People Who Brought Us Iraq Define the Questions' Paul Pillar, 'a former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, [who] teaches security studies at Georgetown University' is advising first and foremost to ask the right questions, such as: 'If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, how would that change its behavior and affect U.S. interests? In particular, why would deterrence, which has kept nuclear peace with other adversaries, not work with Iran?'In spite of democracy, small group dictatesWith the appropriate questions not being posed, and with the Democrats having begged off and the build-up to the coming war with Iran only now in this late stage getting the full attention of the Western media, it remains as clear as ever that a small group of extremists - an elite of the elite - are once again prepared to take the world one step further on a path above which most people see only dark clouds gathering. Speaking of this small group of people who have no fear of the gathering storm and who see a shiny pot of gold at the end of it, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: 'I am perplexed by the fact that major strategic decisions seem to be made within a very narrow circle of individuals - just a few, probably a handful, perhaps not more than the fingers on my hand. And these are the individuals, all of whom but one, who made the original decision to go to war [with Iraq], and used the original justifications to go to war.' One thing that comes to mind while listening to Brzezinski is a quote taken down by New York Times reporter Ron Suskind that came from the mouth of a White House aide: Suskind writes: 'The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''' Vanity Fair sums up this idea as it translates into the situation with Iran in a long article with a short headline: From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq.Fundamentalist leadership in both U.S. and IranIn his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Brzezinski underscores a view held on the role that the U.S. has played in the rise of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's star: 'Our policy has unintentionally - I hope unintentionally, maybe it was develishly clever, but I think unintentionally - helped Ahmadinejad consolidate himself in power and excercised a degree of influence which actually his position doesn't justify. Most Americans when they say president Ahmadinejad, they think he is the equivalent of president Bush, he is not, he is roughly a third level official, who doesn't even control the military resources of the country.' In comparing Bush and Ahmadinejad, investigative journalist Jim Lobe was compelled to make a side-by-side product comparison which brought him to the conclusion: Bush and Ahmadinejad: separated at birth?One of the similarities between the two leaders lies in their fundamental character. Bush's image, which along with that of the U.S. has taken a beating, is that of the democratic, Christian leader of the free world. That's why he is supported by the Moral Majority in the U.S. The same moral theme can also be seen in Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende. Upon further inspection there are a few things to take note of regarding the exacting image of both gentlemen. Balkenende preaches norms and values, but then does the opposite by refusing to publicly state the reason that The Netherlands sent soldiers to Iraq. Balkenende reconfirms the hypocritical image of fundamentalist Christians. This image is also shaped - alongside the sex abuse scandals in the Church - by George W. Bush, a man who while governor of Texas held the record for death sentences handed out, who now feels that torture is necessary, and who could be held responsible for thousands of American deaths and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi victims. And that's just to name a few. Bush is facilitated by the conservative Christian Erik Prince, director of Blackwater, the most important supplier of mercenaries for Iraq. These leaders of the Moral Majority would nevertheless be nowhere without the Silent Majority, the much more moderate sectors of the population of the U.S. and The Netherlands, for example. While the silence of the Silent Majority and the actions of the Moral Majority keep the wars coming, the conservative Christians, through their active support for Bush and Israel, seem to be eager to bring on exactly that which their guidebook - The Bible - warns against: a great battle in the Middle East which would usher in the End Times. President Ahmadinejad echoes this vision of the so-called 'End Times' held by the millions of Christians who support Bush; just like them, his view of the future is none too gloomy because he also foresees a final battle and above all redemption for mankind: 'French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy has quoted Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad as saying that one should really hope for "chaos" because "there will be God" afterward. [...] Ahmadinejad has also called for the return of al-Mahdi, a messiah-like figure in Shi'ite Islam, whose reappearance is supposed to restore justice before the end of the world', writes AFP. In this way he's on the same wavelength as the millions of readers of the Left Behind series, which foresees a miraculous catching up of all true Christian believers prior to the apocalypse. Influential Christians such as Joel Rosenberg, whose books are recommended on the Left Behind website, interpret what they read in the newspaper the same way they interpret the Bible, and see in the news the fulfillment of age-old prophecies: '[...] what is particularly curious about the emergence of an even stronger Iran-Sudan alliance this week is that it was foretold 2,500 years ago by the Hebrew Prophet Ezekiel in chapters 38 and 39'. To this statement he adds an article from Haaretz, in which it talks about how 'several Orthodox Jewish groups in Israel are currently making preparations to build and outfit the Third Temple', after which he refers to the title of chapter 13 from his book Epicenter: Future Headline: Jews build third temple in Jerusalem. In a recent contribution, Rosenberg writes: 'I've written before that 2007 is the Year of Decision. But is April about to become the "month of decision"?' How dangerous is Iran? The Iranian economy is weak, and as opposed to the U.S. and Israel, Iran has no history of initiating wars (the war with Iraq was the result of an attack by Saddam that was spurred on by the U.S.). Ahmadinejad says that he doesn't want war, and in part 14 of this series it was also shown how he was incorrectly quoted and doesn't want to wipe Israel off the map. While the U.S. is refusing offers of negotiations (1, 2) with Iran, Iran is allowing UN-inspectors to investigate their nuclear program, though they restricted their cooperation recently, and as opposed to the U.S. and Israel, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. On the other hand Ahmadinejad did organize a conference to promote research into the Holocaust, and he might be lying about his belief that his faith forbids the production of a nuclear weapon. Depending on which cleric you ask, a nuclear weapon would actually be permitted, so long as it is not used offensively (in contrary to the U.S. view). And then there is Iran's support for Hezbollah. When it comes to the facts, there are different ways of looking at it: 'Iran's control over Hezbollah has been steadily declining since approximately 1996, during the reformist presidency of Mohammad Khatami. Money does continue to come "from Iran" to support Hezbollah, but not the Iranian government. Instead, it's private religious foundations that direct the bulk of support, primarily to Hezbollah's charitable activities. [...] the most important reason for not targeting Iran for the continued fighting in Lebanon is that this conflict is antithetical to Iran's interests. [...] If a state is needed to explain the continued existence of groups like Hezbollah, then Iran is an ideal candidate. Ergo, the connection must exist. Such claims serve to bolster the central, but fallacious, political doctrine for the Bush administration that the Global War on Terrorism really exists', writes Professor of Anthropology and Middle East Studies at Brown University, William O. Beeman, author of the book The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs": How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other. ___________Contributing research to this article were Willem Grooters, Ben Kearney en David Jongsma.The Dutch in this article was translated into English by Ben Kearney.

DON'T WANT NATIONAL ID?




Don't want national ID? Surrender your passport




People who opt out of 'voluntary' scheme must 'forgo the ability' to travel abroad



Posted: March 10, 20071:15 p.m. Eastern


© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com



British citizens who refuse to provide personal details for the planned "voluntary" national identification card have been told they will be denied passports and be unable to leave the UK.
James Hall, CEO of the Identity and Passport Service, the agency charged with running the National Identity Scheme to provide ID cards to all residents of the UK, confirmed many privacy advocates' fears this week when he revealed those who opt out of the program will be unable to obtain or renew travel documents.
Hall made the revelation during a national "webchat" where questions were submitted by the public.

In response to a questioner asking what would happen to those who refused to join the nearly $11 billion program, Hall answered, "There is no need to register and have fingerprints taken - but you will forgo the ability to have a passport."
According to a government website:
The National Identity Scheme... is an easy-to-use and extremely secure system of personal identification for adults living in the UK. Its cornerstone is the introduction of national ID cards for all UK residents over the age of 16.
Each ID card will be unique and will combine the cardholder's biometric data with their checked and confirmed identity details, called a "biographical footprint". These identity details and the biometrics will be stored on the National Identity Register. Basic identity information will also be held in a chip on the ID card itself.
Additionally, applicants for the ID cards, which will first be issued in 2009 to anyone seeking a passport, will be required to supply personal details, including second homes and driver's license and insurance numbers.
Phil Booth, of the privacy-advocacy group NO2ID, told the London Daily Mail, "The idea that ID cards scheme is voluntary, and people can opt out, is a joke.
"There are all sorts of reasons why people need to travel, not just for holidays. There is work, visiting relatives. What are these people supposed to do? It stretches the definition of voluntary beyond breaking point. They will go to any length to get personal information for this huge database. Who knows what will happen to it then?"
The ID-card bill only advanced through Parliament after assurances were given that those who needed a passport and did not wish to participate in the National Identity Scheme would have the choice to opt out.
But, as implemented, the only opt-out for British citizens is that they will be able to refuse the physical ID card but, if they wish to travel abroad, they will have to provide the same information for storage in the national database. They will also still have to pay the nearly $200 fee charged for both an ID card and passport – or stay in the UK for the rest of their lives.
Some 6.6 million people apply for travel documents in the UK each year.
"This comment confirms long standing suspicions that the government's claim that the ID database will be voluntary is simply not true," said Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg.
"The voluntary claim is serving as a fig leaf for a universal compulsory system. Once again the government's ID card plans are being pursued behind the backs of the British people."



THIS IS WAR


This is war!



March 11, 2007





Weapons for Winning a War Without FightingYou are a target in a war. So are your children, grandchildren, parents, and the people half way around the world whom you have never met. The war is for resources and you are in the way.
You Are In the Way. It’s that simple.
US foreign policy became very clear in the December 10, 1974 National Security Study Memorandum, “NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests” also called the Kissinger Document. In it, an explicit policy by which the US would promote rapid population decline in 13 countries was articulated. Kissinger’s now famous (and declassified) quote sums up the elaborate plan:
“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”
NSSM 200 became official US policy in November 1975 under President Gerald Ford. Birth control, war and famine were all tools to serve US access to mineral resources without impediments caused by third word populations who were to be eliminated. Brent Scowcroft, Kissinger’s replacement as National Security Adviser was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, along with the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, and Agriculture.Brazil Noticed
Carrying out this depopulation agenda, other agencies besides those most closely identified publicly with the US are active as well.
Former Brazilian Health Minster Carlos Santana, for example, pointed out that “The World Bank, through their reports of its Presidents, has always made its proselytizing for a rigid birth control policy explicit,” and that included in World Bank credit packages and investment in Third World countries is an implicit agenda of depopulation. He questioned why Brazil was targeted for birth reduction, with approximately forty per cent of Brazilian woman having been already sterilized.Quotes Worth Noting
The architects and engineers of global depopulation include iconic figures, corporate and governmental leaders and national decision-makers.
Depopulation programs worldwide are directed and funded by major international money interests, including McGeorge Bundy of the Council on Foreign Relations, (the architect of the US nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD policy); Warren E. Buffet, the second wealthiest man in the United States; and, long term supporters of eugenics, the Rockefellers.
In 1998, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, announced “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”**
Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon Magazine said, “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” and is using his purported $1Billion “gift” to the UN to further global depopulation programs.
UNESCO Courier, Jacques-Yves Cousteau, the famous Emmy award winning film producer and ambassador for the environmental movement, said in 1991,
“It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”
As Alex Jones pointed out, “That works out to 127,750,000 people per year, and 1.27 billion people over 10 years.”***
But what about the US? Is anyone trying to get rid of us? Look at what the USDA and FDA permit as “food” and tell me whether the preventable diseases of under nutrition and toxicity which are killing us to the great profit of the “Bigs” (Big Pharma at the top of the list, of course, but Big Chema, Big Biotechna, Big Abgribiz and Big Medica) could possibly have been regulated this disastrously by accident alone.
Help Me Out Here
Tell me if you believe
* That the permission to market spectacularly toxic drugs long after their dangers are know is caused by simple incompetence and greed.* That the policies which support regulators who consistently protect drugs and pesticides and GM “FrankenFoods” which are killing the American population are the simple results of corruption.* That the CDC’s decision to hide the harm being done to our young while protecting the vaccine industry’s profits is mere corruption or whether somewhere, at some level, the real impact of treatments and procedures which are destroying our population through completely preventable disasters is simply a grave error of judgment and that the scientists who try to correct these problems in the regulatory agencies are intimidated and harassed as random acts of administrative error.* That a multi-trillion dollar business which treats people with chemotherapy agents which the industry supported American Cancer Society admits provides any benefit for a mere 3-4% of people suffering from cancer while the US government ruthlessly suppresses effective, inexpensive and safe cancer treatments is simply a result of unalloyed greed.
If so, then you can buy the notion that the disastrous (and wildly profitable) deaths by pharmaceuticals which account for huge numbers of preventable deaths in the developed world (according to journals like the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, etc.) could be due to corrupt regulators alone.
It also means that you buy the story that degraded and depleted food laced with poisons is regulated onto our tables and shelves by accident. That Donald Rumsfeld’s statement (as the CEO of Searle) that he wanted Aspartame approved by the FDA and he did “not care how many people it killed” was just a poor turn of phrase.
That means that you are comfortable that the depopulation agenda being so vigorously pursued elsewhere in the world does not touch the shores of the US.
Are You Disposable?
No one, rich or poor, believes they are disposable. And they are right.
I have traveled to places populated by some of the most abjectly poor people in the world on the health freedom trail. People without any way out of that abject poverty, people starving and watching their children starve, have not been willing, just as you and I are not willing, to hold up their hands and say, “Yes, I am a useless eater! For the sake of the elite and their comforts, my children and I are willing to be eliminated.”
Yet read what a leading proponent of eugenics/depopulation has to say about those stubborn people who for some reason will not willingly class themselves as useless eaters for their own good!:
“The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters … We must ask ourselves, what have we done wrong?
I think we have failed to take into account a trait which is almost universal and is very deep in human nature. People simply are not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character was formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation. We have asked whole groups of people to accept this idea and we have asked individuals to accept it. They have constantly refused and we have all but killed the eugenic movement … they won’t accept the idea that they are in general second rate. We must rely on other motivation. … it is surely possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection. But the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let’s stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let’s base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted.”
- From Galton and Mid Century Eugenics by Frederick Osborn, Galton Lecture 1956, in Eugenics Review, vol. 48, 1, 1956Weaponizing Food
Using food as a weapon goes back to the beginning of inter-group struggle. Sieges are mounted to starve the opposing side. Scorched earth policies deprive peasant and warrior alike of the food they need to survive. Food has been a weapon of tribal and national policy since there were tribes and nations. The US upper echelon policy makers and their friends the would-be masters of the planet have taken this ancient form of intentional misery and death one step further.
With chilling directness, food was officially weaponized by NSSM 200 which the US has never repudiated. The document states, “Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”…. “Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now,” the document continued, adding, “Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?” Among the conclusions reached by NSSM 200 is that “mandatory [emphasis added] population control measures” may be “appropriate.”* NSSM 200 states that “large-scale famine of a kind not experienced for several decades—a kind the world thought had been permanently banished,…can be expected” as policy events and points out “In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion” and suggests that the UN and other agencies be used to carry out these policies.
Codex: A Perfect Disguise
Codex works perfectly for that purpose. If you were turning food into a tool of depopulation and political control, wouldn’t you do exactly what the Codex Commission has done? Wouldn’t you create a high sounding international body to “protect consumer health” and “ensure the free trade of food” while bringing your less developed brethren along to develop their “science based” agriculture and food processing capabilities? Wouldn’t you make sure that higher and higher levels of deadly chemicals, hormones and other toxins (including heavy metals and animal drug residues) were lacing their foods and get them to want to pay you premium prices for helping them to contaminate their own food and buy your illness-inducing “food” at the same time? Wouldn’t you set up seemingly scientific “risk analysis” procedures to mandate global mal- and under-nutrition knowing that, as Linus Pauling said, every disease is caused by a nutritional deficiency”? Then you could sanctimoniously declare that the “preventable diseases of under nutrition” were killing more and more and more people and wasn’t it terrible!
Supposedly “Science Based” and advisory in nature, and backed up by WTO trade sanctions (unless countries follow our two step protective strategy), Codex serves the interests of the multinational corporations which are controlled by people whose idea of a really great planet is one without 5/6 of the people on it now. You have to hand it to the would-be masters: Codex is a brilliantly constructed, glossy and beautifully crafted deception and disinformation system.
Third world countries are led down the disastrous garden path of depleted and damaged food resulting in peoples with weakened immune systems who are under nourished and over fed on nutrient poor food. Their food is irradiated, contaminated with highly profitable chemicals, genetically modified foods and the results are inevitable.
Codex Delegates Disinformed
The men and women who attend Codex as National Representatives and Delegates, by the way, are, in my experience, in the main, good, decent and hard working people who have been totally hoodwinked by brilliant misrepresentation and pseudo science. The amazing thing is how quickly they convert their nagging suspicions and unease to clear understanding when we present the facts as we understand them in personal and direct conversation.
We Are the Ones We’ve Been Waiting For
Success in taking back our food and our freedom is really up to us. We have the information and we have the power to take back our futures. This war has been brought to our tables and our bodies. It is up to us to “Join the Mouth Revolution” in more ways than just spitting out fake food. We need to speak, we need to educate, we need to purchase healthy foods and nutrients, and we need to share what we know with everyone we reach. The stakes are literally life and death. Yours, mine and theirs.
Marshalling Resources
No army can fight without resources. Human resources are precious and so are monetary resources. We need your creativity as volunteers, organizers, and artists. And, yes, we need your donation.
We still have $22,341 to raise by the end of March in order to meet our goal. It’s really important that we do meet it so we can continue our work. We need your help.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
*http://www.schillerinstitute.org/food_for_peace/kiss_nssm_jb_1995.html
** Reported by Deutsche Pres Agentur, August 1998
*** http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/290805chickenlittle.htm


Monday, April 02, 2007

BEE CONCERNS


FOX Report slips in a slap at bee concerns
Reported by Chrish - April 2, 2007 -


With just a sentence or two, Trace Gallagher (filling in for Shepard Smith on The FOX Report 4/2/07) introduced and dismissed an important and newsworthy topic: the disappearance of honeybees. Squeezed into the "Around the world in 80 seconds" was an acknowledgement that bees are disappearing in alarming numbers, immediately followed by something along the lines of "some say this is just the result of poor beekeeping skills," blaming the beekeepers.
It happened so fast - my attention was caught by "bees" and before I could engage, the "reporting" was over. This is one of the most illuminating cases I've seen of how FOX "reports" an issue without educating viewers at all, and in this case not even alerting viewers that there's something they should know. This is an important story happening right now and it will affect everyone, no matter what party, race, religion, orientation - if you eat food, this is meaningful.
It grabbed my attention because I've been in discussions lately with beekeeper friends (my "beeple", or my "beeps") about recent losses locally. They've attributed it to drought precipitated by climate change and are taking a wait and see attitude, mainly because we can't do anything else.
But their small operations are following the same patterns as large, professional ones, Billions of bees have disappeared in a phenomenon called "Colony Collapse Disorder."
One recent conversation centered around the possibility that genetically modified crops (GM) could be playing a part. While genetic engineers claim that GM corn is harmless to bees, there is now concern that a parasite could be effected and that parasite in turn can harm bee populations. Another possibility is the growing use of Insecticides, and yet another is the selective breeding of bees that enables them to work longer seasons. (Professional beekeepers haul their hives around the country, following "the bloom," and the bees pollinate one crop after another starting with almonds in California in February.)
Bees are responsible for pollinating one-third of the US food supply, so this is no small matter. I don't pretend to have any answers; top researchers are puzzled and trying to find the cause before it gets any worse:
"The pollination industry in the United States seems to be teetering on the brink of annihilation. Scientists are concerned that, as a result, many fruits, vegetables and nuts we now enjoy may disappear from the food chain.
Some commercial migratory beekeepers have lost from 30 to 90 percent of their colonies. Often the surviving hives are so weak, they are useless for either pollination or honey production."
This is perfect, an example of a big corporation deciding what you get to learn or think about or care about. How many hours and hours have been wasted on Anna Nicole Smith and Natalee Holloway and Dick Morris and the like, while actual news goes unreported on FOX "News"? We report? You decide.


GOOD-OLDE BOYS




Good-Olde: Altar ("Alter") Boys

VATICAN CONNECTION


People Are Whistling in Wind if Jesuit and Vatican Connection to the New World Order and U.S. Government Remains Hidden



Why do all politicians and influential media figures in the mainstream and the alternative run for the hills when the “V word” is mentioned?

By Greg Szymanski
April 1, 2007

People are just whistling in the wind and following false information when it comes to trying to stop fascism in America without addressing the New World Order connection with the Vatican and its henchmen in the Jesuit Order.

According to credible researchers not afraid to touch the Vatican connection, there is no hope at saving freedom in this country and around the world unless the Vatican and Jesuit Order are exposed.

Then why do the mainstream media, most in the alternative media and every single last politician on Capitol Hill avoid the Vatican connection like the plague?

The reason many truth-telling Christians give is that “all roads lead to Rome” and people in positions of power in the media and government are paid to protect the real perpetrators of evil – The Vatican and especially the Jesuit Order.

Ask why people like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and all the CNN and MSNBC commentators never mention the Vatican? Ask why supposed friend of the people and Presidential candidate Ron Paul and Rep. Cynthia McKinney never mention the Vatican? Ask why big shot radio broadcasters in the alternative media like Alex Jones never mention the Vatican?

Furthermore, why don’t people in Hollywood like Charlie Sheen and Rosie O’Donnell, who have supposedly come-out for 9/11 truth, never mention Vatican and Jesuit ties to New World Order and Illuminati terror?

The reason is very simple according to a number of truth-telling patriots: The reason is they all are either uninformed, cowards or working with the Jesuits and Vatican, protecting their evil ways why laughing at Americans all the way to the bank.

Furthermore, why won’t any of the above-mentioned political and media figures enter in an intelligent debate about the Vatican’s wealth and control over U.S. foreign and domesticv policy? Ask yourself if Ron Paul is really working for you, the people of America, why does he run for the hills when the Vatican question is raised?

The following emails sent to the Arctic Beacon by 9/11 truth seeker, Phil Jayhan, and author of the Vatican Assassins III, Eric Phelps, should give the reader an incite never told anywhere in the mainstream or alternative media.

First Eric Phelps, who has gone on the record saying Rep. Paul works for the Vatican-led NWO since both the control of the political left and right is Jesuit strategy working at its best. In the following emails he addresses Avro Manhattan and broadcaster Alex Jones as well as Hutton and Mel Gibson:


On Manhattan:
Avro Manhattan, the greatest 20th century historian on the crimes of the Vatican, was indeed a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor. He was a member of British Intelligence (MI5, MI6); was a personal friend of MI5/CIA/KGB agent Kim Philby; was a Fabian Socialist by which wicked organization the Jesuits put Lenin in power in 1917; was a personal friend of the Order's Irish Catholic Fabian Socialist, Irish Home Ruler and friend of Stalin enjoying the red carpet into Moscow during the reign of "Koba;" and was a friend of New Ager Freemason H. G. Wells---the writer of The Time Machine depicting the loss of the history and culture of the White Protestant peoples then being preyed upon by cannibals.

Manhattan was also a great promoter of the Pope's Cold War Hoax. He never exposed Rome's control of Moscow or Peking. Avro was a most successful Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor and is described as such in VAIII.

On Jones and the Gibsons:

Unfortunately, Alex Jones is indeed a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor. The detailed work he has performed and his many lower-level conclusions are absolutely correct. But when it comes to the grand question of "Who Rules?" he fades away into the woodwork refusing to even mention the "J" word. This keeps people agitated and produces the fear he seeks to induce. His intense facial expressions, his abrasive voice and his obvious collusion with coadjutors of power such as George W. Bush, Michael Moore and David Gergen, reveals his true part he has been ordered to perform.

All your points are correct. Butch Paugh has an allegience to Opus Dei Hutton Gibson that he will never break. Of course Opus Dei Mel Gibson is the dear friend of William J. Fulco, the Jesuit who oversaw the all-seeing-eyed Jesus of The Passion.

Tony Alamo has paid the price for resisting the Order with his time in prison. But he remained faithful, and is a great encouragement to me. My request to you is that if you believe Jones is the Coadjutor that he in fact is, then please join with me and others in exposing this agent provocateur. For he will ultimately lead his followers to blame all Jews in general (as does Piper, Makow, Marrs and others) when the blame for the NWO---the return to the Pope's Dark Ages---should be clearly placed on the Jesuits and their master, the Black Pope.

And regarding Charlie Sheen and Jones related to 9/11, Phil Jayhan comments:

And is Alex Jones unaware of all these allegations, many of them documented, regarding Charlie Sheen? Is it possible Alex Jones is unaware of them? Is it possible that Charlie Sheen was chosen to come forth with these issues of 9/11 simply because he could be so easily written off and discredited? Because if his testimony attracted more attention than they suspected it would, that these allegations would be brought, and the tough questions asked? And who benefited directly from him coming forth? We saw above that the two people who benefited the most were Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen, in that order. And then in short order, CSPAN. And who owns all of the News Media in this nation? We all know that it is 110% owned by the bad guys! Thus we have to ask ourselves tough questions when we see them cover an issue, that they themselves would like to go away. Who benefits? Whats the purpose? Were they simply using Alex Jones as an unwitting dupe? Or are they in the process of making him the next Rush Limbaugh? Who is 10 miles wide, and a 1/2 an inch deep....

Alex Jones claims to be the Father of the 911 Truth Movement. This is an extremely arrogant claim, when so many millions are and have become a part of it. He makes these claims because he was the only one who 'predicted 911' before it happened. How was he able to predict 911 first of all? And if he is so able to connect the harder dots, why is it that Alex Jones cannot and will not connect the dots regarding the Vatican? Is this more Hufschmid talk? No. Alex Jones goes on and on and on about the Globalists, and has mentioned the Illuminati hundreds of thousands of times in his short career, and to my knowledge never made the connection publicly that the Illuminati were created by the Vatican! Why not? Is all it takes is about 5 minutes on a google search to find these truths out. Seriously, 5 minutes on google will show you that both modern branches of the Illuminati were created by the Vatican. So why is Alex unable to make the connection between the Illuminati and the Vatican, while being able to predict 911? Could it be because he is a plant, and controlled opposition? Sometimes as I have learned in being part of 911, disinformation takes many different faces. Sometimes disinformation comes in the form of information overload, and with a little bit of gate-keeping thrown in, or if you will, sometimes disinformation comes in what a person doesn't hear, and what isn't spoken about, what dots are NOT connected, etc...

And let me say here that Alex Jones is not my Father. The Truth is my Father. And will allow the Truth to guide me withersoever it may lead me, and couldn't care less about the destination. If I find that the Girl Scouts had something to do with 911, and actively helping to suppress it, I would preach these truths as well, and ask the appropriate questions as well, those darned lousy Girl scouts.. [Said like angry Homer]

It is obvious that Alex Jones wants to be the leader of all of us, and claim us as his own. Or else he would never make such arrogant statements claiming to be the "father of 911." It is also obvious he wants all of us to come under the single umbrella leadership of himself. Why? What are his motives? Do we want him as our fearless leader? Are we willing to throw away our independence and lose this in favor of a "False Unity?" To become Ditto-Heads of yet another person? To become mind numbed robots of yet another possibly controlled personality? To be ever learning but never able to come to a complete knowledge of our own slavery and actually seeing the face of those who have enslaved us? Can you ever possibly hope to break free from your captor if you first don't know your a slave, and secondly without ever seeing and knowing the face of that captor, slave owner?

And in closing I would like to point out that all I am doing is asking relevant questions, and doing the very thing that Alex Jones tells me to do in most of his broadcasts. Which is to check into all the things he is claiming and see for myself if they are not so. And I have started to do that very thing, and found Mr. Jones of questionable character, as well as weighed him in the balance and found him to come up wanting. As well as finding that many things he says and claims are simply not as he paints them. Thus, since I am only doing as he commands everyone who listens to him to do, I hope you will all understand my own motives and the reasons for my own questions regarding Alex Jones, and some of those whom he has paraded in front of us as '911 truth heroes.'

Sunday, April 01, 2007

TIME TO STOP, WAR CRIMES




April 2, 2007
Time to Stop Bush-Cheney's War Crimes in the Middle East
by Rodrigue Tremblay



"Today the world faces a single man armed with weapons of mass destruction, manifesting an aggressive, bullying attitude, who may well plunge the world into chaos and bloodshed if he miscalculates. This person, belligerent, arrogant, and sure of himself, truly is the most dangerous person on Earth. The problem is that his name is George W. Bush, and he is our president."
Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law School, September 22, 2002

"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing."
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th president of the United States

"Force always attracts men of low morality."
Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)

When senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) muses aloud about how the U.S. Constitution could take care of a would-be dictator president, who is dismissive of both the American people and the U.S. Congress, you know that things are getting pretty bad for George W. Bush. Underneath the thick layers of propaganda and lies, the president is stark naked. And the picture isn't pretty: incompetence, insecurity, inflexibility, arrogance, manipulation, lies, a gangster-like, sociopath and sadistic mentality, ...etc.

Bush's lack of empathy was appallingly illustrated when, in 1999, as the sitting governor of Texas, he publicly mocked convicted grandmother Mrs. Karla Faye Tucker's begging for mercy, whimpering in derision: "Please," referring to her demand, "don't kill me."—He had her executed.

On May 21, 2000, New York Times' columnist Nicholas D. Kristof warned the American people about GWB's lack of empathy, his insensitivity and his penchant for cruelty when he reported that, as a youngster, growing up in Midland, Texas, Bush Jr. was known to enjoy putting firecrackers into frogs' mouths, throwing them in the air, and then watching them blow up. Nobody paid any attention to Bush's troubling trait of character. Nevertheless, it is well known by psychiatrists that cruelty to animals among youngsters is a common precursor to later criminal violence as adults.—No one should be surprised that under the Bush-Cheney regime, the U.S. occupation forces in Iraq are killing Iraqi civilians indiscriminately and that this administration crafted an official policy of running secret prisons and of resorting to illegal torture.
To compound matters, as an incompetent and a failure, after winning a very contested election with the help of his father's rich friends, Bush made sure to surround himself with like-minded persons. He made a power-sharing agreement with co-oil-man Dick Cheney, most likely under the inducement of rich campaign money contributors: He would play the role of president while the vice-president would run the government and name the all important deputy secretaries. For secretaries, Bush chose people who would not overshadow or contradict him: Donald Rumsfeld as Defense secretary, John Ashcroft, and later, Alberto Gonzales, his small town personal lawyer from Texas, as Attorney General, and yes-woman Condoleezza Rice as Security Advisor, later to replace Colin Powell as Secretary of State, etc. A competent person squeezed into Bush's inner circle by accident. This was Paul H. O'Neill, the former CEO of Alcoa and former president of International Paper Company. But he resigned two years later, disgusted at the improvisation he was witnessing, especially as the invasion of Iraq was being planned under a cloud of lies, dishonesty and misinformation.

As it turned out, the military invasion of Iraq was an apparent case of "redirected aggression", a phenomenon typically observed in the animal kingdom. Unable to retaliate effectively against the shadowy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, they saw an opportunity in Iraq, a country which they had their eyes on for a long time. The country was run by a ruthless dictator, was sitting on the second largest oil pool in the world, and was seen by Israel as financing terrorists in Palestine.

Moreover, the neocon hierarchy at the Pentagon had plans for a war without end in the Middle East, and they were ready and available. Indeed, General Wesley Clark, the former Commander of NATO, has confirmed that as early as 2001, the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz Pentagon had war plans "to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." What we have been witnessing since 2003 was the implementation of this long term plan.

After more than four years, one would think that George W. Bush's misguided personal war of aggression against the sovereign country of Iraq has lasted long enough and has killed enough people. To begin with, this is a war that was sold to the American people on the basis of lies, disinformation and misrepresentation. Democracies should never go to war on the basis of lies and misrepresentation because this means they occupy the low moral ground. Not that totalitarian regimes should launch wars of aggression on such dishonest bases, but for a democracy to do so is a fundamental contradiction in terms and is a sign of moral decay. Secondly, this is a war that has resulted in fanning the flame of terrorism not only in Iraq, but all over the world. This is a failed policy and a failed war. The British are beginning to understand that and have begun to withdraw from Iraq. The only ones who do not understand that seem to be the Bush-Cheney regime and its neocon sycophants within and outside the administration.

So far, the Iraq war has been a total human disaster. Some 3,245 American soldiers have perished (losses equivalent to ten fully loaded 747 plane crashes); an estimated 655,000 Iraqis have lost their lives, and millions of people have been impoverished and rendered miserable. But against all advice, the war goes on and Bush is pressing the escalation button. There seems to be something in George W. Bush's personality that prevents him from showing empathy toward other human beings. He seems oblivious to deaths and sufferings of other people, not the least are the hundreds of thousands of American and Iraqi families who lost love ones in this insane and illegal war.

In fact, the entire military adventure that the Bush-Cheney regime initiated in the Middle East has all the odor of a criminal enterprise. This may explain why the Bush-Cheney duo fought so much to prevent the creation of the new International Criminal Court. Indeed, for this war to have taken place, a lot of principles had to be violated and a lot of laws had to be broken. Bush's proclivity for thinking that he can violate international law with impunity is well known. In his 2004 State of the Union address, for example, he publicly showed his contempt for international law when he said: "America will never seek a permission slip [from any world body] to defend the security of our country".

What laws were broken? —First of all, the Iraq war was never approved by the United Nations. This led then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in September 2004, to declare: "The US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter." Case closed as far as the United Nations is concerned. But there is more.

Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, the Iraq war is a war that violated the Nuremberg Charter. Indeed, the Nuremberg Charter (Article 6) which is both U.S. law and international law, makes it a crime for anybody to engage in the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; ...Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan." —Article 7 of the Nuremberg Charter even specifies that "The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment."

If a Nuremberg Court were established to judge those who planned and initiated the Iraq War of March 20, 2003, they would be reminded that “To initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Moreover, "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience…therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

The Iraq War that George W. Bush initiated on his own on the basis of fabricated lies will be judged by history as one of the most blatant abuses of power ever by any American administration. It is a war based on false pretenses and on false perceptions of the Muslim Middle East. For example, it is not true that Middle Eastern Muslims hate the West "because they hate our way of life, our freedom, and our democracy." Polls indicate that such ideas are simply based on ignorant prejudices. But when Bush II sent American troops storming into private homes in Baghdad and Haditha, and elsewhere in Iraq, shooting first and asking questions later, in a juvenile Texan way, it is no surprise that the entire Muslim world started hating him. That is the way most people view lawless thugs.

If ever there were a president-by-accident, it is the present occupant of the White House. An electoral accident resulted in placing into office a candidate who had not received the democratic approval of the people. And the American people could not have been more out of luck, because it could not have fallen upon a more mediocre politician than George W. Bush. —Unfortunately, it is highly likely that the worst is still to come, with more blunders ahead, if those who have the power to act in the U.S. Congress continue to put their heads deep in the sand..
__________________________________________________
Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com
Visit his blog site at: http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.
Author's Website: http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/
Check Dr. Tremblay's coming book "The Code for Global Ethics" at: http://www.thecodeforglobalethics.com/ or at:
http://www.moralitywithoutreligion.com/
_______________________________________________
Posted, April 2, 2007, at 5:30 am