My Blog

TOPIC: Codex Alimentarius

truthmovement — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:52:42 GMT

from:http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=157 1) Started in 1962 by UN, Imposed by WTO Sanctions Codex Alimentarius was created in 1962 as a trade Commission by the UN to control the international trade of food. Its initial intentions may have been altruistic but it has been taken over by corporate interests, most notably the pharmaceutical, pesticide, biotechnology and chemical industries. Codex Alimentarius is backed up by the crippling trade sanctions of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Any non Codex-compliant nation would face huge economic punishment since they would automatically lose in any food-trade dispute with a Codex compliant country. 2) “Nutrients are Toxins” Is Junk Science Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has two committees which impact nutrition. One of them, the “Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses” (CCNFSDU), is chaired by Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, a physician who believes that nutrition has no role in health. This is the “top-guy” for Codex nutritional policy, and he has stated that “nutrition is not relevant to health”. As unbelievable as it may sound, Dr. Grossklaus actually declared nutrients to be toxins in 1994 and instituted the use of toxicology (Risk Assessment) to prevent nutrients from having any impact on humans who take supplements! It is worth mentioning that Dr. Grossklaus happens to own the Risk Assessment company advising CCNFSDU and Codex on this issue. This company makes money when its toxicology services are used for the “assessment” of nutrients. Here in the U.S. we call that a “conflict of interest”. Codex is made up of thousands of standards and guidelines. One of them, the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG), is designed to permit only ultra low doses of vitamins and minerals (and make clinically effective nutrients illegal). How can the VMG restrict dosages of vitamins and minerals? By using Risk Assessment (toxicology) to assess nutrients. While Risk Assessment is a legitimate science (it is a branch of toxicology), it is the wrong science for assessing nutrients! In fact, in this context, it is actually junk science. Biochemistry, the science of life processes, is the correct science for assessing nutrients. Codex Alimentarius treats nutrients as toxins, which is literally insane. Nutrients are not toxins - they are essential for life. No matter what Codex Alimentarius officials say to convince you that Risk Assessment is a “science-based” approach to nutrients, it is not. And it is worth repeating that Dr. Grossklaus, the head of Codex Alimentarius, owns the Risk Assessment company advising CCNFSDU and Codex on the “benefit” of using Risk Assessment to assess nutrients. 3) Not Consumer Protection - That’s Propaganda Contrary to the propaganda, Codex Alimentarius has nothing to do with consumer protection. Nothing! Codex is about the economic ambitions of multi-national corporations, in particular, the pharmaceutical industry. Using their multi billion-dollar marketing budgets, these industries have launched a massive media propaganda campaign to paint Codex Alimentarius as a benevolent tool of “consumer protection”, as well as to negatively taint the image of natural health options and mislead people to fear them as “dangerous”, so they will take drugs (which really are dangerous). Natural health products and options have an amazing safety record and are remarkably effective, especially when compared to pharmaceutical drugs. Unfortunately, one-time defenders of health freedom such as National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) and Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) have joined the propaganda bandwagon and are spreading false information saying that Codex Alimentarius is either “harmless” or benevolent “consumer protection”. Neither is true. The membership of these one-time defenders of health freedom has become permeated by people from the pharmaceutical industry (for example, CRN counts as its members corporations such as Monsanto® and Bayer®). 4) Codex: Serious Threat to Health and Health Freedom If Codex Alimentarius is implemented in the United States of America, therapeutic dosages of vitamins and minerals (and all other nutrients soon to follow) will become unavailable because they will literally become illegal. Here’s how it would work, in a nut-shell: Due to the junk science use of Risk Assessment (toxicology) to assess supposedly toxic nutrients, a false belief is being engineered saying that “nutritional supplements are dangerous to people’s health”. Using this false belief generates calls to “protect” people from these “toxic” nutrients. After the calls come the bills to set ultra low permissible dosages (remember, nutrients are deemed “dangerous toxins” under this false belief). If enough of us and our Congressional delegates buy this nonsense, we and Congress would blindly comply with Codex Alimentarius’ VMG. And blind compliance is what the industries behind Codex Alimentarius intend. Blind compliance goes hand-in-hand with lack of activism. This lack of activism allows our protective laws, classifying nutrients as foods with no upper limits (such as DSHEA), to be easily repealed and replaced with draconian laws to classify nutrients as toxins. And “harmonization” with the pro-illness, pro-pharmaceutical industry Vitamin and Mineral Guideline is there to fill the void. Only intentionally ineffective, ultra low dose supplements would be legal, with or without a prescription, on the VMG list. If enough people do not take action, we can expect to watch nutritional supplement manufacturers and, thus health food stores, to go out of business, in a domino effect. The only player left standing would be Big Pharma. Therapeutic grade vitamins, minerals, and amino acids would be eliminated from the marketplace (although a few low-dose supplements would be allowed by Codex, as a symbolic measure to avoid suspicion about their ulterior motive). Natural health professionals would lose the tools of their trade (nutritional supplements) and health conscious people would be unable to choose natural health options for health promotion and disease treatment. And that is, in a nutshell, how Codex Alimentarius is poised to make Natural and Nutritional Medicine (NNM) disappear from the legal health world and go underground. Who benefits? Big Pharma. It would take a few years for the above scenarios to be feasible (Codex Alimentarius is meant to go into full global effect by 2010). The slower the process takes, the less alarmed people will be. That’s probably the logic of the architects of Codex Alimentarius. 5) Serves Economic Interests of Sickness Industries Through WTO and Napoleonic Code More and more people are turning to natural health products globally. The “wellness” trend is a major trend in today’s society. The more natural health products people use, the fewer drugs they buy. The pharmaceutical industry, which is part of the “Sickness Industry”, fears the inevitable shift toward natural health care. Instead of accepting the will of the people and rethinking the future of the pharmaceutical industry, the industry has decided upon an unethical course of action: the use of deception and deceit to eliminate natural health products completely. Codex Alimentarius is a shrewd vehicle for protecting the pharmaceutical industry from the loss of income it stands to suffer due to the inevitable growth of natural healthcare. Codex Alimentarius is the resistance of the dinosaurs to inevitability: the burgeoning desire of humanity for a healthier, saner, and more sustainable way of life. The World Trade Organization (WTO) intends to force Codex Alimentarius upon the nations of the world, including the U.S. This would be done under the threat of massive economic sanctions if WTO-countries do not comply with Codex Alimentarius. Furthermore, Codex is based in the Napoleonic Code, not Common Law. That means that under Codex Alimentarius, anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. Under Common Law, we hold that anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted. The difference is the difference between health freedom and health tyranny. Codex Alimentarius would be able to ban supplements by default. 6) DSHEA Protects America From Codex Alimentarius The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA, 1994), an American law classifying our supplements and herbs as foods (which can have no upper limit set on their use), was passed by unanimous Congressional consent following massive grass-roots support organized by health food stores. Millions of American activists told Congress, in no uncertain terms: “Protect nutritional supplements as foods or we will remove you from office”. Congress listened and carried out the will of the people. DSHEA appropriately classifies nutritional supplements as foods which can have no upper limits set on their use. DSHEA recognizes that people use nutrients safely to deal with their individually differing needs for nutrients. The concept of biochemical individuality means that people have different needs for nutrients at different times. Are nutrients toxins? No, they are not toxins. They are substances essential to prevent, treat and cure any chronic condition, in differing doses at different times in different people. DSHEA protects the US from Codex Alimentarius’ deadly Vitamin and Mineral Guideline. We must reach our Congressional members, educate them about the facts on Codex Alimentarius and direct them to vote against anything that would threaten DSHEA. Congress holds the keys to our health freedom. And it is their job to listen to us. Let’s not allow cynicism to tell us otherwise. We did it for DSHEA in 1994. We can do it again in 2005. 7) Your Action is Needed Now! DSHEA is under significant legislative attack right now. Your letter-writing is crucial: if the members of Congress know that voting against health freedom means losing their jobs come election time, they will listen. Our job is to make sure they get the message loud and clear. Take action via our 3 easy steps and send personalized emails to Congress right now. After taking action on HealthFreedomUSA.org, consider getting together with others in your area and visit your Congressional members in their home offices. If we wait, we lose our health freedoms. Once we “HARMonize” with Codex, by the way, we no longer have the right, while we belong to the WTO, to repeal or change that “HARMonization”! Conclusion The objective of the pro-Codex Alimentarius multi nationals is to “boil the frog slowly” so that we do not wake up to it in time to avoid Codex. Once we have “HARMonize” to Codex Alimentarius, as long as we are in the WTO, we cannot amend or change what we’ve been “HARMonize” to. Codex Alimentarius will go into global implementation by December 31, 2009, unless We, the People, avert it. We must act now because right now, with $758 Million spent on declared Congressional lobbying by Big Pharma last year, there are members of Congress who are trying to overturn DSHEA and allow Pharma-friendly free reign for Codex. If protective laws like DSHEA are destroyed, the sanctioning power of the autocratic WTO kicks in, and it will be impossible to get out from under Codex Alimentarius. We can protect our access to high potency nutrients and stave off an adulterated food supply only by putting pressure on Congress.

TOPIC: Health Issues

truthmovement — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 04:40:33 GMT

EXPOSING (AND EVADING) GROCERY STORE FAT TRAPS Shane Ellison M. Sc. The People's Chemist June 20, 2007 http://www.newswithviews.com/Ellison/shane26.htm My wife recently consumed her body weight in beef jerky. What was supposed to be light, healthy snacking turned into an all-out eating binge. Her ravenous consumption of the stuff made me think it must be an especially good brand. I was in a hurry when I bought it at my local health food store - and that’s where I messed up big time. Ignoring the label, I was caught by the number one grocery store fat trap - which was the cause of my wife’s abnormal appetite. A grocery store fat trap is nothing more than a scheme designed by food manufacturers to make you eat more of something that you think is healthy. These foods and food additives are fat fertilizer. They are great for a company’s bottom line, but really bad for your "bottom." Right before she threw her head back to dump the last crumbs of the beef jerky into her mouth, my wife turned the bag over to read the fine-print ingredients. She gasped, "Why the hell did you buy this! It’s loaded with high-fructose corn syrup!" High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is fat fertilizer on steroids. And she knows it. A very fit mom, she keeps her lean and muscular build by avoiding grocery store fat traps. HFCS transforms people into eating machines. Once consumed, it sets into motion a chemical cascade that begins with spiked insulin and ends with feel-good molecules known as "endorphins." Intoxicated by artificial feel-good, the brain is unable to sense overeating and demands more, more, more - and the excess calories get stored in your body. I’ve even heard of kids accidentally taking bites out of their fingers when under the influence of HFCS. Worse yet, many children who overindulge in Frankenfoods that contain HFCS and other sugars eventually become diabetic. From beef jerky to bread and even spaghetti sauce, HFCS has infiltrated most processed foods and turned them into fat traps. Avoid this ingredient at all cost! But that’s not the only trap lurking in grocery stores. "Fat-free" labels These hoodwink millions of unsuspecting victims, and have been a goldmine for the food industry since 1993. The obese seek out this label in hopes of waking up skinny. It never happens - but that doesn’t stop them from getting ensnared over and over again. I can hear the rationale: "It just seems so plausible. I’m fat, so I should eat fat-free foods." Wrong. After the fat is removed, sugar is added. Sugar is great if you’re at a birthday party, but that’s it. Like HFCS, it is nothing more than fat fertilizer and a heart attack waiting to happen. Look for it listed as sucrose, dextrose, or cane sugar on the labels of your favorite foods. Then buy something else - like an all-natural food high in healthy fat. Healthy fat - which you can find in grass-fed beef, seeds, nuts, avocados, and eggs - is essential for proper growth, development, and the maintenance of good health. It provides your body with vital energy, without causing you to gain weight. In sharp contrast to carbohydrates, sugar, and trans-fats, healthy fats tell your body to burn fat and make you feel fuller quicker. Add them to your grocery list. Artificial sweeteners This trap gets most weekend warriors. "Energy" bars, protein powders, and sugar-free goodies - each and every one of them is loaded with drugs disguised as sweeteners. The widespread belief that these nicely packaged foods and drinks are good for you is a perfect example of how marketing strategies supersede medical science and common sense. Artificial sweeteners make your body lose its natural ability to count calories. If athletes cannot distinguish between proper eating and overeating caused by artificial flavors, they will never reach their fat-loss or muscle-building goals, period. Exercise becomes a waste of time. Artificial flavors include sucralose (Splenda), aspartame, acesulfame K, saccharin, and neotame. MSG Monosodium glutamate (MSG) has several aliases you should be on the lookout for, including hydrolyzed vegetable protein, hydrolyzed protein, hydrolyzed plant protein, plant protein extract, sodium caseinate, calcium caseinate, yeast extract, textured protein, autolyzed yeast, and hydrolyzed oat flour. This white, crystalline amino acid is made in a lab and then added to meat products and most canned or packaged foods to "enhance flavor." One small problem: It doesn’t have any flavor. It just enhances overeating - and the food manufacturer’s bottom line. Once consumed, this fat fertilizer not only spikes insulin, it also lowers the hormones that ward off obesity, premature aging, and diabetes: IGF-1 and human growth hormone. And if that’s not enough to scare you off, it can be damaging to brain cells too. Consider the shocking findings by German scientists who recently warned that their country should abandon the use of MSG at once. Why? They found that pregnant mothers consuming this fat trap were giving birth to children who were insulin-resistant. Apparently, fetuses can be doomed to overeating for life, thanks to neuronal damage caused by Mom’s MSG-eating habit. The damage was most prevalent in a specialized group of nerve cells in the medulla oblongata, thalamus, or hypothalamus - the areas of the brain that control proper eating and metabolism. This might be one explanation for the drastic increases in childhood obesity worldwide. Some things are worth dying for. Fat traps are not. If you want to live thin and slim, be alert to these common grocery store fat traps. You might have to dedicate some extra time to carefully reading food labels… but you’ll never fall victim to them again.

TOPIC: The Coming Police State

truthmovement — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:38:39 GMT

By Sorcha Faal June 7, 2007 http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1014.htm United States Orders Concentration Camps Built To Hold Over 400,000 The fears of President Putin that the United States has become like ‘Hitler’s Germany’ appears to be a stark reality today as the United States is preparing to pass new laws that call for the building of massive concentration camps ordered by their War Leaders to be able to hold over 400,000 human beings. Buried within one of the largest pieces of legislation in United States history, known as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, and which US Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott described as being ‘longer than the Bible’, is the horrific provision ordering the construction of ‘at least 20 detention facilities in the United States’ to hold ‘not less than 20,000 individuals’, bringing the total capacity of these new concentration camps to over 400,000 people. [SEC. 233. INCREASE OF FEDERAL DETENTION SPACE AND THE UTILIZATION OF FACILITIES IDENTIFIED FOR CLOSURES AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990. (a) Construction or Acquisition of Detention Facilities-] Kremlin legal experts familiar with American law further point out that these new concentration camps are not for the estimated 11 million Mexicans currently living illegally in the United States as these new laws forbid their detention, and as we can read from this law itself: “Beginning on October 1, 2007, an alien (other than a national of Mexico) who is attempting to illegally enter the United States and who is apprehended at a United States port of entry or along the international land and maritime border of the United States shall be detained until removed or a final decision granting admission has been determined…” SEC. 131. MANDATORY DETENTION FOR ALIENS APPREHENDED AT OR BETWEEN PORTS OF ENTRY. To the grave dangers facing the American people, and who are the undoubted future prisoners of these new concentration camps, many American writers have sounded their warnings, such as Paul Craig Roberts, and who has written: "President Bush claims the power to set aside habeas corpus and to dispense with warrants for arrest and with procedures that guarantee court appearance and trial without undue delay. Today in the US, the executive branch claims the power to arrest a citizen on its own initiative and hold the citizen indefinitely. Thus, Americans are no longer protected from arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention. These new "seize and hold" powers strip the accused of the protective aspects of law and give reign to selectivity and arbitrariness. No warrant is required for arrest, no charges have to be presented before a judge, and no case has to be put before a jury. As the police are unaccountable, whoever is selected for arrest is at the mercy of arbitrariness." To the type of treatment the American people should expect to receive at the hands of their brutal interrogators in these new concentration camps, likewise, they have been warned about, and as the New York Times News Service has detailed how the United States is now utilizing the horrific torture methods once used by the dreaded Soviet KGB, and as we can read: "How did the United States, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, come to adopt interrogation techniques copied from the Soviet Union and other cold war adversaries? Investigators for the Senate Armed Services Committee are examining how the methods, long used to train Americans for what they may face as prisoners of war, became the basis for American interrogations. In 2002, the C.I.A. and the Pentagon became concerned that standard questioning was inadequate for suspected terrorists and turned to a military training program called Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, or SERE. For decades, SERE trainers had exposed aviators and others at high risk for capture to Soviet-style tactics, including disrupted sleep, exposure to extreme heat and cold, and hours in uncomfortable stress positions. Sometimes the ordeal included waterboarding, in which a prisoner’s face is covered with cloth and water is poured from above to create a feeling of suffocation. Some of those techniques have been used on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and in Afghanistan and Iraq, and at the C.I.A.’s secret overseas jails for high-level operatives of Al Qaeda. Many SERE veterans were appalled at the “reverse engineering” of their methods, said Charles A. Morgan III, a Yale psychiatrist who has worked closely with SERE trainers for a decade. “How did something used as an example of what an unethical government would do become something we do?” he asked. His question is only underscored by a 1956 article, “Communist Interrogation,” in The Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, recently turned up by the Intelligence Science Board, which advises the spy agencies. Written by doctors working as Defense Department consultants, Lawrence E. Hinkle Jr. and Harold G. Wolff, the article shows that methods embraced after 2001 were once considered torture that would produce false information." By all news accounts coming from within the growing totalitarian American Nation, there does not appear to be any awareness of this new danger facing them. And, while believing they are living the ‘American Dream’, they will soon be rudely awaken, just like the German peoples of last centuries Nazi Regime, into a nightmare of what they have truly become. But, and most sadly, their full, and final, realization of this nightmare will only be realized as they are led into these camps to disappear from the Earth forever.

Notes From My Recent Visit to New York City and the WTC April 21/07

truthmovement — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:06:50 GMT

Hi everybody, I just came back last night from my weekend visit to New York City. I would like to share some short notes from my 9/11 Truth experience from the heart of where it all started. I will be posting lots of pictures and comments from the different events, most of which will be on my personal page. Let’s get started! Friday: we went to Vox Pop in Brooklyn ( http://shop.voxpopnet.net ). It’s a coffee-house, bookstore, and micropublishing media company. Sander Hicks is the owner ( http://www.sanderhicks.com ) . He can be seen in the documentary “Horns & Halos” ( http://www.hornsandhalos.com/dvd.html ) which is about the making and distribution of the very controversial book “Fortunate Son” about George W Bush. Sander is doing great work in providing an outlet for authors to self publish their books, the kind of books big main stream publishing companies won’t touch. He has also written his own book on 9/11 Truth called “The Big Wedding: 9/11, the Whistle-Blowers and the Cover-Up”. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet so I can’t comment on whether I will recommend it just yet. Sander is quite the character as you will see if you watch the dvd. Saturday: we went to the World Trade Centre. Every Saturday from 12pm – 4pm there is a local 9/11 Truth group called “We Are Change.org” (formally part of NY911truth.org) that puts on street action events. They stand outside the main complex entrance with large banners and hand out information sheets and dvds on 9/11 Truth. They do this every Saturday whether in rain, snow or shine. I can tell you first hand that a lot of people stop to listen to what they have to say. I’m not one to stand in the street talking about 9/11 Truth, but after seeing these guys do it at the World Trade Center, I saw how effective it was with all the people who stopped to listen and ask questions. There were tourist from all over the world who stopped and asked for more information ( I personally heard someone from Japan stop and ask for more info from the group I was standing with as well as someone from Saskatoon!). These guys are the real deal and are doing great work! They were kind enough to invite us to a meeting and dvd viewing they were holding later that night. Two of the main people of WeAreChange.org are Luke and Tommy. Luke gave us an exclusive preview a short video that will be uploaded to YouTube in a few days. Last week he confronted Zbigniew Brzezinski at a speech he was giving and this is something you just have to see, I will post a link to it when it is uploaded ( now uploaded here http://the911insidejob.blip.tv/file/205293/ ) . You may have heard Luke on the Alex Jones Radio show as he is a frequent caller and field reporter. There was also a physicist who just flew in to town that came to talk to us about RFID who has been heading up conferences all over the world about this and other issues like Military Physcotronic Weapons as well as 9/11 Truth. I will post more information about her in the next few days. After the viewing we all had an open discussion about the Truth Movement. There were about 25 people there and they all have the same passion for the truth that we do. All in all it was a truly exhilarating meeting to be around so many people who are committed to the movement. They are planning a big conference in New York City on the anniversary of 9/11 this year, Alex Jones is planned to be there. Sunday: we flew in from New York City to Chicago and drove to the Barrymore Theater in Madison, Wisconsin to see and listen to a live radio broadcast of Greg Palast on the Laura Flanders show Radio Nation. He took questions from the audience and discussed some of the new material added to the paperback issue of his book Armed Madhouse. Interesting broadcast, mostly about election fraud. More interesting though was after the show when we went to talk to Greg Palast in the lobby. He signed a copy of his book and was kind enough to let us take a picture with him, but when my sister asked him what he thought of the BBC footage announcing the collapse of WTC 7 before it actually collapsed, he very quickly said he had never seen the footage and couldn't comment on it then turned away and started talking to someone else. Did he blow us off because of the BBC footage question? It sure felt like it. I’m not sure how to effectively describe what this weekend meant to me, but without a doubt it was truly amazing! I feel completely recharged in my efforts to spread the Truth. Looking down at the big hole where the towers once stood and then looking up at the other tall building around you right where they fell, you must remember, this is all about stopping “them” from ever again taking innocent human lives! Check out my photo page for more info on my trip. http://people.tribe.net/truthmovement/photos

TOPIC: Chemtrails

truthmovement — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:22:08 GMT

Chemtrails: Suppression Of Human Evolution http://www.planetquo.com/Chemtrails-Suppression-Of-Human-Evolution Three Faulty Theories Seeking To Explain Chemtrails Chemtrails are unusually persistent airplane contrails with impacts upon weather and the health of those exposed to chemtrail fallout. They have been sighted in many countries and during all hours of the day and night, though chemtrail spraying usually begins early in the morning and slows in the evening. Air crafts involved in this phenomenon are commercial and military planes, the latter identifiable by traveling in areas and directions otherwise restricted for commercial flights. As pointed out in Stan and Holly Deyo's May 31st Newsletter, there are three major theories concerning an explanation of the chemtrail phenomenon: 1. Weather modification 2. Mass inoculation 3. Population control These theories do not adequately explain the range of data gathered. Weather Modification The weather modification theory arises from two clues, first that increasing cloudiness and precipitation sometimes occurs after a day of spraying, and second that EDB - ethylene dibromide or dibromethane - has been found in chemtrail fallout. Ethylene dibromide has similar effects on cloud formation as silver iodide, a chemical normally used in cloud seeding. But this theory does not explain the presence of genetically engineered viruses and bacteria in chemtrail residue, or the resulting epidemic of flu-like symptoms. If anything, EDB serves partly as a condensation nuclei around which water vapor in the atmosphere can condense, making thick chemtrails visible for satellite tracking. Mass Inoculation The mass inoculation theory is more viable, as aerosol dispersion of vaccines is certainly possible as mentioned in a previous post. The government has put effort into vaccinating its military forces against anthrax. Supposedly, chemtrails are an attempt to vaccinate the entire population against anthrax. But why would anthrax be the only agent, if not the major one, used in such an attack? There are others just as effective and easily dispersible. And with all the exposure of our bioterrorism efforts to protect against anthrax, what terrorist group would be dumb enough to choose something military forces, and possibly with chemtrails the entire population, are already vaccinated against? The government is suspiciously certain that anthrax will be the method of choice, implying factions within, and not domestic or foreign terrorists, will be the initiators of such an attack. Furthermore, spraying is occurring worldwide. Foreign governments are putting money and risk into spraying their respective populations. Since America would be the target of any such attack, spraying the rest of the world is a waste of money and time. Fact is, biological attacks are too localized an event to account for global spraying. The secrecy of the chemtrail phenomenon puts it into the domain of black budget projects and shadow government operations. It is unwise to claim that the shadow government (the same one responsible for the Gulf War Syndrome cover-up, dangerous biological testing upon unsuspecting American citizens, avocation of fluoride in public water supplies, forceful suppression of alternative medicinal and technological inventions, electronic harassment of dissenters, and murder of whistle blowers) is spraying Joe Schmoe in Oklahoma just so that he can live and contribute to the overpopulation problem. Overpopulation Which brings us to the point of overpopulation. If the world's population is indeed to be reduced as drastically as demanded by the World Health Organization and the World Wildlife Fund among many, people need to die, not just stop reproducing. Supposedly, chemtrails are an effort to accomplish this. Single agent spraying, whereby what's being applied now to the population will eventually kill them, is unlikely. Right now, people are recovering from chemtrail induced sickness. If single agent spraying was indeed the method, more people would be dead by now. And even with an agent possessing delayed lethality, the variability in immune responses among affected persons would result in some dying prematurely. Since chemtrail related deaths have been extremely low, the possibility of chemtrails containing delayed single agents is equally low. Double agent spraying is another possibility. One benign agent is applied now, and its combination with an activator in the future would turn it lethal. The activator can be anything from another biological or chemical substances to electromagnetic fields such as those potentially generated by HAARP. The electromagnetic method is pure speculation and thus considered unlikely. Applying the activator agent would result only in the deaths of those affected by the benign agent. This is a lot of work, hassle, and risk compared to just applying a single agent at that time and skipping ever having to deal with a benign agent. Why do double agent spraying and take the risk with visible chemtrails and whistle blowers now, when you can keep everything clandestine until that final day when you apply a lethal single application? Double agent spraying is obviously not the method employed. Since single agent spraying has been discounted above, the 'population control' theory does not hold. With these major chemtrail theories discounted, a new theory is required to fit the data. There are three pieces, chemtrails, gene therapy, and mass human mutation, that when put together, give rise to the following theory. So, let's take a look at the pieces of the puzzle in detail. Piece 1:The Chemtrails From the many analyses performed upon chemtrail residue samples and listed on the web, the following substances have been gathered and listed here - as mentioned in such sources as: http://www.egroups.com/message/fr2/126? http://www.carnicom.com/bio1.htm http://members.tripod.com/conspiracy2/contrailsanalyzed.htm 1. Ethylene dibromide - Dibromethane - Banned in 1984 by the EPA - EDB (C2H4Br2) is a carcinogenic fuel additive and insecticide with a chloroform-like odor. It is claimed similar to silver iodide, which was once used for cloud seeding and weather modification purposes. When absorbed, EDB causes central nervous system depression and pulmonary edema, which is fluid accumulation in the lungs. Symptoms of pulmonary edema include shortness of breath, anxiety, wheezing, and coughing. It is extremely irritant to mucous membranes and the respiratory tract. 2. Pseudomonas aeruginosa - A common hardy bacteria that can be found in dirt - suggesting possible contamination of chemtrail ground samples - but commonly genetically engineered by companies as PathoGenesis for various purposes. The natural strains have been found to contaminate hospitals and drinking water. When inhaled into immunosuppressed lungs such as those of victims with cystic fibrosis, forms slime clusters called biofilms which are virtual bunkers against immune system defenses and antibiotics. It can transfer horizontally, meaning between species, genetic information to the host via transduction and conjugation. Conjugation involves the bacteria injecting a genetic package called a plasmid via a 'handshake' into a host cell, which receives it and in effect makes it a part of its own DNA. Transduction is similar, but instead of the bacteria sending a plasmid into the host, it sends bacteriophages - viruses - that contain some of the original bacteria's DNA and implants it within the host's DNA. 3. Pseudomonas fluorescens - another strain of the Pseudomonas variety found most often in soil and on plants. On plants, it produces antibiotics which shield the plant from fungal and bacterial infections. Most likely a contaminant in the analysis. 4. Enterobacteriaceae - Includes E.coli and salmonella which are culprits in cases of food poisoning. Most interesting of the Enterobacteriaceae family is the Klebsiella genus, whose species is responsible for pneumonia infections. 5. Serratia marcescens - a dangerous pathogen that can cause pneumonia. 6. Streptomyces - Streptomycetes are used to produce the majority of antibiotics applied in human and veterinary medicine and agriculture, as well as anti-parasitic agents, herbicides, pharmacologically active metabolites - e.g. immuno-suppressants. 7. A restriction enzyme used in research labs to snip and combine DNA - such an enzyme cleaves open DNA and allows desired segments to be inserted before recombining. 8. Other bacteria and toxic molds capable of producing heart disease, encephalitis, meningitis, as well as acute upper respiratory and gastrointestinal distress. One of the biggest experiments involved the use of Serratia marcescens being sprayed over San Francisco. This organism is especially nice because it produces a red/pink pigment when grown on certain media, which makes identification very easy. At one point, 5000 particles/minute were sprayed from the coastal areas inward. During this time, 1 man died (in the hospital) and 10 others became infected in what was described as 'a mystery to doctors.' Although the military never did many follow up studies on these tests, one results was that it showed nearly every single person became infected with the test organism. In hindsight, now that some of this information has become declassified, it's been shown that during periods following spraying tests, there were 5-10 times the normal infections reported. In summary, the military released Serratia marcescens upon the San Fransisco population to test the effectiveness of a terrorist bio-attack. Following this was an outbreak of pneumonia which killed on man. It is known that within three days of a particular heavy spraying, outbreaks of respiratory illnesses occur in the exposed population. Some develop pneumonia, others colds, flu-like symptoms, and depressed immune functions. Instances of meningitis and encephalitis have also increased in correlation with sprayings. Note that no viruses are listed above. This is because viruses are difficult to detect in the laboratory, much less identify. However, most of the resulting illnesses do not respond to antibiotics, suggesting their causes are indeed viral. From points made later in this article, such viruses are most likely retroviruses such as the adenovirus for use in sinister gene 'therapy.' It has been discussed what is in chemtrails, but how particularly are they generated and for what reasons? Account Of An Airline Mechanic An airline mechanic describes his accidental discovery of a commercial plane's chemtrail pumping system: ...When I got into the bay I realized that something was not right. There were more tanks, pumps, and pipes then should have been there. At first I assumed that the system had been changed. It had been 10 years since I had worked on one. As I tried to find the problem I quickly realized the extra piping and tanks were not connected to the waste disposal system. ...The next day I was on the company computer to look up a wiring schematic. While I was there I decided to look up the extra equipment I had found. To my amazement the manuals did not show any of the extra equipment I had seen with my own eyes the day before. ...The system had 1 large and 2 smaller tanks. It was hard to tell in the cramped compartment but it looked like the large tank could hold 50 gallons. Later is a response from an airline manager concerning Project Cloverleaf: "...Airline companies in America have been participating in something called Project Cloverleaf for a few years now. The earliest date anyone remembers being briefed on it is 1998. I was briefed on it in 1999. ...They told us that the government was going to pay our airline, along with others, to release special chemicals from commercial aircraft. When asked what the chemicals were and why we were going to spray them, they told us that information was given on a need-to-know basis and we weren't cleared for it. They then went on to state that the chemicals were harmless, but the program was of such importance that it needed to be done at all costs. When we asked them why didn't they just rig military aircraft to spray these chemicals, they stated that there weren't enough military aircraft available to release chemicals on such a large basis as needs to be done. That's why Project Cloverleaf was initiated, to allow commercial airlines to assist in releasing these chemicals into the atmosphere. Someone asked one of the G-men then if the chemicals are harmless, why not tell the public what the chemicals are and why we are spraying them? He seemed perturbed at this question and told us in a tone of authority that the public doesn't need to know what's going on, but that this program is in their best interests." The veracity of these comments are uncertain, but with other circumstantial evidence at hand, they appear to be truthful. They suggest that for at least the past two years, commercial airlines have participated in dispersing unknown substances during regular flight, unbeknownst to all but the waste disposal mechanics and need-to know staff. How Chemtrails Are Dispersed Next comes the question of how exactly chemtrails are dispersed. This was hinted at in the airline mechanic's account of seeing three tanks containing liquid. The purpose of these three tanks is evident when present patented technology is taken into account. Here is the abstract of patent #03994437: A method and apparatus are provided for evenly disseminating by broadcast techniques trace quantities of biologically active chemicals such as nutrients, insecticides, fungicides, growth regulators and the like. The biologically active chemical is encapsulated in a microdispenser such as a filamentary conduit of regulated cross-section and length. The filled microdispensers are then metered into a moving carrier fluid stream, preferably air, and the carrier fluid containing the microdispensers is then evenly dispensed throughout the area. In an alternate preferred embodiment, the microdispensers are coated with a second material which may be either another biologically active material or a sticker for attaching the microdispenser to living organisms such as plants or animals. The method and apparatus is also applicable to biologically active chemicals contained in laminated microdispenser structures for dissemination and release. In the actual patent, however, the author states that the fiber sizes are quite large, with inside diameters of 7-50 mils and lengths of two inches. These sizes he states, are preferred, though not limiting numbers. It is possible that this technology has been updated to produce microfilaments such as the 'cobwebs' seen falling from the sky after chemtrail sprayings. What's important is the encapsulation of biologically active materials in a polymer coating. The minimum number of liquids to accomplish this is three, two to form polymers such as polyesters, polyolefins, acrylics, modacrylics, polyamides upon reaction during mixing with one another, and the third being the biologically active liquid. Another patent entitled 'ENCAPSULATION BY INTERFACIAL POLYCONDENSATION 3577515', describes this process perfectly. Overview Of The Chemtrail Phenomenon Chemtrails appear worldwide, though it has been claimed that none have been sighted in China. The author has personally witnessed them in Germany. Although chemtrails in foreign countries may be due to planes originating from the US, or from US military bases in those countries, the heaviness of spraying there suggests that foreign governments and commercial agencies are involved. As stated, this contradicts the hypothesis that chemtrails are sprayed to protect Americans from an anthrax attack, as terrorists would not target countries other than America, especially many of the lesser countries in which chemtrails have still been sighted. What is to be gleaned from the preceding point is that governments worldwide are involved in aggressively spraying the population with agents that have biological effects. They are in a hurry, considering their frequency and density of coverage, as if a deadline is to be met. The project has risked discovery by employing commercial airlines to help with the spraying, and such a risk can only be justified if the project itself were in the nature of an emergency. They have also risked their secrecy by spraying during the day to affect as many people as possible, when all below can plainly see these contrails are anything but. What worldwide emergency could be of such importance and threat to the world governments? Piece 2: Bacterially Induced Transcession And Gene Therapy Via Vector Viruses This section concerns altering one's DNA via incorporation of foreign DNA from bacteria or viruses. First Clue that Viruses Affect Host's DNA The term 'transcession' appears in a Leading Edge article, quoted as follows: "One of the indications that vaccinations may in fact be changing the genetic structure of humans became evident in September of 1971, when scientists at the University of Geneva made the discovery that biological substances entering directly into the bloodstream could become part of human genetic structure. In one experiment, scientists in Geneva extracted the auricles of frog hearts and dipped them for several hours in a suspension of bacteria. Afterward, they found a high percentage of RNA-DNA hybridization between bacterial DNA extracted from bacteria of the same species as that used in the experiment and titrated DNA extracted from the auricles which had been dipped in the bacterial suspension. Bacterial DNA had been absorbed by the animal cells. This phenomenon has been dubbed transcession. There is evidence that this kind of phenomenon is happening all the time within the human body. It is conceivable, for example, that heart damage following rheumatic fever could the the result of the immune system reacting to its own cells producing a foreign RNA complex after absorption of foreign DNA." For those interested in the transcession capability of vaccines, consider this quote about gene therapy: "Yet another technique is to simply inject naked DNA. This approach wouldn't work well as direct injection into the bloodstream because the body's DNA degrading enzymes would quickly digest it. But some experiments have shown that when naked DNA is injected directly into muscle tissue - as in a vaccine injection - say, the cells start producing whatever proteins the DNA codes for. In other words, transcession is the process whereby bacterial DNA becomes part of a host cell's DNA. The term transcession is more commonly known as transduction, or conjugation, more generally termed horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal means between species, as opposed to vertical which is from parent to offspring. Gene Therapy Employs Viruses To Alter Host DNA This is one way how gene therapy, which seeks to correct genetic diseases, works. Visit this animation for a short tutorial on how viruses are used in gene therapy. Here's another excerpt from an article confirming the use of viruses in gene therapy: "To turn viruses into gene ferries, scientists have developed ways of stripping the genes out of a virus and substituting copies of the genes they want to transfer into cells. The virus is then mixed with cells taken out of the body that are then returned. Or they can be injected directly into the body itself, homing in on the cells of interest. Retroviruses, which insert their genetic code directly into the chromosomes of the host cell, have been used a lot because of their ability to break into chromosomes and insert the DNA. Other viruses are now also being used. One of the big drawbacks of viruses is that the immune system can't tell the difference between bad viruses and those that carry a beneficial gene. So, many of the viruses are rapidly wiped out - that is, of course, unless the immune system is weakened by other chemical/biological agents such that these viruses survive long enough to transduce their DNA into the host." Methods Of Applying Gene Therapy Via Virus Vectors To Patients Non-invasive methods of gene therapy are already well established. A team at the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia accomplished just that using an oral method of gene therapy: Dr. During and his colleagues inserted a beta-galactosidase gene - which encodes for an enzyme that breaks down lactose - into an adeno-associated virus vector. They then gave this orally through a special tube to lactose-intolerant rats. The gene incorporated into the cells lining the rats' gastrointestinal tract, allowing them to break down lactose. "We showed several important things," he says. "We could deliver a gene noninvasively, we could achieve long-term gene expression through a simple oral route, and there was enough gene expression to treat a disease such as lactose intolerance." Even madsci.org has something to say about these non-invasive methods: Gene therapy is one of the most interesting and valuable techniques to come out of the field of genetic engineering. The adenovirus used to deliver the CF gene to human cells for gene therapy is known as a vector. Since most cells normally will not take in or absorb DNA, we need a delivery system to get the gene into the cell. Adenovirus is a good vector since it can infect cells in vivo, or while they?re in the body, which means that the gene can be delivered through an inhaler - instead of having to manipulate the cells in vitro, or in the laboratory, then return the cells to the body. To use the adenovirus as a vector, its genome was first altered by removing all the virus DNA except for the minimum necessary for the virus to live and infect the cells. Genetically engineered viral vectors like this are harmless and usually can?t live outside of the laboratory. But some virus vectors are not without drawbacks: All viral approaches suffer from the drawback of introducing unwanted viral genetic information into the recipient host. Retroviral vectors and adenoviruses have additional disadvantages. Retroviruses are only suitable for delivery of DNA to replicating cells, and present a risk of reversion to replication competent infective particles, whilst DNA expression using adenovirus delivery systems tends to be short lived - thus the repeated chemtrail sprayings over the past two years in the same geographic areas and the use of a host of vectors to ensure success when one fails. Later in the article, one solution to the problem is proposed: "...Novel vectors for gene therapy are therefore needed which avoid the potential risks of using viral material, but can stably transfer exogenous DNA to target cells, to sites and at levels that produce a therapeutic effect." A novel vector with potential for use in gene therapy has been developed by Professor Beverly Griffin and colleagues in the Department of Infectious Diseases at the Hammersmith Hospital Campus of Imperial College. Her team has shown that pseudocapsids of the mouse polyoma virus, consisting solely of the VP1 protein, can be used to transfer DNA into mammalian cells in vivo, to give expression at clinically-relevant levels over a period of weeks. Polyoma virus has a very broad host range which means that the pseudocapsids will be taken up by essentially any human or other mammalian cell. Development and selection of mutant VP1 proteins, together with engineered specific labels may enable cell-specific targeting for in vivo applications. Pseudocapsids completely free of viral genetic material can be produced easily and economically. Polyoma pseudocapsids can successfully transfer up to 7.2 Kb of DNA and research is investigating the production of oversized pseudocapsids. These oversized capsids would enable transfer of much larger amounts of genetic material than is currently possible with adeno or retrovirus vectors." In other words, technology already exists allowing virus vectors to effectively alter the DNA of a host's cell. This is not science fiction. One company among many, AEA Technology, is presently researching and selling aerosol - most likely inhaler, but expandable to atmospheric - products for use in gene therapy. Physical Symptoms Of Virus Vector Afflictions Different types of viral vectors exist, including retroviral, adenoviral, adeno-associated, herpes simplex, and vaccinia vectors. The University of Rochester Biosafety Committee made the following precautions on using adenovirus and herpes virus vectors in medical research: Adenovirus: Adenoviruses are infectious human viruses, which often cause mild respiratory illness. Rare cases of severe disease can occur, and its use as a genetic vector therefore requires the use of adequate containment equipment and practices. Biosafety Level 2 (BL2) is appropriate for many constructs. Particular care should be given to vectors containing genes that make products that may be similar to products made by the deleted adenovirus genes. Herpesvirus: Herpesviruses include infectious human viruses such as herpes simplex virus type-1 (HSV-1), which is the most commonly used vector system. HSV-1 is common in the general population, but can cause encephalitis in rare cases; its utility as a vector system stems from its broad host cell range, ability to transduce neurons, and its large insert capacity. Biosafety Level 2 (BL2) is appropriate for many constructs. From evidence available, adenovirus vectors are the most likely culprits in chemtrail-related sicknesses. In summary, both bacteria and viruses are capable of incorporating some of their own genetic information into the cells of a host. Bacteria do it via transduction and conjugation, and viruses via direct infection of a cell. The Link To Chemtrails Conceivably, one could become infected with either such a bacteria or virus and would feel sick as a consequence. Meanwhile, the bacteria or virus go to work altering one's cellular DNA slowly, before later being wiped out by the body's immune system. After the illness is eliminated, the altered cells remain and continue to reproduce. Sometimes it becomes malignantly cancerous if the gene transfer is crude and faulty - as in vaccinations - and other times the changes are so subtle the body continues to operate as previously, or so the victim thinks - as in chemtrail exposure. As mentioned, chemtrails contain genetically engineered biological agents and make people sick. Does this not hint at an intentional attempt by the implementors of the chemtrail program to perform mass gene therapy upon the population? The question is whether or not this gene therapy is for our benefit, or the benefit of the implementors. Considering how sick many have gotten, some to the point of death, and the overall ominous secrecy involved, it is safe to say that the chemtrail program has sinister roots. If governments are not spraying out of benevolence and altruism, then they are spraying the population to protect themselves. When threatened, one attacks the source of that threat. And what are chemtrails ultimately attacking? Our cellular DNA. Therefore, there is something about our DNA that threatens the power structure. Considering chemtrails are a recent phenomenon, the threat must also be recent. If a citizen's DNA was non threatening before, but is now, then it must have fundamentally changed its structure recently. This fits the definition of 'mutation.' The third puzzle piece reveals why such an urgent effort is being implemented to influence genes of the masses. Piece 3: Mass Human Mutation, Evolution, And Eventual Ascension What is a mutation? The dictionary says: The process by which such a sudden structural change occurs, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome. The Rise Of Mutant Humans There are a great number of sources which claim that new strains of humans have been appearing over the past decade. Not all these sources are scientific, but that is expected with a topic at the fringe of current events. One example is Drunvalo Melchizedek, who in an interview by Diane Cooper said: "Well there are 3 different kinds of children emerging in the world today that I have been able to identify. The first are called the 'Super Psychic Children of China.' The second are called the 'Indigo Children' and the third are called the 'Children of AIDS.' The first one, the 'Super Psychics of China,' we talked about in the Flower of Life seminars. If you remember, the first one was discovered in 1984 when a child was found who was psychic beyond belief. ...Well, it's mostly children, but now they are finding adults with it too - just like the hundredth monkey theory. Now all kinds of people are being affected by it and it's spreading fast. Remember, it started just 5 years ago with almost no one and now it's spreading - just like a disease. It's like an outbreak and this is only the beginning. ...People's DNA is really changing. Barbara Marciniak talked about going to the 12-strand DNA, and I've talked about chromosome changes. There have been many of us who have talked about this - but none of this had been seen by science. Now it has been seen and it has been documented. What's most interesting is his mention of the 'Super Psychics of China.' There are purportedly no chemtrail activities occurring in China. Could there be a link? And speaking of Barbara Marciniak, in her book Bringers of the Dawn, she expands upon the topic of DNA: "The original human was a magnificent being whose 12 strands of DNA were contributed by a variety of sentient civilizations. When the new owners - reptilians - came in, they worked in their laboratories and created versions of humans with a different DNA - the two stranded, double-helix DNA. They took the original DNA of the human species and disassembled it. The original DNA pattern was left within the human cells, yet it was not functional - it was split apart, unplugged." Marciniak goes on to explain that today, humans are having their 'unplugged' DNA reactivated. Whether activation of junk DNA qualifies as a 'mutation' is a question of semantics, but that shall be what it is called here. The most revealing article can be found at this link, an interview with Dr. Berrenda Fox: "Everyone has one double helix of DNA. What we are finding is that there are other helixes that are being formed. In the double helix there are two strands of DNA coiled into a spiral. It is my understanding that we will be developing twelve helixes. During this time, which seems to have started maybe 5 to 20 years ago, we have been mutating. This is the scientific explanation. It is a mutation of our species into something for which the end result is not yet known. The changes are not known publicly, because the scientific community feels it would frighten the population. However, people are changing at the cellular level. I am working with three children right now who have three DNA helixes." "These are children who can move objects across the room just by concentrating on them, or they can fill glasses of water just by looking at them. They're telepathic. You would almost think by knowing these children that they are half angelic or superhuman, but they're not. I think they are what we are growing into during the next few decades." The easiest way to mutate our DNA is through a virus. In this case, the easiest way to un-mutate DNA or suppress it from mutating is with a virus. Chemtrails are not causing the mutations, as children are being born with this new mutant DNA. If chemtrails are indeed causing the mutation, then we would expect older people to possess this new DNA since they've had longer exposure, but the opposite is true. Two Types Of Mutations This new phenomenon of mutation, when not interfered by chemtrails, includes two aspects: 1. Present adults are having their junk DNA activated and/or genetic code modified. 2. Many children born with strange - previously unseen - DNA or with activated junk DNA. When this phenomenon started is unclear. Considering that there might be different categories of mutation, some involving mere activation of latent genes, and some incorporating a completely novel genetic code, it is safe to say that this phenomenon consists of phases. For example, one type of mutation might have begun in the 1970's, and another might have started with children born after 1995. Implications Of Mutations The cause mutation and its implications are most relevant in explaining chemtrails. As mentioned, the power structure feels threatened by what is taking place and are targeting our DNA as a consequence. Mutations are found threatening by the power structure because first, the emergence of humans distinguishable from the rest of the population by their paranormal abilities can cause panic and civil unrest - coupled with racism as hinted in the X-Men movie - which would mean premature implementation of martial law and resulting risk of revolution. Second, with increasing numbers of 'enlightened' humans, the illusion foisted upon us by the power structure will crumble - even if only by the 100th monkey phenomenon whereby enlightenment spreads rapidly and contagiously to many once a small threshold segment of the population acts as seed. Usually, mutation is attributed to imperfect gene replication, whereby errors in the replication process result in copies of copies of defective DNA. This is one reason why we age. Other standard contributors to random mutation include ultraviolet rays from the sun - which knock out small parts of DNA, the remains of which can potentially be copied if not soon corrected by the body, potentially resulting in skin cancer - cosmic rays, environmental pollutants, and ionizing radiation. These however, cause destructive mutations producing tumors, cancers, and freaks. What's taking place to precipitate the chemtrail program is constructive mutation, known more commonly in the long run as evolution. More likely reasons for mutations follow: Reactivation Of Junk DNA Changing earth frequencies are the principle causes of a reactivation. Earth's magnetic field strength has slowly been declining. According to a geomagnetism FAQ at the NOAA web site, based on field measurements since 1850, a reversal based on a linear model can be expected in 1,300 years. Of course, if the model is actually exponential, it could happen in the next twenty years. It is confirmed that DNA's crystalline helical structure makes it very sensitive to low strength but specific magnetic frequencies and wave shapes. Depending on the field strength and Fourier components, the effects can vary from rejuvenation to cancer, with one possible effect being the unlocking or suppression of junk DNA. Knowing that the earth's magnetic field is the integral backbone to a global esoteric electromagnetic grid system set up in ancient times, that junk DNA has been suppressed during this time, and that the recent decrease in magnetic field strength has reached a threshold level during a period coinciding with activation of junk DNA in many, one can hypothesize that that whoever set up the original grid system did so to keep our genetic potential suppressed. This suppression has recently lost its grip, however, due in part to a declining geomagnetic field. Interestingly, HAARP appears to be an electromagnetic aspect of a multiprong approach to artificially counteract this decline and keep mutation suppressed. Chemtrails are the biochemical aspect of the same program. Leading Edge reports at this link that the step-down reflective frequencies are "approximately 1.1 GHz, human DNA resonant frequency, creating a 'cellular system phase-lock'." In addition to weakening magnetic fields, the Schumann resonant frequencies of earth - related to how long it takes an EM wave to travel around the circumference of the earth's ionosphere - have not stayed constant. This, too, has an impact on our consciousness and DNA. A research abstract entitled 'Schumann Resonance Parameter Changes During High-Energy Particle Precipitation' states that sources of high energy particles such as solar storms have an influence on Schumann resonance. This indicates a link between earth resonance and the sun. Consequently, there is a link, however subtle, between solar activity and our DNA. Recent months have seen wild solar activity; this will reflect genetically within the population toward a reactivation of junk DNA - reactivation because wild fluctuations present unpredictability, and since the predictable earth field is one established by the power structure, anything unpredictable would serve to disrupt it. Modification Of DNA Sequence Influx of walk-ins, alien souls, or attached entities account for this modification. DNA is sensitive to more than just electromagnetic fields. It also responds to the body's soul-nature. Soul nature is the vibrational etheric/astral composition or signature of a particular soul. Genetic structure and soul-nature are intimately coupled; a change in one can lead to a delayed change in the other. Walk-ins are souls who replace the native soul in a body. If the soul nature is different, then DNA will change accordingly. Walk-ins can include alien souls, though this occurrs only in instances of replacement by negatively oriented aliens since positive ones are reluctant to violate freewill, and kicking a native soul out of a body is definitely violation to freewill. Most people are reluctant to go willingly. Attached entities are souls who invade and share a body with a native soul. These are usually deceased humans irresponsibly or accidentally attaching themselves to living persons. The two soul-natures heterodyne and affect the DNA and physiology in a shared manner - schizophrenic patients facial features often change significantly after the onset of the mental disease, which often is the result of an invasion by multiple attached entities. There have also been cases of victims of spirit attachment developing a disease having afflicted the attached entity in its previous life. As far as the mutation phenomenon chemtrails seek to combat, if walk-ins are indeed one source of DNA modification, then the souls walking in are of alien origin. If they were of human origin, no threat would be present as this has been taking place for thousands of years. Combined Hypothesis Of What The Chemtrail Program Is Combating The best hypothesis, given the range of data pertaining to chemtrails and soul dynamics as well as the UFO phenomenon, show that the chemtrail program is potentially targeting some or all these distinct groups: 1. Ordinary citizens whose junk DNA are in the process of fully activating - a consequence of earth's decreasing magnetic field, increase in resonance frequency, increase in global consciousness - which evolves humanity's collective morphogenic field and has a corresponding genetic effect upon its individuals - and possibly other more esoteric reasons such as a change in the very structure of space and time preceding the grand dimensional nexus of 2012-2013. 2. Children born with fully activated DNA - same reasons as case 1, but growing fetal cells are more susceptible to earth fields than fully integrated adult cells. 3. Children with alien genetics from physical hybridization by greys - undoubtedly, some children of abductees have alien genes, though so subtly that little physiological signs if any show it. More insidious is a scenario proposed by the x-files, that aliens are turning us into them via a virus - movies and TV shows often clue us into what's really going on, one method that the positive factions of secret societies help mankind. If humans are indeed being hybridized en masse, especially from within by means of viruses or alien manipulation of the earth grid, then the government has reason to combat it using chemtrails. However, people presently affected by this change - whatever it may be - are more positive, responsible, intelligent, and aware. Therefore, one shouldn't conclude that chemtrails are helping us. 4. Human babies born with alien souls, whose DNA is rapidly changing from human to alien - these humans are born with souls from a new alien faction, and since soul-nature and DNA are coupled, the human body soon changes genetically to accommodate the alien soul. It is said new alien faction because old alien factions comprise the bulk of normal human souls anyway. Because chemtrails are a new phenomenon, if alien souls are indeed being born into human bodies, they must be alien souls from a new faction. Considering the positive nature of these mutants, it is probably a positive faction here to help mankind get through the coming end time turmoil. Conclusion Humanity is evolving, emerging from the past millennia of abysmal darkness and oppression. The power structure, knowing its reign is about to end, has worked tirelessly in a last ditch effort to keep us suppressed. Chemtrails are but one small weapon they are employing to accomplish this. Their ultimate goal is a New World Order, global totalitarianism and a reinstatement of their absolute power. The NWO will fail if citizens become genetically empowered to wake up and fight with superhuman powers against tyranny. This is already occurring, and chemtrails are ultimately ineffectual at preventing the inevitable. Few know the chemtrail program's true purpose, and most of those implementing it have been told lies. They believe the 'mass vaccination' scenario, that what they are doing is beneficial to citizens. Unfortunately this illusion, like all others created by the power structure, shall fall away in due time. That time is rapidly approaching. Chemtrails are merely delaying what is destined, and what is destined is the glorious revival of human sovereignty and victory of the human spirit.

TOPIC: Chimera - Animal-Human Hybrids

truthmovement — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:00:02 GMT

Maryann Mott National Geographic News January 25, 2005 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras—a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal. Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003 successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created. They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their stem cells. In Minnesota last year researchers at the Mayo Clinic created pigs with human blood flowing through their bodies. And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains. Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans. Watching how human cells mature and interact in a living creature may also lead to the discoveries of new medical treatments. But creating human-animal chimeras—named after a monster in Greek mythology that had a lion's head, goat's body, and serpent's tail—has raised troubling questions: What new subhuman combination should be produced and for what purpose? At what point would it be considered human? And what rights, if any, should it have? There are currently no U.S. federal laws that address these issues. Ethical Guidelines The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the U.S. government, has been studying the issue. In March it plans to present voluntary ethical guidelines for researchers. A chimera is a mixture of two or more species in one body. Not all are considered troubling, though. For example, faulty human heart valves are routinely replaced with ones taken from cows and pigs. The surgery—which makes the recipient a human-animal chimera—is widely accepted. And for years scientists have added human genes to bacteria and farm animals. What's caused the uproar is the mixing of human stem cells with embryonic animals to create new species. Biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin is opposed to crossing species boundaries, because he believes animals have the right to exist without being tampered with or crossed with another species. He concedes that these studies would lead to some medical breakthroughs. Still, they should not be done. "There are other ways to advance medicine and human health besides going out into the strange, brave new world of chimeric animals," Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute for experimentation on live animals. "One doesn't have to be religious or into animal rights to think this doesn't make sense," he continued. "It's the scientists who want to do this. They've now gone over the edge into the pathological domain." David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University, believes the real worry is whether or not chimeras will be put to uses that are problematic, risky, or dangerous. Human Born to Mice Parents? For example, an experiment that would raise concerns, he said, is genetically engineering mice to produce human sperm and eggs, then doing in vitro fertilization to produce a child whose parents are a pair of mice. "Most people would find that problematic," Magnus said, "but those uses are bizarre and not, to the best of my knowledge, anything that anybody is remotely contemplating. Most uses of chimeras are actually much more relevant to practical concerns." Last year Canada passed the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, which bans chimeras. Specifically, it prohibits transferring a nonhuman cell into a human embryo and putting human cells into a nonhuman embryo. Cynthia Cohen is a member of Canada's Stem Cell Oversight Committee, which oversees research protocols to ensure they are in accordance with the new guidelines. She believes a ban should also be put into place in the U.S. Creating chimeras, she said, by mixing human and animal gametes (sperms and eggs) or transferring reproductive cells, diminishes human dignity. "It would deny that there is something distinctive and valuable about human beings that ought to be honored and protected," said Cohen, who is also the senior research fellow at Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics in Washington, D.C. But, she noted, the wording on such a ban needs to be developed carefully. It shouldn't outlaw ethical and legitimate experiments—such as transferring a limited number of adult human stem cells into animal embryos in order to learn how they proliferate and grow during the prenatal period. Irv Weissman, director of Stanford University's Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine in California, is against a ban in the United States. "Anybody who puts their own moral guidance in the way of this biomedical science, where they want to impose their will—not just be part of an argument—if that leads to a ban or moratorium. … they are stopping research that would save human lives," he said. Mice With Human Brains Weissman has already created mice with brains that are about one percent human. Later this year he may conduct another experiment where the mice have 100 percent human brains. This would be done, he said, by injecting human neurons into the brains of embryonic mice. Before being born, the mice would be killed and dissected to see if the architecture of a human brain had formed. If it did, he'd look for traces of human cognitive behavior. Weissman said he's not a mad scientist trying to create a human in an animal body. He hopes the experiment leads to a better understanding of how the brain works, which would be useful in treating diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. The test has not yet begun. Weissman is waiting to read the National Academy's report, due out in March. William Cheshire, associate professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic's Jacksonville, Florida, branch, feels that combining human and animal neurons is problematic. "This is unexplored biologic territory," he said. "Whatever moral threshold of human neural development we might choose to set as the limit for such an experiment, there would be a considerable risk of exceeding that limit before it could be recognized." Cheshire supports research that combines human and animal cells to study cellular function. As an undergraduate he participated in research that fused human and mouse cells. But where he draws the ethical line is on research that would destroy a human embryo to obtain cells, or research that would create an organism that is partly human and partly animal. "We must be cautious not to violate the integrity of humanity or of animal life over which we have a stewardship responsibility," said Cheshire, a member of Christian Medical and Dental Associations. "Research projects that create human-animal chimeras risk disturbing fragile ecosystems, endanger health, and affront species integrity."

TOPIC: War Profiteering

truthmovement — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:02:57 GMT

"Regardless of the war, the administration, or the various sophistries for expending human lives as a matter of government policy, profiteering from it universally offends all citizens, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, other parties or no shows. Most Americans, regardless of party or ideology, want to believe that any government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” as once put forth by Abraham Lincoln, necessarily must dispense the people’s business and money in a fair, honest and accessible way. As a “developed” democracy, for decades we have established extensive, government procurement processes to ostensibly ensure such full and open bidding for contracts. But of course the street reality is much worse. And unfortunately, despite political rhetoric and platitudes about “competitive bidding,” the indisputable fact is that in Iraq and Afghanistan and the entire, massive Defense budget, those companies winning the largest, most lucrative government contracts have been consistently among the most politically influential in Washington. They have expended millions of dollars to hire former Pentagon officials, to finance federal campaigns, to lobby the legislative processes. We are supposed to believe it is merely coincidental that the recidivist recipients of U.S. contracts, some of whom have committed fraud, price fixing or other abuses in the documented past, also just happen to be those who have most greased the skids in our nation’s capital." Charles Lewis, the founder and executive director of the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity

TOPIC: Vaccine Safety

truthmovement — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:25:02 GMT

........................................................................... DVD resources by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny http://www.nmaseminars.com/VaccineInfoHome.html ........................................................................... Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines World Vision Portal February 6, 2007 James Howenstine, MD http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/vaccines_why_you_should_avoid_vaccines.htm Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National institute of health declared, "the only safe vaccine is one that is never used." Cowpox vaccine was believed able to immunize people against smallpox. At the time this vaccine was introduced, there was already a decline in the number of cases of smallpox. Japan introduced compulsory vaccination in 1872. In 1892 there were 165,774 cases of smallpox with 29,979 deaths despite the vaccination program. A stringent compulsory smallpox vaccine program, which prosecuted those refusing the vaccine, was instituted in England in 1867. Within 4 years 97.5 % of persons between 2 and 50 had been vaccinated. The following year England experienced the worst smallpox epidemic[1] in its history with 44,840 deaths. Between 1871 and 1880 the incidence of smallpox escalated from 28 to 46 per 100,000. The smallpox vaccine does not work. Much of the success attributed to vaccination programs may actually have been due to improvement in public health related to water quality and sanitation, less crowded living conditions, better nutrition, and higher standards of living. Typically the incidence of a disease was clearly declining before the vaccine for that disease was introduced. In England the incidence of polio had decreased by 82 % before the polio vaccine was introduced in 1956. In the early 1900s an astute Indiana physician, Dr. W.B. Clarke, stated "Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an un-vaccinated [2] person." There is a widely held belief that vaccines should not be criticized because the public might refuse to take them. This is valid only if the benefits exceed the known risks of the vaccines. Do Vaccines Actually Prevent Disease? This important question does not appear to have ever been adequately studied. Vaccines are enormously profitable for drug companies and recent legislation in the U.S. has exempted lawsuits against pharmaceutical firms in the event of adverse reactions to vaccines which are very common. In 1975 Germany stopped requiring pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination. Today less than 10 % of German children are vaccinated against pertussis. The number of cases of pertussis has steadily decreased[3] even though far fewer children are receiving pertussis vaccine. Measles outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination rates over 98 % in all parts of the U.S. including areas that had reported no cases of measles for years. As measles immunization rates rise to high levels measles becomes a disease seen only in vaccinated persons. An outbreak of measles occurred in a school where 100 % of the children had been vaccinated. Measles mortality rates had declined by 97 % in England before measles vaccination was instituted. In 1986 there were 1300 cases of pertussis in Kansas and 90 % of these cases occurred in children who had been adequately vaccinated. Similar vaccine failures have been reported from Nova Scotia where pertussis continues to be occurring despite universal vaccination. Pertussis remains endemic[4] in the Netherlands where for more than 20 years 96 % of children have received 3 pertussis shots by age 12 months. After institution of diphtheria vaccination in England and Wales in 1894 the number of deaths from diphtheria rose by 20 % in the subsequent 15 years. Germany had compulsory vaccination in 1939. The rate of diphtheria spiraled to 150,000 cases that year whereas, Norway which did not have compulsory vaccination, had only 50 cases of diphtheria the same year. The continued presence of these infectious diseases in children who have received vaccines proves that life long immunity which follows natural infection does not occur in persons receiving vaccines. The injection process places the viral particles into the blood without providing any clear way to eliminate these foreign substances. Why Do Vaccines Fail To Protect Against Diseases? Walene James, author of Immunization: the Reality Behind The Myth, states that the full[5] inflammatory response is necessary to create real immunity. Prior to the introduction of measles and mumps vaccines children got measles and mumps and in the great majority of cases these diseases were benign. Vaccines "trick" the body so it does not mount a complete inflammatory response to the injected virus. Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome SIDS The incidence of Sudden Infant Death syndrome SIDS has grown from .55 per 1000 live births in 1953 to 12.8 per 1000 in 1992 in Olmstead County, Minnesota. The peak incidence for SIDS is age 2 to 4 months the exact time most vaccines are being given to children. 85 % of cases of SIDS occur in the first 6 months of infancy. The increase in SIDS as a percentage of total infant deaths has risen from 2.5 per 1000 in 1953 to 17.9 per 1000 in 1992. This rise in SIDS deaths has occurred during a period when nearly every childhood disease was declining due to improved sanitation and medical progress except SIDS. These deaths from SIDS did increase during a period when the number of vaccines given a child was steadily rising to 36 per child. Dr. W. Torch was able to document 12 deaths in infants which appeared within 3½ and 19 hours of a DPT immunization. He later reported 11 new cases of SIDS death and one near miss which had occurred within 24 hours of a DPT injection. When he studied 70 cases of SIDS two thirds of these victims[6] had been vaccinated from one half day to 3 weeks prior to their deaths. None of these deaths was attributed to vaccines. Vaccines are a sacred cow and nothing against them appears in the mass media because they are so profitable to pharmaceutical firms. There is valid reason to think that not only are vaccines worthless in preventing disease they are counterproductive because they injure the immune system permitting cancer, auto-immune diseases and SIDS to cause much disability and death. Are Vaccines Sterile? Dr. Robert Strecker claimed that the department of defense DOD was given $10,000,000 in 1969 to create the AIDS virus to be used as a population-reducing[7] weapon against blacks. By use of the Freedom of Information Act Dr. Strecker was able to learn that the DOD secured funds from Congress to perform studies on immune destroying agents for germ warfare. Once produced, the vaccine was given in two locations. Smallpox vaccine containing HIV was given to 100,000,000 Africans in 1977. Over 2000 young white homosexual males in New York City were given Hepatitis B vaccine that contained HIV virus in 1978. This vaccine was given at New York City Blood Center. The Hepatitis B vaccine containing the HIV virus was also administered to homosexual males in San Francisco, Los Angeles, St.Louis, Houston and Chicago in 1978 and 1979. U.S. Public Health epidemiology studies have disclosed that these same 6 cities had the highest incidence of AIDS, Aids related Complex (ARC) and deaths rates from HIV, when compared to other U.S. cities. When a new virus is introduced into a community. It takes 20 years for the number of cases to double. If the fabricated story that green monkey bites of pygmies led to the HIV epidemic, the alleged monkey bites in the 1940s should have produced a peak in the incidence of HIV in the 1960s at which time HIV was non existent in Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) began a African smallpox vaccination campaign in 1977 that targeted urban population centers and avoided pygmies. If the green monkey bites of pygmies truly caused the HIV epidemic the incidence of HIV in pygmies should have been higher than in urban citizens. However, the opposite was true. In 1954 Dr. Bernice Eddy (bacteriologist) discovered live monkey viruses in supposedly sterile inactivated polio vaccine[8] developed by Dr. Jonas Salk. This discovery was not well received at the NIH and Dr. Eddy was demoted. Later Dr. Eddy, working with Sarah Stewart, discovered SE polyoma virus. This virus was quite important because it caused cancer in every animal receiving it. Yellow fever vaccine had previously been found to contain avian (bird) leukemia virus. Later Dr. Hilleman isolated SV 40 virus from both the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines. There were 40 different viruses[9] in these polio vaccines they were trying to eradicate. They were never able to get rid of these viruses ontaminating the polio vaccines. The SV 40 virus causes malignancies. It has now been identified in 43 % of cases of non-Hodgekin lymphoma[10] , 36 % of brain tumors[11] , 18 % of healthy blood samples, and 22 % of healthy semen samples, mesothiolomas and other malignancies. By the time of this discovery SV 40 had already been injected into 10,000,000 people in Salk vaccine. Gastric digestion inactivtes some of SV 40 in Sabin vaccine. However, the isolation of strains of Sabin polio vaccine from all 38 cases of Guillan Barre Syndrome[12] GBS in Brazil suggests that significant numbers of persons are able to be infected from this vaccine. All 38 of these patients had received Sabin polio vaccine months to years before the onset of GBS. The incidence of non-Hodgekin lymphoma has"mysteriouly" doubled since the 1970s. Dr. John Martin, Professor of Pathology at the Univ. of Southern California, was employed by the Viral Oncology Branch of the Bureau of Biologics (FDA) from 1976 to 1980. While employed there he identified foreign DNA in the live polio vaccine Orimune Lederle that suggested serious vaccine contamination. He warned his supervisors about this problem and was told to discontinue his work as it was outside the scope of testing required for polio vaccine. Later Dr. Martin learned that all eleven of the African green monkeys used to grow the Lederle polio virus Orimune had grown simian cytomegalovirus from kidney cell cultures. Lederle was aware of this viral contamination as their Cytomegaloviral Contamination Plan[13] clearly showed in 1972. The Bureau of Biologics decided not to pursue the matter so production of infected polio vaccine continued. In 1955 Dr. Martin identified unique cell destroying viruses termed stealth viruses in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. These viruses lacked genes that would enable the immune system to recognize them. Thus they were protected by the body's failure to develop antiviral antibodies. In March of 1995, Dr. Martin learned that some of these stealth viruses had originated from African green monkey simian cytomegalovirus of a type known to infect man. The Lederle vaccine experience suggests that the higher-ups are not concerned about sloppy and dangerous preparation of vaccines. Animal cross infection is a huge unsolved current problem for all vaccine manufacturing. If this vaccine production sounds like an unbelievable mess to you, you are right. The influential Club of Rome has a position paper in which they state that the world population is too large and needs to be reduced by 90 %. This means that 6 billion people must be reduced to 500 to 600 million. Obviously, creating famines and genocidal wars such as wrecked havoc in Africa, and loosing new laboratory-created diseases (HIV, Ebola, Marburg[14] , and probably West Nile virus and SARS) can help reduce the population. Other elitist groups (Trilaterals, Bildenbergers) have expressed similar concerns about excess people on planet Earth. The company that was projected to produce the new smallpox vaccine in the U.S. was in serious trouble in England because of unsatisfactory quality of operations before setting up their facility in the U.S. Why would their performance here be any better than it was in England? If there are important powerful groups of people that are determined to reduce the world population, what could be a more diabolically clever way to eliminate people than to inject them with a cancer-causing vaccine? The person receiving the injection would never suspect that the vaccine taken 10 to 15 years earlier had caused the cancer to appear. Other Dangers From Vaccines In the March 4, 1977 issue of Science Jonas and Darrell Salk warn, "Live virus vaccines against influenza or poliomyelitis may in each instance produce the disease it intended to prevent. The live virus against measles and mumps may produce such side effects as encephalitis (brain damage). The swine flu vaccine was administered to the American public even though there had never been a case of swine flu identified in a human. Farmers refused to use the vaccine because it killed too many animals. Within a few months of use in humans this vaccine caused many cases of serious nerve injury (Guillan Barre syndrome). An article in the Washington Post on Jan. 26, 1988 mentioned that all cases of polio since 1979 had been caused by the polio vaccine with no known cases of polio from a wild strain since 1979. This might have created a perfect situation to discontinue the vaccine, but the vaccine is still given. Vaccines are a wonderful source of profits with no risks to the drug companies since vaccine injuries are now recompensed by the government. The steady escalation in the number of vaccines administered has been followed by an identical rise in the incidence of auto-immune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, subacute lupus erythematosus, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, asthma) seen in children. While there is a genetic transmission of some of these diseases many are probably due to the injury from foreign protein particles, mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and other toxic agents injected in vaccines. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was recommended by the Center for Disease Control for all infants. When this vaccine program was instituted several infants died and many had life endangering bowel obstructions. Prelicensure trials[15] of the rotavirus vaccine had demonstrated an increased incidence of intussusception 30 times greater than normal but the vaccine was released anyway without special warnings to practitioners to be on the lookout for bowel problems. Children's vaccines are often not studied for toxicity possibly because such study might eliminate them from being used. A large study from Australia showed that the risk of developing encephalitis from the pertussis vaccine was 5 times greater than the risk of developing encephalitis by contacting pertussis by natural methods. Naturally acquired immunity by illness evolves by spread of a virus from the respiratory tract to the liver, thymus, spleen, and bone marrow. When symptoms begin, the entire immune response has been mobilized to repel the invading virus. This complex immune system response creates antibodies that confer life long immunity against that invading virus and prepares the child to respond promptly to an infection by the same virus in the future. Vaccination, in contrast, results in the persisting of live virus or other foreign antigens within the cells of the body, a situation that may provoke auto-immune reactions as the body attempts to destroy its own infected cells. There is no surprise that the incidence of auto-immune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, subacute lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, asthma, psoriasis) has risen sharply in this era of multiple vaccine immunization. Vaccine Induced Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Dr. John Classen has published 29 articles on vaccine-induced[16] diabetes. At least 8 of 10 children with Type 1 (insulin needing) diabetes have this disease as a result of vaccination. These children may have avoided measles, mumps, and whooping cough but they have received something far worse: an illness that shortens life expectancy by 10 to 15 years and results in a life requiring constant medical care. Dr. Classen has shown in Finland, the introduction of hemophilus type b vaccine caused three times as many cases of type 1 diabetes as the number of deaths and brain damage from hemophilus influenza type b it might have prevented. In New Zealand, the incidence of Type 1 diabetes in children rose by 61 % after an aggressive vaccine program against hepatitis B.. This same program has been started in the U.S.A. so we can now look forward to many cases of Type 1 diabetes in children. Similar rises in Type 1 diabetes have been seen in England, Italy, Sweden, and Denmark after immunization programs against Hepatitis B. Toxic Substances Are Needed To Make Vaccines. Vaccines contain many toxic substances that are needed to prevent the vaccines from becoming infected or to improve the performance of the vaccine. Among these substances are mercury, formaldehyde and aluminum.[17] In the past 10 years, the number of autistic children has risen from between 200 and 500 percent in every state in the U.S. This sharp rise in autism followed the introduction of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in 1975. Representative Dan Burton's healthy grandson was given injections for 9 diseases in one day. These injections were instantly followed by autism. These injections contain a preservative of mercury called thimerosal. The boy received 41 times the amount of mercury which is capable of harm to the body. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can injure the brain and nervous system. And tragically, it did. In the United States the number of compulsory vaccine injections has increased from 10 to 36 in the last 25 years. During this period, there has been a simultaneous increase in the number of children suffering learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder. Some of these childhood disabilities are related to intrauterine cerebral damage from maternal cocaine use, but probably vaccines cause many of the others. Many vaccines contain aluminum. A new disease called macrophagic myofasciitis causes pain in muscles, bones and joints. All persons with this disease have received aluminum containing vaccines. Deposits of aluminum are able to remain as an irritant in tissues and disturb the immune and nervous system for a lifetime. Nearly all vaccines contain aluminum and mercury. These metals appear to play an important role in the etiology of Alzheimer's Disease. An expert at the 1997 International Vaccine Conference related that a person who takes 5 or more annual flu vaccine shots has increased the likelihood of developing Alzheimer's Disease by a factor of 10 over the person who has had 2 or fewer flu shots. When we take vaccines we are playing a modern version of Russian Roulette. We not only get exposed to aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde and foreign cell proteins but we may get simian virus 40 and other dangerous viruses which can cause cancer, leukemia and other severe health problems because the vaccine pool is contaminated due to careless animal isolation techniques. Congress has protected the manufacturers from lawsuits, so dangerous vaccines simply increase profits at no risk to the drug companies. U.S. children aged 2 months began receiving hepatitis B vaccine in December 2000.No peer-reviewed studies of the safety of hepatitis B in this age bracket had been done. Over 36,000 adverse reactions with 440 deaths were soon reported but the true incidence is much higher as reporting is voluntary so only approximately 10 % of adverse reactions get reported. This means that about 5000 infants are dying annually from the hepatitis B vaccine. The CDC's Chief of Epidemiology admits that the frequency of serious reactions to hepatitis B vaccine is 10 times higher than other vaccines. Hepatitis B is transmitted sexually and by contaminated blood, so the incidence of this disease must be near zero in this age bracket. A vaccine expert, Dr. Philip Incao, states that "the conclusion is obvious that the risks[18] of hepatitis B vaccination far outweigh the benefits. Once a vaccine is mandated the vaccine manufacturer is no longer liable for adverse reactions. Dr. W.B. Clarke's important observation that cancer was not found in unvaccinated individuals demands an explanation and one now appears forthcoming. All vaccines given over a short period of time to an immature immune system deplete the thymus gland (the primary gland involved in immune reactions) of irreplaceable immature immune cells. Each of these cells could have multiplied and developed into an army of valuable cells to combat infection and growth of abnormal cells. When these immune cells have been used up, permanent immunity may not appear. The Arthur Research Foundation in Tucson, Arizona estimates that up to 60 % of our immune system may be exhausted[19] by multiple mass vaccines (36 are now required for children). Only 10 % of immune cells are permanently lost when a child is permitted to develop natural immunity from disease. There needs to be grave concern about these immune system injuring vaccinations! Could the persons who approve these mass vaccinations know that they are impairing the health of these children, many of whom are being doomed to requiring much medical care in the future? Compelling evidence is available that the development of the immune system after contracting the usual childhood diseases matures and renders it capable to fight infection and malignant cells in the future. The use of multiple vaccines, which prevents natural immunity, promotes the development of allergies and asthma. A New Zealand study disclosed that 23 % of vaccinated children develop asthma , as compared to zero in unvaccinated children. Cancer was a very rare illness in the 1890's. This evidence about immune system injury from vaccinating affords a plausible explanation for Dr. Clarke's finding that only vaccinated individuals got cancer. Some radical adverse change in health occurred in the early 1900s to permit cancer to explode and vaccinating appears to be the reason. Vaccines are an unnatural phenomena. My guess is that if enough persons said no to immunizations there would be a striking improvement in general health with nature back in the immunizing business instead of man. Having a child vaccinated should be a choice not a requirement. Medical and religious exemptions are permitted by most states. When governmental policies require vaccinations before children enter schools coercion has overruled the lack of evidence of vaccine efficacy and safety. There is no proof that vaccines work and they are never studied for safety before release. My opinion is that there is overwhelming evidence that vaccines are dangerous and the only reason for their existence is to increase profits of pharmaceutical firms. If you are forced to immunize your children so they can enter school, obtain a notarized statement from the director of the facility that they will accept full financial responsibility for any adverse reaction from the vaccine. Since there is at least a 2 percent risk of a serious adverse reaction they may be smart enough to permit your child to escape a dangerous procedure. Recent legislation passed by Congress gives the government the power to imprison persons refusing to take vaccines (smallpox, anthrax, etc). This would be troublesome to enforce if large numbers of citizens declined to be vaccinated at the same time.

TOPIC: The USA / PATRIOT Act HR 3162

truthmovement — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:37:51 GMT

USA / PATRIOT Act 1 HR 3162 FROM THE WILDERNESS November 20, 2001 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/nov202001.html Fascism - 1… a. Totalitarianism marked by right-wing dictatorship and bellicose nationalism. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control. - The American Heritage Dictionary. My fellow Americans: "On what legal meat does this our Caesar feed?" wrote New York Times Columnist William Safire as he blasted President Bush’s November 13 emergency order permitting noncitizens the government has "reason to believe" are terrorists to be tried - inside the U.S - by military tribunals. These trials may be held in secret and the prosecutors do not have to produce evidence if it is "in the interests of national security." And the condemned may then be executed "even if a third of the officers disagree." Safire categorized this as a "dictatorial power to jail or execute aliens." Bush’s proclamation is a nullification of the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. At the same time that Caesar Bush was announcing this edict the Justice Department was announcing - as reported in the AP on November 15 - that it will not disclose the identities or status of more than 1,100 people arrested or detained since September 11th, nor will it continue to release a running tally of those detained. As the anxiety level rises in you, you think, "Well, I’m a citizen so I don’t have anything to worry about." Try harder to refocus on your Christmas list, Harry Potter and your job. On October 26th - a date which will live in infamy - the President signed the USA/PATRIOT act, officially known as HR 3162. And you should well note that, according to Representative Ron Paul (R) of Texas - as reported on November 9th by Kelly O’Meara of the Washington Times’ Insight Magazine - the bill had not even been printed and members of the House could not read it before they were compelled to vote on it. O’Meara wrote, "Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new bill were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it." Most of its provisions have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Under this so-called anti-terrorist measure: É Any federal law enforcement agency may enter your home or business when you are not there, collect evidence, not tell you about it, and then use that evidence to convict you of a crime; (This nullifies the 4th Amendment to the Constitution). And, says the ACLU, it doesn’t even have to be a terrorism investigation, just a criminal investigation. [Section 213 - The Sneak and Peek provision]. É Any federal law enforcement agency may, if they suspect that you are committing a crime, monitor all of you internet traffic and read your emails. They may also intercept all of your cell phone calls as well. No warrant is required. (This violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution) [Section 202 and 216] [See FTW on Carnivore, Vol. IV, No.2 - April 30, 2001]. É The FBI or any other federal law enforcement agency may come to your business and seize any of your business records - if they claim it is connected with a terrorist investigation - and they can arrest you if you tell anyone that they were there. (this violates the First and the Fourth Amendments to the Constitution) [Title II, Section 501] É The CIA can now operate inside the U.S. and spy on American citizens. And, as directed by AG Ashcroft on November 13, it is also permitted to share its intelligence files with local law enforcement agencies (and vice versa). The CIA has spied on Americans for decades, but the fruits of that spying have never been admissible in court. Now law enforcement will have the ability rewrite the intelligence as a probable cause statement, conduct an investigation and introduce it as evidence. This, from material that was collected outside the rules of search and seizure. (There goes the Exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment). [Titles 2 & 9]. É The foundation for an international secret political police agency is laid by allowing the CIA to receive wiretap information from any local agency and then share it with the intelligence services of any foreign country. [Section 203] So now a darkness begins to sink over your consciousness. You are mad, first at me, and then you are not quite sure of what to be mad at - but you know you’re mad. Reaching through a guilty conscience you check with yourself and beg of your soul the permission to take the position that you never break any laws. None! You’re a good citizen of the Homeland, a good German - I mean American. What can you do anyway? Then I arouse your rage at me even further by telling you that Section 802 of HR 3162 defines domestic terrorism as "activities that - involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States:… and "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;" or "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;"… Under this definition the blocking of a driveway at a federal building or defending yourself when attacked by good "Germans" at a protest march - while protesting these violations of the Constitution - could instantly make you a "domestic terrorist" and subject to some of the stiffest penalties ever enacted into law. Next, as you retreat further, covering your ears and mind, shutting out the crime that is being perpetrated by your government - against you - you will lash out at me and say, "Look Ruppert, I read the Bill. There’s a ‘Sunset Clause’ in it. All this stuff goes away after four years. It’s just for the duration of the terrorist emergency." Not so. Under Section 224 (b) "With respect to any particular foreign intelligence investigation that began before the date on which the provisions referred to in subsection (a) cease to have effect, or with respect to any particular offense or potential offense that began or occurred before the date on which such provisions cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue in effect." In other words, if the government says that their desire to burglarize, or wiretap you or search your files is part of an investigation that started before December 31, 2005, there is no sunset clause. This could be for a "potential" offense. What is a potential offense? Something you thought about? Something you might have thought about? Now thoroughly uncomfortable you reach for more straw teddy bears. And I, like a hunter smelling victory, will close in on you with words that will both reassure you and make you a grown up. Upon reviewing HR 3162 Congressman Paul said to reporter O’Meara, "Our forefathers would think it’s time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place… They revolted against much more mild oppression." Mao once said that "Revolution is not a dinner party." You squirm in your seat. OK, The Congressman’s noble words stirred you for a moment, made you think of Mel Gibson in "The Patriot." But you realize that you’re not Mel Gibson, you’re out of shape, you have bills to pay, a vacation coming soon. Reaching again, you realize something. "Wait! This is a law. It was passed. It’s proof that there are checks and balances. I’m coming to get you now. Beyond The Law On November 9th, Attorney General Ashcroft announced that he was ordering the Justice Department to begin wiretapping and monitoring attorney-client communications in terrorist cases where the suspect was incarcerated. This was not even discussed in HR 3162. That same day Senator Patrick Leahy (D), Vermont wrote to Ashcroft. He had many questions to ask about what the Justice Department had been doing by violating the trust of Congress and assuming powers which were not authorized by either law or the Constitution. Leahy even quoted a Supreme Court case (U.S. v. Robel): "[T]his concept of "national defense" cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of… power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion that defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart… It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties… which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile." Leahy asked Ashcroft by what authority had he decided - on his own and without judicial review - to nullify the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. He asked for an explanation and some description of the procedural safeguards that Ashcroft would put in place. He asked Ashcroft to appear before the Judiciary committee and to respond in writing by November 13. His answer came a little late. On November 16, Patrick Leahy received an anthrax letter. And, as of this press time, Ashcroft has not responded in writing. I’ve got you now. Moving up the ladder we come to the Vice President, Dick Cheney. The Washington Post reported on November 9 that all summer a major Constitutional clash had been brewing as the former head of oil giant Halliburton refused to surrender to Congress’ investigative arm, the GAO, records from his energy task force. The Post story said, "Comptroller General David M. Walker described the fight as a direct threat to the GAO’s reason for being, a separation-of-powers issue that would determine whether the legislative branch could exercise the oversight role envisioned by the founding fathers." But the Sept 11th attacks have changed all that. A planned suit by the GAO against Cheney to get the records of his task force on oil has been put on hold. Cheney’s violation of the law goes unchallenged in the goose-stepped march of manufactured polls showing support for the administration. Congressman Henry Waxman (D), CA has blasted Cheney on constitutional grounds but there’s little else he can do in the current climate. And now we come to your President, the guy we started with, by asking what "legal meat" he eats. Apparently he eats anything he damned well pleases. On November 1st, after several months of delays, George W, Bush broke the law himself by changing an Executive Order and declaring that in this national emergency he was going to prevent the release of papers from the Reagan presidency, even though release is mandated by The Presidential Records Act of 1978. Of what use could these papers be to Osama bin Laden? These papers would probably shed glaring light on the criminality of the Reagan-Bush (the elder) years of Iran-Contra, the savings and loan plundering of American taxpayers and the hand-over-fist drug dealing by the CIA at the direction of G.H.W. Bush. But now, in violation of the law, you will never see them. Nor will you likely ever see the papers from the 89-93 Bush Presidency, or the Clinton years - not to mention those of the current administration. What a convenient way to cover up criminal actions. Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D), Ill, and the ever-brave Henry Waxman rose to the challenge and wrote Bush a letter on November 6th. They said in closing, "These provisions clearly violate the intent of the law…The Executive Order violates the intent of Congress and keeps the public in the dark. We urge you to rescind this executive order and instead begin a dialogue with Congress and the public to determine the need for clarification of this law." Any bets as to who gets the next anthrax letter? Have you noticed that only Democrats have been getting them? So now you retreat, your decision has been made. Do nothing. This will all go away. In a last gasp of intellectual, pretzel-bending logic you think, "Wait! We still have the Supreme Court." This is the same Supreme Court that illegally handed George W. Bush the 2000 election. This is the court that stopped and delayed hand counting long enough to prevent the final results from being known. Those results - as buried by the major media in horrendously dishonest stories released last week - were written as supporting the Supreme Court’s decision to stop the recounts. And based on that decision, the media recount gave Bush the victory. But, as noted by EXTRA! Editor Jim Naureckas in a November 15 Newsday story, the media found that it was quite possible, by examining rejected ballots, to determine the "clear intent of the voter." Yet none of these ballots were included in the media recount and all of the media organizations recognized that, had those ballots been counted, Al Gore would have won. As constitutional lawyer Mark H. Levine noted in a December 20, 2000 editorial, what the Supreme Court did was to create a one-case only exception where the "clear intent of the voter" - as dictated by Florida law - was no longer applicable standard. By stopping the hand count and overturning the Florida Supreme Court’s correct reading of its own law, it delayed the recount long enough to force a crisis where it could overrule Florida and deliver the election to Bush while thousands of ballots went uncounted. So much for the Supreme Court. One of the greatest decisions to ever come out the Supreme Court - when it was one - was rendered in 1866 after the civil war. The case in question was Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in arresting protesters and rioters. As recently quoted in an eloquent November 15 article by David Dietman, an attorney and Ph.D. candidate from Erie Pennsylvania, the Court stated: "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government." - Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866). So all you have left to put your faith, or your fear, in - as you see it - is the President. You have no faith in yourself, no faith in God, no trust in your fellow citizens and no willingness to experience discomfort. You fail to praise, support and uplift all of the courage that is beginning to reveal itself around you. You draw your blinds and wave your flags hoping for divine intervention before your name or your job comes up on the list. You are a good German, like the Germans who followed Hitler and allowed him to start a war that killed hundreds of millions of people. And when it is all over, when they come for me, when they come for you, when they come for your job - when history sheds it inevitable light on the criminals that today rule our country - you will say, "I didn’t do anything wrong." Oh yes you did. Oh yes you did.

TOPIC: Secret Human Biological Experimentation

truthmovement — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:12:36 GMT

A History Of US Secret Human Experimentation http://www.rense.com/general36/history.htm 1931 Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients. 1932 The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated. 1935 The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occured within poverty-striken black populations. 1940 Four hundred prisoners in Chicago are infected with Malaria in order to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to combat the disease. Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg cite this American study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust. 1942 Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on approximately 4,000 servicemen. The experiments continue until 1945 and made use of Seventh Day Adventists who chose to become human guinea pigs rather than serve on active duty. 1943 In response to Japan's full-scale germ warfare program, the U.S. begins research on biological weapons at Fort Detrick, MD. 1944 U.S. Navy uses human subjects to test gas masks and clothing. Individuals were locked in a gas chamber and exposed to mustard gas and lewisite. 1945 Project Paperclip is initiated. The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence, and the CIA recruit Nazi scientists and offer them immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top secret government projects in the United States. 1945 "Program F" is implemented by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This is the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoride, which was the key chemical component in atomic bomb production. One of the most toxic chemicals known to man, fluoride, it is found, causes marked adverse effects to the central nervous system but much of the information is squelched in the name of national security because of fear that lawsuits would undermine full-scale production of atomic bombs. 1946 Patients in VA hospitals are used as guinea pigs for medical experiments. In order to allay suspicions, the order is given to change the word "experiments" to "investigations" or "observations" whenever reporting a medical study performed in one of the nation's veteran's hospitals. 1947 Colonel E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Comission issues a secret document (Document 07075001, January 8, 1947) stating that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects. 1947 The CIA begins its study of LSD as a potential weapon for use by American intelligence. Human subjects (both civilian and military) are used with and without their knowledge. 1950 Department of Defense begins plans to detonate nuclear weapons in desert areas and monitor downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates. 1950 I n an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Franciso. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms. 1951 Department of Defense begins open air tests using disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed. 1953 U.S. military releases clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia. Their intent is to determine how efficiently they could disperse chemical agents. 1953 Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii. 1953 CIA initiates Project MKULTRA. This is an eleven year research program designed to produce and test drugs and biological agents that would be used for mind control and behavior modification. Six of the subprojects involved testing the agents on unwitting human beings. 1955 The CIA, in an experiment to test its ability to infect human populations with biological agents, releases a bacteria withdrawn from the Army's biological warfare arsenal over Tampa Bay, Fl. 1955 Army Chemical Corps continues LSD research, studying its potential use as a chemical incapacitating agent. More than 1,000 Americans participate in the tests, which continue until 1958. 1956 U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects. 1958 LSD is tested on 95 volunteers at the Army's Chemical Warfare Laboratories for its effect on intelligence. 1960 The Army Assistant Chief-of-Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) authorizes field testing of LSD in Europe and the Far East. Testing of the european population is code named Project THIRD CHANCE; testing of the Asian population is code named Project DERBY HAT. 1965 Project CIA and Department of Defense begin Project MKSEARCH, a program to develop a capability to manipulate human behavior through the use of mind-altering drugs. 1965 Prisoners at the Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia are subjected to dioxin, the highly toxic chemical component of Agent Orange used in Viet Nam. The men are later studied for development of cancer, which indicates that Agent Orange had been a suspected carcinogen all along. 1966 CIA initiates Project MKOFTEN, a program to test the toxicological effects of certain drugs on humans and animals. 1966 U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are exposed when army scientists drop lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates. 1967 CIA and Department of Defense implement Project MKNAOMI, successor to MKULTRA and designed to maintain, stockpile and test biological and chemical weapons. 1968 CIA experiments with the possibility of poisoning drinking water by injecting chemicals into the water supply of the FDA in Washington, D.C. 1969 Dr. Robert MacMahan of the Department of Defense requests from congress $10 million to develop, within 5 to 10 years, a synthetic biological agent to which no natural immunity exists. 1970 Funding for the synthetic biological agent is obtained under H.R. 15090. The project, under the supervision of the CIA, is carried out by the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, the army's top secret biological weapons facility. Speculation is raised that molecular biology techniques are used to produce AIDS-like retroviruses. 1970 United States intensifies its development of "ethnic weapons" (Military Review, Nov., 1970), designed to selectively target and eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic differences and variations in DNA. 1975 The virus section of Fort Detrick's Center for Biological Warfare Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) . It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses. It is also here that retrovirologists isolate a virus to which no immunity exists. It is later named HTLV (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus). 1977 Senate hearings on Health and Scientific Research confirm that 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969. Some of the areas included San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, Panama City, Minneapolis, and St. Louis. 1978 Experimental Hepatitis B vaccine trials, conducted by the CDC, begin in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men. 1981 First cases of AIDS are confirmed in homosexual men in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, triggering speculation that AIDS may have been introduced via the Hepatitis B vaccine 1985 According to the journal Science (227:173-177), HTLV and VISNA, a fatal sheep virus, are very similar, indicating a close taxonomic and evolutionary relationship. 1986 According to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (83:4007-4011), HIV and VISNA are highly similar and share all structural elements, except for a small segment which is nearly identical to HTLV. This leads to speculation that HTLV and VISNA may have been linked to produce a new retrovirus to which no natural immunity exists. 1986 A report to Congress reveals that the U.S. Government's current generation of biological agents includes: modified viruses, naturally occurring toxins, and agents that are altered through genetic engineering to change immunological character and prevent treatment by all existing vaccines. 1987 Department of Defense admits that, despite a treaty banning research and development of biological agents, it continues to operate research facilities at 127 facilities and universities around the nation. 1990 More than 1500 six-month old black and hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental. 1994 With a technique called "gene tracking," Dr. Garth Nicolson at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX discovers that many returning Desert Storm veterans are infected with an altered strain of Mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe commonly used in the production of biological weapons. Incorporated into its molecular structure is 40 percent of the HIV protein coat, indicating that it had been man-made. 1994 Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War . 1995 U.S. Government admits that it had offered Japanese war criminals and scientists who had performed human medical experiments salaries and immunity from prosecution in exchange for data on biological warfare research. 1995 Dr. Garth Nicolson, uncovers evidence that the biological agents used during the Gulf War had been manufactured in Houston, TX and Boca Raton, Fl and tested on prisoners in the Texas Department of Corrections. 1996 Department of Defense admits that Desert Storm soldiers were exposed to chemical agents. 1997 Eighty-eight members of Congress sign a letter demanding an investigation into bioweapons use & Gulf War Syndrome. On the 3rd October 1995 ,President Clinton publicly apologized to the thousands of people who became victims of MK ULTRA and other mind-control experimental programs - is an apology good enough?.

TOPIC: North American Union

truthmovement — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:54:02 GMT

Creating a North American Union? Andrew Marshall Jones Report February 19, 2007 http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/190207_creating_nau.html If I were to tell you that there were plans in place, and indeed already underway in action, written up and implemented by a small group of very powerful people to merge the US, Canada and Mexico into a EU-like super-state, commonly referred to as the North American Union, you would probably respond by calling me a crazy conspiracy nut. Well, call me crazy, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is more true than one can imagine, and is happening right in front of our eyes, hidden in plane sight, and at the highest levels of government and industry. Yes, I am aware of the fact that this sounds outrageously conspiratorial, and in fact, it is, however, it is a conspiracy on their part to not have the public aware of what is going on. The information related to this plan is all publicly available, however, their plan is to not let us be aware that this information exists in the first place. So, who are these people and what are the plans? It’s hard to say when exactly it started, since it is conceivably understandable that it is merely an extension of NAFTA and the cross-border agreements over the past many years. However, there are a few key institutions and documents as well as government bodies that are deeply involved in pursuing what they term, “deep integration” between the US, Canada and Mexico. The US-based think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), made up of top US politicians, corporate executives and media published a document which is readily available from their website, titled “Building a North American Community” (2005). It was co-sponsored by the Canadian interest group, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), a group made up of the CEO’s of Canada’s 150 top corporations, as well as the Mexican equivalent group, Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales, made up of Mexico’s top CEOs. The report came out of a new grouping within the CFR, called the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America. In this report, they detail the direction that all three North American governments should be going in order to achieve this goal of deep integration. Why do they want deep integration? Well, they say that it is necessary for a variety of reasons. First, they cite that it is in the security interests of all three nations, as we all now share, especially the US and Canada, a common security threat, of terrorism. They also claim that it is a response to the challenges in economic security and growth between the countries. Another factor they mention is that it is necessary in order to alleviate the growing gap in economic development between the countries, especially Mexico. The solution they propose to these problems are to continue prospects of a closer military relationship with the US, and bring Mexico into it, looking at security issues as North Americans rather than as separate sovereign entities. It also states that “A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy”. It further directs that we should focus on a “common economic space”. The recommendations of the Task Force are as follows: “Establish a common security perimeter by 2010”, meaning that instead of having borders between lour countries, we should protect the collective North American border around our countries. It also recommends developing a North American border pass. This is in actuality continental ID Card, which they recommend to have biometric identifiers, meaning that it will contain a digital sample of either a DNA sample, fingerprint, retina scan or other equally Orwellian tracking device. This, they explain, is used to create a database of “risk-free” North Americans, to allow them to cross the borders freely, only having to present this “smart card”. It all sounds great and secure, unless of course you’re Maher Arar, and are on a watch list for unknown reasons. The next step, it says, is to develop a “Unified North American border action plan”, which details how all three countries should “harmonize” their actions related to exporting, importing, and to share data about foreign nationals (because we all know the US has perfect data). They later suggest making NORAD a “multiservice Defense Command”, meaning that they want to expand NORAD’s control from air forces to land and naval defenses as well. They also suggest to “increase information and intelligence-sharing at the local and national levels in both law enforcement and military organizations”. They also explain how part of their agenda is to “spread economic development” into Mexico and raise their standard of living. They further recommend establishing a North American investment fund for infrastructure development, as well as enhancing the capacity of the North American Development Bank. Then, they come in for another tricky one, by suggesting to “Develop a North American resource strategy”. This is essentially a grab at the Canadian oil sands, which they specifically mentioned in order to make them not only more accessible for foreign corporations and governments, but also to help fuel the continental community. They suggest to create a North American energy strategy, as well as developing Mexico’s energy resources and form a continental resource Accord. Later on in the report, they mention that we should “adopt a common external tariff”, that “a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” should be formulated much in the design of the WTO, as well as recommending the establishment of a tri-national competition commission to combat unfair prices between the countries and promote healthy competition. Make no mistake, this affects every sector and every person and every imaginable element of our societies. For instance, in the area of health care, they mention “Biotechnology and pharmaceuticals play a vital role in providing new treatments that improve health outcomes and often reduce costs as well”. They suggest the implementation of a “tested once” policy, where a medical product that is tested once in one country, say for example, Mexico, doesn’t get tested by the US and Canada respectively because it already passed Mexico’s standards, which, they say by 2010, are to be shared standards between all three countries. They later claim that there should also be a process of “integrating protection of food, health, and the environment”. Later, they also recommend creating a North American education program. In the latter part of the report they suggest forming a North American summit meeting, where the Canadian Prime Minister, and the US and Mexican Presidents all meet up once a year to promote the North American community. They also suggest making a North American Advisory Council made up of “non-governmental” figures, such as people from the business community. Lastly, they suggest forming a North American Inter-Parliamentary Group. Okay, now that the report has been analyzed, (and please go to the CFRs website, download it and read it for yourself), I will examine who is behind the report and how far along it has come into being implemented. At the end of the report they give a list and biography for all of the Task Force Members. They include, Heidi S. Cruz, an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch, after leaving the White House where she worked for Condoleeza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere of the National Security Council, and before then worked as an investment banker with J.P. Morgan Chase. Nelson Cunningham, a managing partner of Kissinger McLarty Associates, a law firm jointly run by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Cunningham used to serve in the Clinton White House as Special Advisor to the President for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Thomas P. d’Aquino, the CEO of the Canadian interest group, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), used to serve as Special Assistant to the Prime Minister. Wendy K. Dobson, a professor at University of Toronto, former President of the C.D. Howe Institute (a pro-big business think tank in Canada which has published a number of papers on North American “integration”), and was also Associate Deputy Minister of Finance. Currently, she is Vice Chair of the Canadian Public Accountability Board and is on the boards of several corporations. Richard A. Falkenrath is a fellow at the Brookings Institution, formerly served as Deputy Homeland Security Adviser at the White House, and currently is also a security analyst for CNN. Gordon D. Griffin, former US Ambassador to Canada (1997-2001), and currently sits on many corporate boards. Allan Gotlieb, former Canadian Ambassador to the US, as well as Undersecretary of State for External Affairs and Chairman of the Canadian Council, also currently sits on a number of Canadian and US corporate boards. Michael Hart, from Carleton University in Ottawa, a former official in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Carla A. Hills, Vice Chairman of the US-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), previously served as an Ambassador, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, as well as being in the US Justice Department. Pierre Marc Johnson, former Premier of Québec, currently Professor of Law at McGill University and adviser to the UN. James R. Jones, former US Ambassador to Mexico as well as Congressman, and Chief of Staff to President Lyndon B. Johnson. Chappell H. Lawson, the Project Director of the Task Force, is a political science professor at MIT, and before then served as Director for Inter-American Affairs on the National Security Council. Another recognizable name is John P. Manley, former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, having also held positions in government in industry, foreign affairs, and finance. He helped negotiate the Smart Border Agreement with US Secretary of Homeland Security, Thomas Ridge, right after 9/11. Doris M. Meissner has worked as a senior official in the US Department of Justice during the Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations. She returned to government during the Clinton years. Thomas M.T. Niles was former US Ambassador to Canada, to the European Union as well as having served as Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Canada. And of course, Robert Pastor, currently director of North American Studies at American University. He has previously served as Director of Latin American Affairs on the National Security Council. Now this is by no means a full list, however, a mere sampling presents a common disturbing fact, that all the people involved in this seem to be very close to high places in government. To see what corporations are represented by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), visit their website where they present a full list. However, a partial list includes the CEOs of Shell Canada, Imperial Oil, Bank of Nova Scotia, Bell Canada, BMO Financial Group, Bombardier, CAE Inc, CPR, CIBC, CN, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, CanWest Global Communications Corporation, Dow Chemical Canada, Ford Canada, Hewlett-Packard Canada, General Electric Canada, General Motors Canada, Honda Canada, Home Depot, HSBC Canada, IBM Canada, Imperial Tobacco Canada, Kodak Canada, Manulife Financial, Maple Leaf Foods, Mitsubishi Canada, Microsoft Canada, Nortel Networks, National Bank of Canada, Power Corporation of Canada, Petro-Canada, Quebecor Inc, Rogers Communications, Royal Bank of Canada, SNC-Lavalin Group, Sun Life Financial, Suncor Energy, TD Bank Financial Group, TELUS, Toyota Canada, TransCanada Corporation, Xerox Canada and Yellow Pages Group. This, again, is not a full list. Other Canadian groups that have published publicly available reports (downloadable online at their respective websites), on the issue of North American “deep integration” or the North American Union, include the C.D. Howe Institute and the Fraser Institute. Now, when you realize that Canada’s largest media corporations, particularly CanWest Global Communications (National Post, CH/Global TV), Quebecor Inc, and Bell Canada, it certainly can be explained as to why we do not know about any of this, or why it isn’t published in our newspapers. So how far along has this plan actually come? Well, upon investigation, it has come along surprisingly well with full government support and no public oversight. The recommendations laid out in the report are underway. An advisory council was appointed, they are known as the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), made up of representatives from leading businesses in Canada, the US and Mexico. The minutes of their meetings are available from their website. They mention how they met on August 15, 2006, in the offices of the United States Chamber of Commerce. Their job is to come up with “suggestions” on how to better integrate the North American economies in such a way that it will be economically secure and beneficial. I’m sure that none of the corporations involved will seek to profit themselves. The participants from this meeting included top corporate executives from Lockheed Martin (the world’s largest military corporation), the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Manulife Financial, Whirlpool, General Motors, NBC Universal (owned by General Electric), Council of the Americas, Merck & Co. (large pharmaceutical corporation), Suncor Energy, Canadian National railway Company, Chevron, Campbell Soup Company, New York Life Insurance Company, Wal-Mart, For Motors, U.S Chamber of Commerce, Bank of America, Bell Canada, UPS, FedEx, Home Depot and the Bank of Nova Scotia. How about the goal of having the leaders of each country meet once a year? Well it turns out, that started the year that the report was published, in 2005. It’s called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (www.SPP.gov), and it was launched in March 2005, “as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing”, according to the US government’s website set up for this program. In 2005, U.S President George W. Bush met with Mexican President Vincente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Texas, where they all signed on to the SPP initiative. As part of their press release and joint statement they claim that it is designed to “implement common border security and bioprotection strategies”, to “implement a common approach to emergency response”, as well as “Implement improvements in aviation and maritime security, combat transnational threats, and enhance intelligence partnerships”, “Improve productivity through regulatory cooperation to generate growth”, and of course, to “Promote sectoral collaboration in energy, transportation, financial services, technology, and other areas to facilitate business”. Later in the year, a publicly available “Report to Leaders” on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was written up and signed by the following people: Michael Chertoff (US Secretary of Homeland Security), Condoleeza Rice, Carlos Gutierrez (US Secretary of Commerce), their Mexican counterparts, as well as Canadian representatives including (interestingly enough), David Emerson (former Minister of Industry), Anne McLellan (former Deputy PM and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), as well as Pierre Stewart Pettigrew (former Minister of Foreign Affairs). The leaders of the three countries again met in 2006, this time in Mexico, again in March, where Bush, Fox, and then current Canadian PM Stephen Harper signed another agreement for the SPP. Another report was also made for the leaders on the implementation of the SPP, written up by the same US representatives from the previous report, as well as their Mexican counterparts, and this time, with a new Canadian membership, including Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry), Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety) and Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs). Next month, the three leaders are again scheduled to meet up, this time, in Canada. Now keep in mind, this has not been declared a treaty, which is why the Canadian Parliament and American and Mexican Congresses have not provided oversight nor is it common knowledge among all three countries. This is so because it is termed as more of an “initiative” than a treaty. So it is implemented simply by the respective Executive branches of all three governments. So, for the recommendation of having an annual meeting, they have also managed to sneakily implement such a thing. Last September, in 2006, there was a meeting held at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel, the North American Forum meeting was held. It took place from September 12-14 and was sued as a venue to discuss North American integration. Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in the US by Judicial Watch were released publicly on their website. These documents include a list of those members that were present at the meeting. There were three Chairmen of the Forum, one from each represented country, George P. Schultz, former US Secretary of State for Reagan, Pedro Aspe, former Finance Minister of Mexico and the Canadian counterpart, Peter Lougheed, the former Premier of Alberta made up the Chairmanship. The Canadian participants of the North American Forum included, Perrin Beatty (CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters), Peter M. Boehm (Assistant Deputy Minister, North America), Thomas d’Aquino (CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives), Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety), Wendy Dobson (Prof. UofT), Ward Elcock (Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence), William J.S. Elliott (Associate Deputy Minister, Public Safety), Richard L. George (CEO of Suncor Energy), Roger Gibbons (CEO of Canada West Foundation), RAdm Roger Girouard (Commander, Maritime Forces Pacific), Maj. General Daniel Gosselin (Director General, International Security Policy, Canadian Forces), James K. Gray (Chairman of Canada West Foundation), Fred Green (CEO of Canadian Pacific Railway), V. Peter Harder (Deputy Minister, Foreign Affairs and International Trade), Harold Kvisle (CEO of TransCanada Corporation), Gaetan Lavertu (Canadian Ambassador to Mexico), John P. Manley, Anne McLellan (former Deputy Prime Minister), Greg Melchin (Minister of Energy, Government of Alberta), Gordon J. O’Connor (Minister of Defense, Government of Canada), and Colin Robertson (Minister and Head of the Washington Advocacy Secretariat, Canadian Embassy). The Mexican participants included Chief Economist to the President, the Deputy Foreign Minister for North America, Mexican Ambassador to the US, former Deputy Minister of the Economy, former Senator and Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on North America, the Secretary of Public Security, Mexican Ambassador to Canada, a former trade negotiator and CEOs of some of Mexico’s top corporations. The US participants included Leslie Bassett (Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S Embassy Mexico City), Deborah Bolton (Political Advisor to Commander, US Northern Command [NORTHCOM]), Ron Covais (President of Lockheed Martin Corporation), Kenneth Dam (former Secretary of the Treasury), John Dickson (Deputy Chief Mission, US Embassy in Ottawa), Daniel Fata (Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense for European and NATO Policy), Daniel Fisk (Special Advisor to President Bush, Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs on the National Security Council), Ryan Henry (Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense), Thomas Huffaker (U.S Consul in Calgary), William Irwin (Manager of Chevron Corporation), Admiral Tim Keating (Commander, US Northern Command), E. Floyd Kvamme (Co-Chair, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology), William McIlhenny (Member of Policy Planning Council for Western Hemisphere Affairs, US Department of State), Peter McPherson (President, National Association of State Universities & Land-Grant Colleges), George Nethercutt, Jr. (U.S Chairman of the U.S.-Canada Permanent Joint Board on Defense), Mary Anastasia O’Grady (Editorial Board Member, the Wall Street Journal), General Peter Pace (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), Robert Pastor (Director, North American Studies, American University – wrote the CFR document), William Perry (Professor at Stanford University, former Secretary of Defense), James Schlesinger (Former Secretary of Energy and Defense; former Director of the CIA), Clay Sell (Deputy Secretary of Energy), Thomas Shannon, Jr. (Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs), Maj. General Mark Volcheff (Director of Plans, Policy & strategy, NORAD-NORTHCOM), and James Woolsey (former Director of the CIA). Are you concerned yet? If not, you should be. What exactly is going on here? Why are all these current and former government officials meeting with big corporate CEOs to create a “North American Community”? Could it really be that they want to raise Mexico’s standard of living that much? To this day, the only mainstream media voice to come out and say it like it is, calling this an elitist scheme to merge the three countries into an EU-like super-state, is Lou Dobbs on CNN. Recently, he had Robert Pastor on as a guest. Lou Dobbs quoted something out of the recently declassified documents that Judicial Watch obtained, and quoted Pastor as saying during the North American Forum meeting,"While a vision is appealing, working on the infrastructure might yield more benefit and bring more people on board, evolution by stealth." Dobbs continues to explain that this is destroying the sovereignty of all three nations and is completely in violation of the Constitution. Robert Pastor, in an October 24, 2006 interview with a Spanish publication, Poder y Negocios was quoted as saying, “What I'm saying is that a crisis is an event which can force democratic governments to make difficult decisions like those that will be required to create a North American Community. It's not that I want another 9/11 crisis, but having a crisis would force decisions that otherwise might not get made.” This summation of the current processes under way to create a North American Union is by no means an extensive list. There are dozens of organizations, think tanks, interest and other groups in all three countries that are participating in the creation of this new integrated “community”. For example, one organization known as Triumvirate, has hundreds of students from Universities from all three countries come together once a year to simulate a meeting of a North American Parliament. Other participants in the simulations include journalists and lobbyists, however, it seems apparently clear that the journalists aren’t doing their “real” jobs, since we don’t know about it. Their website claims that the main objectives of this organization are to “raise awareness among future North American leaders regarding regional integration issues”, “to develop their sense of a North American identity”, and “to promote the creation of North American academic networks”. Participants in the Triumvirate include American University, Baruch College, Carleton University, Laval University, Simon Fraser University, and the Student Organization of North America. It seems as if Robert Pastor’s “evolution by stealth” is indeed on its way. The question is, whether or not the Canadian, American and Mexican people will wake up to the reality and facts in time to stop it, or in the very least, have some say, because at the moment, what is being done is a disgrace to sovereign Constitutionalism, and a total attack upon Democracy. I am simply writing this article to try and inform people on what I have researched and found to be going on in North America today. Here, we have CEOs of some of the largest corporations in the World, from the largest military contractor and war profiteer, Lockheed Martin, to an oil giant like Chevron, a mega-pharmaceutical corporation like Merck and to the world’s largest media corporation General Electric (also a military contractor), actually sitting down with the leaders of our countries to plan the disintegration of our countries and elimination of our Constitutions, to form a supranational entity called the North American Union. If this Union is ever formed, for ANY reason, it will signal the end of Democracy, because it was brought about through lies, subversion of democratic rights and pure contempt for national sovereignty. You cannot lift an idol of Democracy from a swamp of lies and deception. If we do this, we do it democratically, or not at all. All that can come of this is that we hand over all rights, freedoms, responsibilities, and power to an undemocratic super-state. Sounds good for big oil, sounds good for the power of the military, sounds good for a war economy, sounds good for warring leaders and corporate oligarchy. Sounds like the end of everything Democracy and Freedom have ever accomplished. Andrew Marshall is a 19 year old Political Science student at Simon Fraser University. He can be reached by email at agm2@sfu.ca. Check out: http://stopspp.com/stopspp/

TOPIC: The Peak Oil Myth

truthmovement — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:07:37 GMT

Peak Oil: the point in time when the amount of petroleum worldwide begins a steady, inexorable decline. Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones October 12 2005 http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm Peak oil is a scam designed to create artificial scarcity and jack up prices while giving the state an excuse to invade our lives and order us to sacrifice our hard-earned living standards. Publicly available CFR and Club of Rome strategy manuals from 30 years ago say that a global government needs to control the world population through neo-feudalism by creating artificial scarcity. Now that the social architects have de-industrialized the United States, they are going to blame our economic disintegration on lack of energy supplies. Globalization is all about consolidation. Now that the world economy has become so centralized through the Globalists operations, they are going to continue to consolidate and blame it on the West's "evil" overconsumption of fossil fuels, while at the same time blocking the development and integration of renewable clean technologies. In other words, Peak oil is a scam to create artificial scarcity and drive prices up. Meanwhile, alternative fuel technologies which have been around for decades are intentionally suppressed. Peak oil is a theory advanced by the elite, by the oil industry, by the very people that you would think peak oil would harm, unless it was a cover for another agenda. Which from the evidence of artificial scarcity being deliberately created, the reasons for doing so and who benefits, it’s clear that peak oil is a myth and it should be exposed for what it is. Another excuse for the Globalists to seize more control over our lives and sacrifice more American sovereignty in the meantime. The lies of artificial scarcity The crux of the issue is that if oil was plentiful in areas in which we are being told by the government and the oil companies that it is not, then we have clear evidence that artificial scarcity is being simulated in order to drive forward a myriad of other agendas. And we have concrete examples of where this has happened. Three separate internal confidential memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco have been obtained by The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. These memos outline a deliberate agenda to gouge prices and create artificial scarcity by limiting capacities of and outright closing oil refineries. This was a nationwide lobbying effort led by the American Petroleum Institute to encourage refineries to do this. An internal Chevron memo states; "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins." The Memos make clear that blockages in refining capacity and opening new refineries did not come from environmental organizations, as the oil industry claimed, but via a deliberate policy of limitation and price gouging at the behest of the oil industry itself. The mystery of Eugene Island 330 and self-renewing oil supplies Eugene Island is an oil field in the gulf of Mexico, 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana. It was discovered in 1973 and began producing 15,000 barrels of oil a day which then slowed to about 4,000 barrels in 1989. But then for no logical reason whatsoever, production spiked back up to 13,000 barrels a day. What the researchers found when they analyzed the oil field with time lapse 3-D seismic imaging is that there was an unexplained deep fault in the bottom corner of the computer scan, which showed oil gushing in from a previously unknown deep source and migrating up through the rock to replenish the existing supply. Furthermore, the analysis of the oil now being produced at Eugene Island shows that its age is geologically different from the oil produced there after the refinery first opened. Suggesting strongly that it is now emerging from a different, unexplained source. The last estimates of probable reserves shot up from 60 million barrels to 400 million barrels. Both the scientists and geologists from the big oil companies have seen the evidence and admitted that the Eugene Island oil field is refilling itself. This completely contradicts peak oil theory and with technology improving at an accelerating pace it seems obvious that there are more Eugene Islands out there waiting to be discovered. So the scientific community needs to embrace these possibilities and lobby for funding into finding more of these deep source replenishing oilfields. The existence of self-renewing oil fields shatters the peak oil myth. If oil is a naturally replenishing inorganic substance then how can it possibly run out? The future of oil This year in particular we have seen a strong hike in oil prices and are being told to simply get used to it because this is the way it is going to be. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita gas prices have shot up amid claims of vast energy shortages. Americans are being asked to turn off lights, change thermostat settings, drive slower, insulate homes and take other steps. Meanwhile the oil companies continue to make record profits. Flying in the face of the so called peak oil crisis are the facts. If we are running out of oil so quickly then why are reserves being continually increased and production skyrocketing? In the 1980s OPEC decided to switch to a quota production system based on the size of reserves. The larger the reserves a country said it had the more it could pump. Earlier this year Saudi Arabia reportedly increased its crude reserves by around 200 billion barrels. Saudi oil Is secure and plentiful, say officials. “These huge reserves enable the Kingdom to remain a major oil producer for between 70 and 100 years, even if it raises its production capacity to 15 million barrels per day, which may well happen during the next 15 years,” Is this the normal course of behavior if we are currently at the peak for oil production? The answer is no, it's the normal course of action for increasing production. There have also been reports that Russia has vastly increased its reserves even beyond those of Saudi Arabia. Why would they do this if they believed there would be no more oil to get hold of? It seems clear that Russia is ready for unlimited future production of oil. There is a clear contradiction between the peak oil theory and the continual increase in oil reserves and production. New untapped oil sources are being discovered everywhere on earth. The notion that there are somehow only a few sources that the West is trying to monopolize is a complete myth, promulgated by those raking in the massive profits. After all how do you make huge profits from something available in abundance? A Wall Street Journal article by Peter Huber and Mark Mills describes how the price of oil remains high because the cost of oil remains so low. We are not dependent on the middle east for oil because the world's supplies are diminishing, it is because it is more profitable to tap middle east supplies. Thus the myth of peak oil is needed in order to silence the call for tapping the planet's other plentiful reserves. Richard Branson has even stated his intention to set up his own refinery because the price of oil is artificially being kept high whilst new sources are not being explored and new refineries not being built. "Opec is effectively an illegal cartel that can meet happily, nobody takes them to court," Branson has said. "They collude to keep prices high." So if more refineries were built and different resources tapped, the oil prices would come down and the illegal cartel OPEC would see profits diminish. It is no wonder then that the argument for peak oil is so appealing to OPEC. If no one invests to build refineries because they don't believe there is enough oil, then who benefits? OPEC and the oil elites of course. It seems that every time there is some kind of energy crisis, OPEC INCREASES production. The remarkable thing about this is that they always state that they are doing it to ease prices, yet prices always shoot up because they promulgate the myth that they are putting some of their last reserves into the market. Analysts seem confused and always state that they don't believe upping production will cut prices. In a recent report the International Monetary Fund projected that global demand for oil by 2030 would reach 139 million barrels a day, a 65 percent increase. "We should expect to live with high and volatile oil prices," said Raghuram Rajan, the IMF's chief economist. "In short, it's going to be a rocky road going forward." Yet independent analysts and even some within OPEC seem to believe that the demand for oil is diminishing. Why the contradiction? The peak oil and demand myth is peddled by the establishment-run fake left activist groups, OPEC and globalist arms such as the IMF. Rolling Stone magazine even carried an article in its April issue heavily biased towards making people believe the peak oil lie. The Scientific evidence also flies in the face of the peak oil theory. Scientific research dating back over a hundred years, more recently updated in a Scientific Paper Published In 'Energia' suggests that oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. Oil, for better or for worse, is not a non-renewable resource. It, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth. No coincidence then that the Russians, who pioneered this research have pumped expenditure into deep underground oil excavation. We have previously scientifically exposed the scam behind peak oil. Here is a 1 hour+ audio clip featuring Alex Jones' comments on peak oil and then the analysis of respected scientific commentator Dr. Nick Begich who presents evidence to suggest the idea of Peak oil is artificial. A dangerous fallout precedent being set is that people on both the left and right believe wars are being fought in order to tap the last reserves of oil on the planet. The "coalition of the willing", whoever they may be for any given war, will not pay particular attention to refuting this claim because it allows them a reason to start and continue said war. Even though many will see it as immoral, many will subconsciously attach it as a reason for the war. In reality the war is purely for profit, power and control, oil can be a part of that, but only if the peak oil claim is upheld. If we continue to let the corrupt elite tell us we are wholly dependent on oil, we may reach a twisted situation whereby they can justify starvation and mass global poverty, perhaps even depopulation, even within the western world due to the fact that our energy supplies are finished. Peak oil is just another weapon the globalists have in their arsenal to move towards a new world order where the elite get richer and everyone else falls into line.

NATIONAL PRESS: Vancouver 9/11 Truth Movement Galvanizes Local Activist Community

truthmovement — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:57:19 GMT

Article posted in: The Canadian newspaper http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/03/09/01390.html PrisonPlanet.com http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307truth.htm by Wayne Prante Friday, March 9/07 The Vancouver 9/11 Truth Movement, though initially small and scattered, has been around for some years. However, since the Spring of 2006, they have been holding regular meetings and holding high-profile events at public locations in the city. On August 30th, 2006 they presented a speaking engagement with Barrie Zwicker to help launch his book Towers of Deception in downtown Vancouver, which was attended by some 500 people, and then held a public demonstration on Robson Street on September 11th, 2006 to demand a new 9/11 investigation and justice for 9/11 victims. Since then, this group has become a cohesive activist group, and one with vision, clear objectives and determination. Though still not huge, this group is quite remarkable in it's make up, with members ranging from 18 to 83 years old, from all walks of life, with various educational backgrounds, diverse socio-economic statuses, and are represented by both men and women, and a variety of cultures and ethnicities. They are not at all your typical, young, protest group that one might expect to see at an anti-war rally. Though they are also anti-war, it is more from a standpoint of 'false pretenses for war, also known as false-flag terrorism. While not always unanimous in their views as to what actually happened on 9/11, they are in agreement (along with 84% of Americans in a recent, national poll) that the 'official story' as given to us by the U.S. government, the media and the '9/11 Commission Report' does not add up, and that much of which led up to that fateful day, and indeed the facts surrounding the 'terrorist events' on 9/11 has been covered up. Indeed, it is widely acknowledged now that the war in Iraq was illegal and based on lies, and as such, the U.S. Bush regime has lost credibility, as evidenced by the their defeat in the recent mid-term elections. The 9/11 Truthers are adamant that the pretext for the war in Afghanistan is equally fraudulent (with a myriad of evidence to prove it), and they question Canada's role in the so called "War on Terror" without any real investigation into the attacks of 9/11 by our government. They are furthermore appalled by the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons in the Middle East that is causing massive casualties, birth defects, and poisoning even our own troops (and their families upon return) with radioactivity, and contaminating the region with toxic material that has a 4.5 billion year half-life. In addition, Vancouver 9/11 Truth activists have another agenda: stopping the North American Union which they (and many others) say is being brought into existence secretly via the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) at the behest of the corporate elite, with no input from citizens and no debate in our House of Commons (nor for that matter in the U.S. Congress). The SPP was signed with Mexico and the U.S. by former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, and has been further enhanced by his Conservative successor Stephen Harper, again without consulting the people. Indeed, they are aghast also at the growing loss of civil liberties and rights under the guise of 'security' (both in this country and abroad) and loss of democratic rights of the people. A 'New World Order' of, by, and for the elites they say is now taking shape. Corporate Globalism, they contend, will spell the end of Canada's sovereignty, and see our national wealth and jobs largely transferred out of our country and out of Canadian control. Corporate Globalism is destroying Canada's vital progressive national identity. This includes our culture, which includes a respect for human rights, international peace-making, and social justice ideals; our environmental heritage that supports our quality-of-living, and features associated with affirming our social fabric which include our world renown one-tier universal public healthcare system In an effort to bring these issues to the public's attention, the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Movement now holds regular organizational meetings to plan public events to raise public awareness. Recently they applied to become a non-profit society and have launched a website to publicize their activities, goals and events, as well as attract newcomers. The site features links to many other 9/11 related sites that have documented the lies, anomalies, and cover-ups of the September 11th events in New York City and Washington, D.C, south of the border. Vancouver 9/11 Truth is attempting to network with other groups and individuals across Canada who are aware of the 9/11 issues, as well as to work in concert with their counterparts in the U.S., to raise awareness through activism. There are presently groups in Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal (with varying degrees of organization) and they have had contact with individuals in Victoria, BC and Edmonton who are interested in forming groups. They hope that that their efforts will inspire others, such as was recently the case in Cranbrook, BC where a group known as the Kootenay 911 Truth Movement has now been firmly established. One vehicle for networking that they have found to be effective is Tribe.net, which provides an instant, free web presence that is easily found with the Google search engine, and offers some unique networking opportunities, as well as a place to post articles, info, events etc with no cost. To raise awareness locally, Vancouver 9/11 Truth recently screened several documentary films, including: Aaron Russo's America - Freedom to Fascism and Alex Jones Terrorstorm, at the Pacific Cinematheque on Howe Street in Downtown Vancouver, and each of these events drew interest, brought new members to the group and raised funds for larger projects. On Wednesday, May 16th, 2007 the group will present an evening with Prof. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions'. A multi-speaker conference focusing on 9/11 and Canada is also in the planning stages for the near future. All current and past event details, as well as meeting information are posted on their website: www.V911Truth.org and they can be contacted via e-mail at contact@v911truth.org

QUESTION: What 12-Dvds Would You Choose to Introduce Someone to 9/11 Truth?

truthmovement — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:42:10 GMT

Here are my picks at the moment, what are yours? THE 12-DVD INTRODUCTION COURSE ON 9/11 TRUTH 1) What are you talking about! · What possible information do you have that would question the official story of the attacks of 9/11? a. Loose Change b. 9/11 Press For Truth 2) Why would “They” do this? · If this information were true, for what possible reason would “They” sacrifice all those people? c. Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War d. Iraq For Sale 3) How could “They” do this? · There would have to be way too many people involved if this were all true. e. OutFoxed f. The Corporation g. TerrorStorm h. America: Freedom to Fascism 4) What is the “End Game”? · What is the ultimate goal of this “New World Order”? i. Beyond Treason j. One Nation Under Siege k. Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove l. Planned Population Reduction

TOPIC: Carbon Trading

truthmovement — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:31:57 GMT

Canadian Press Feb. 17 2007 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070217/carbon_trading_070217?s_name=&no_ads= VANCOUVER -- There's something counter intuitive about creating what amounts to a stock market for the thing we all exhale when we breathe, the thing that comes out of our car's tail pipe. But that's what carbon trading is, putting a value on the emission of greenhouse gases - mainly carbon dioxide - that scientists finger as the driving force behind man-made climate change. Carbon trading is likely to figure in the B.C. government's ambitious, still fuzzy, plan to reduce the province's current greenhouse gas emissions by a third by 2020. The Conservative government in Ottawa balks at meeting Canada's commitment under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol but its proposed Clean Air Act leaves room for carbon trading, a practice spawned by Kyoto. Detractors dismiss carbon trading as nothing but a shell game that allows industries and even countries to avoid making real reductions in their own carbon emissions by buying someone else's. But supporters say the practice leads to real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and that people, not just industries or countries, could ultimately play the market. One thing is certain; a booming carbon-trading market has been created literally out of thin air in the last three years. "What we're seeing is absolutely fascinating," says one government official, who did not want to be named. "It's the development of a new market for something that people just completely ignored previously." The latest World Bank carbon market report last October found transactions in the first nine months of 2006 totalled more than $21.4 billion US, almost double what they were in all of 2005. The lion's share - $18.8 billion US - took place in the European Union's emission's trading scheme. The EU market opened in January 2005 as the organization implemented its Kyoto caps on carbon emissions. But the concept is not well understood in Canada. Carbon trading in simple terms aims to spread the pain of steadily ratcheting down the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions. "Emissions trading is always a transitional tool to help you take responsibility for emissions now while you prepare to make actual emission reductions in your own operations, hopefully as soon as possible," says Matthew Bramley, Ottawa-based climate change director for the Pembina Institute. It can take several forms. The European market is largely in so-called allowances. The EU's 11,000 registered emitting facilities face statutory caps on greenhouse gas production. Those who better their targets can put their unused allowances on the market where companies that missed their goals can buy them. These are different from carbon credits, also known as offsets, which accrue to companies not under the caps but which still demonstrate they've achieved net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, replacing a logged tree wouldn't qualify. Planting an additional tree probably would. Those credits - each equalling a tonne of CO2 emissions - can be traded on the open market and are available to operators who need to offset excessive emissions. Kyoto is in limbo in Canada and the United States but there's a small, growing private market in voluntary emission reductions, mainly via the Chicago Climate Exchange. Its 225 members - including Canadian firms such as Manitoba Hydro and forest company Abitibi-Consolidated - commit to a consensus level of annual reductions and trade credits. The upsurge of interest in climate change has boosted volumes on the exchange, an official says. Trading in the first six weeks of this year equalled a third of last year's total volume. But the real action - and for some the preferred model for North America - is in the more regulated EU market. It's governed by the United Nations Framework for the Convention on Climate Change, which sets the standard for what counts as a creditable emission reduction. Pembina's Bramley agrees carbon trading in itself doesn't reduce emissions. It simply moves them from one place to another. "Why would you want to do that?" he asks. "Because by moving them around you might be able to have lower cost opportunities to reduce." Just like outsourcing manufacturing, the cost of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions might be cheaper in the developing world than in Europe, Japan or North America. The Kyoto Protocol has three trading systems, the most popular of which is the Clean Development Mechanism that covers projects in developing countries. The World Bank reported $2.26 billion US in CDM transactions in the first three quarters of 2006 covering 500 projects - a tenfold increase from all of 2005. Kyoto also allows countries to buy carbon credits under the International Emissions Trading system. In the controversy over Canada's ambivalence towards Kyoto, there was speculation the country would purchase Russia's unused allowance, a figure set before its industrial production sank with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But Bramley says there's no interest, here or elsewhere, in buying what's dubbed Russia's "hot air." "What people are buying instead are other kinds of tradeable units available under Kyoto," he says. "These ones (such as CDMs) are actual credits that come from specific emission-reduction projects that have to be identifiable and verified." So far, most of the attention has been on carbon trading among businesses and nations but individuals are slowly being drawn in. People can already buy carbon offsets for things like jet travel through web sites such as www.my-climate.com. Dave Mowat, head of Vancity, Canada's largest credit union, boasts on the institution's web site that he became the first carbon neutral CEO in 2005 by reducing his CO2 emissions by 25 per cent and offsetting the rest by investing in a wind-energy project. The practice has detractors who suggest it's a way for the affluent to assuage their guilt over the heavy imprint they leave on the environment. But experts like the approach as long as it's accompanied by an earnest effort to cut one's own carbon emissions. "Clearly, if you are using offsets to compensate for having bought a gas-guzzling SUV, well you're really missing the point here and that is counter productive," says Bramley. The day may come when people can accumulate carbon credits, like a company, and sell them on the open market. Britain is mulling the idea of a "carbon credit card" in which everyone would have a set limit and would have to buy additional credits if they go into "overdraft." Likewise, those who haven't maxed out their carbon credit card could sell the unused portion.

TOPIC: GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms)

truthmovement — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:43:59 GMT

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is a plant, animal or microorganism whose genetic code has been altered, subtracted, or added (either from the same species or a different species) in order to give it characteristics that it does not have naturally. The Rice With Human Genes By SEAN POULTER March 6th 2007 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=440302&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&ct=5&expand=true#StartComments The first GM food crop containing human genes is set to be approved for commercial production. The laboratory-created rice produces some of the human proteins found in breast milk and saliva. Its U.S. developers say they could be used to treat children with diarrhea, a major killer in the Third World. The rice is a major step in so-called Frankenstein Foods, the first mingling of human-origin genes and those from plants. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture has already signaled it plans to allow commercial cultivation. The rice's producers, California-based Ventria Bioscience, have been given preliminary approval to grow it on more than 3,000 acres in Kansas. The company plans to harvest the proteins and use them in drinks, desserts, yogurts and muesli bars. The news provoked horror among GM critics and consumer groups on both sides of the Atlantic. GeneWatch UK, which monitors new GM foods, described it as "very disturbing". Researcher Becky Price warned: "There are huge, huge health risks and people should rightly be concerned about this." Friends of the Earth campaigner Clare Oxborrow said: "Using food crops and fields as glorified drug factories is a very worrying development. "If these pharmaceutical crops end up on consumers' plates, the consequences for our health could be devastating. "The biotech industry has already failed to prevent experimental GM rice contaminating the food chain. "The Government must urge the U.S. to ban the production of drugs in food crops. It must also introduce tough measures to prevent illegal GM crops contaminating our food and ensure that biotech companies are liable for any damage their products cause." In the U.S., the Union of Concerned Scientists, a policy advocacy group, warned: "It is unwise to produce drugs in plants outdoors. "There would be little control over the doses people might get exposed to, and some might be allergic to the proteins." The American Consumers Union and the Washington based Centre for Food Safety also oppose Ventria's plans. As well as the contamination fears there are serious ethical concerns about such a fundamental interference with the building blocks of life. Yet there is no legal means for Britain and Europe to ban such products on ethical grounds. Imports would have to be accepted once they had gone through a scientific safety assessment. The development is what may people feared when, ten years ago, food scientists showed what was possible by inserting copies of fish genes from the flounder into tomatoes, to help them withstand frost. Ventria has produced three varieties of the rice, each with a different human-origin gene that makes the plants produce one of three human proteins. Two - lactoferrin and lysozyme - are bacteria-fighting compounds found in breast milk and saliva. The genes, cultivated and copied in a laboratory to produce a synthetic version, are carried into embryonic rice plants inside bacteria. Until now, plants with human-origin genes have been restricted to small test plots. Ventria originally planned to grow the rice in southern Missouri but the brewer Anheuser-Busch, a huge buyer of rice, threatened to boycott the state amid concern over contamination and consumer reaction. Now the USDA, saying the rice poses "virtually no risk". has given preliminary approval for it to be grown in Kansas, which has no commercial rice farms. Ventria will also use dedicated equipment, storage and processing facilities supposed to prevent seeds from mixing with other crops. The company says food products using the rice proteins could help save many of the two million children a year who die from diarrhea and the resulting dehydration and complications. A recent study in Peru, sponsored by Ventria, showed that children with severe diarrhea recovered a day and a half faster if the salty fluids they were prescribed included the proteins. The rice could also be a huge money-spinner in the Western world, with parents being told it will help their children get over unpleasant stomach bugs more quickly. Ventria chief executive Scott Deeter said last night: "We have a product here that can help children get better faster." He said any concerns about safety and contamination were "based on perception, not reality" given all the precautions the company was taking. Mr Deeter said production in plants was far cheaper than other methods, which should help make the therapy affordable in the developing world. He said: "Plants are phenomenal factories. Our raw materials are the sun, soil and water."

TOPIC: R.F.I.D. (Radio-Frequency IDentification)

truthmovement — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:16:53 GMT

Source: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Technology-Article.asp?ArtNum=1 RFID stands for Radio-Frequency IDentification. The acronym refers to small electronic devices that consist of a small chip and an antenna. The chip typically is capable of carrying 2,000 bytes of data or less. The RFID device serves the same purpose as a bar code or a magnetic strip on the back of a credit card or ATM card; it provides a unique identifier for that object. And, just as a bar code or magnetic strip must be scanned to get the information, the RFID device must be scanned to retrieve the identifying information. RFID Works Better Than Barcodes A significant advantage of RFID devices over the others mentioned above is that the RFID device does not need to be positioned precisely relative to the scanner. We're all familiar with the difficulty that store checkout clerks sometimes have in making sure that a barcode can be read. And obviously, credit cards and ATM cards must be swiped through a special reader. In contrast, RFID devices will work within a few feet (up to 20 feet for high-frequency devices) of the scanner. For example, you could just put all of your groceries or purchases in a bag, and set the bag on the scanner. It would be able to query all of the RFID devices and total your purchase immediately. RFID technology has been available for more than fifty years. It has only been recently that the ability to manufacture the RFID devices has fallen to the point where they can be used as a "throwaway" inventory or control device. Alien Technologies recently sold 500 million RFID tags to Gillette at a cost of about ten cents per tag. One reason that it has taken so long for RFID to come into common use is the lack of standards in the industry. Most companies invested in RFID technology only use the tags to track items within their control; many of the benefits of RFID come when items are tracked from company to company or from country to country. Source: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Technology-Article.asp?ArtNum=6 Are There Concerns About How RFID Will Be Used? Civil liberties groups (among others) have become increasingly concerned about the use of RFIDs to track the movements of individuals. For example, passports will soon be required to contain some sort of RFID device to speed border crossings. Scanners placed throughout an airport, for example, could track the location of every passport over time, from the moment you left the parking lot to the moment you got on your plane. There are also concerns about the fact that, even after you leave the store, any RFID devices in the things you buy are still active. This means that a thief could walk past you in the mall and know exactly what you have in your bags, marking you as a potential victim. A thief could even circle your house with an RFID scanner and pull up data on what you have in your house before he robs it. Military hardware and even clothing make use of RFID tags to help track each item through the supply chain. Some analysts are concerned that, if there are particular items associated with high-level officers, roadside bombs could be set to go off when triggered by an RFID scan of cars going by. There was a recent report revealing clandestine tests at a Wal-Mart store where RFID tags were inserted in packages of lipstick, with scanners hidden on nearby shelves. When a customer picked up a lipstick and put it in her cart, the movement of the tag was registered by the scanners, which triggered surveillance cameras. This allowed researchers 750 miles away to watch those consumers as they walked through the store, looking for related items. Source: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=939 The Hitachi mu-chip (pictured above), is just 0.4 x 0.4 millimeters. Take a look at the size of the mu-chip RFID tag on a human fingertip. These devices could also be used to identify and track people. For example, suppose you participated in some sort of protest or other organized activity. If police agencies sprinkled these tags around, every individual could be tracked and later identified at leisure, with powerful enough tag scanners.

TOPIC: Global Warming

truthmovement — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 06:48:46 GMT

NEW WORLD ORDER & GLOBAL WARMING Tonight I listened to a very important interview with Dr. Michael Coffman. He is an Environmental Scientist, who has attended many meetings at the United Nations. As a scholar of geopolitics, he has opportunity to witness things that are kept from the general public.The subject of the interview was the New World order and Global Warming. The following are snippets from the notes I took: Global Warming is occurring but its not caused by man. Solar Flares from the sun are causing the change in the Earth's temps. This is a natural occurring cycle. In the 1200's the Earth was 1 1/2 degrees hotter than it is now. Changes in the Earth temps are NOT new. Even the ice - caps of Mars are melting. The carbon gases blamed on man only accounts for 6% of the global warming. Warming will increase the vegetative green belts. The Earth is greening. Plants and humans will grow more. We will just take in more oxygen. There is the potential for at least 50% more food growth. Plankton will increase which will allow oceans to be more productive. We should be more concerned with the next ice age than with Global warming. Global warming is happening and there is nothing you can do about it. The New World Order's tactic is to use FEAR as a Control. Things such as the war on Terror, the war on drugs and global warming. They keep us in a state of constant agitation. They create CRISIS and then offer a solution, but in the solution - you loose. You loose your freedoms in the name of peace and security. It is all a lie. Global warming is being used to get us to give up our sovereignty in order to get a handle on the "world condition". They want us to give up our sovereignty for what is best for Mother Earth. Hopefully the following points will shock you and help you to see how these two subjects tie together. ADDED MARCH 10TH/07 Check out this documentary that was broadcast in the UK http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html ADDED JULY 14TH/07 Check out this resource page: THE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm

TOPIC: Corporate Media Control

truthmovement — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:24:13 GMT

Some interesting facts: 1) Ten years ago the media was owned by about 50-different companies. Today, mainstream media is owned by about 5-7 corporations. 2) In the 1981 U.S. election year, political campaigns spent about 80 million on advertising to media companies. In the last election year they spent just over 1-billion. 3) The gatekeepers of truth are not the media journalists, the gatekeepers of truth are the owners of the media corporations.

TOPIC: Net Neutrality

truthmovement — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:04:18 GMT

Canada Sleeps Through War to 'Save the Internet' By Bryan Zandberg January 17, 2007 TheTyee.ca http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2007/01/17/NetNeutrality/ Net neutrality. A bland phrase capable of sparking a digital revolt. In the United States it's the hot-button Internet issue of the day, a threat deemed so grave to free expression it gave rise to a stunning right-left coalition and galvanized celebrities and rock icons like REM with church groups, rights groups, academics, the CEOs of Google and Amazon, web pioneers Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee and the 1.5 million Americans who sent a petition to Congress. In Canada, on the other hand, the latest count on Kevin McArthur's online net neutrality petition (http://www.neutrality.ca/) clocks in at, well, a paltry 217 signatures. It's not that the fight over net neutrality doesn't matter in Canada. At issue here, as in the United States, is whether telecom companies can favour some Internet sites over others by charging different rates to different customers and making some sites much easier to access than others. Critics say the practice threatens the Internet's level playing field and would stifle smaller independent voices on the web. At stake is nothing less than democratic speech in the Canadian modern era, says McArthur. "I mean this is The People vs. Larry Flint all over again, only this time it's digital." Odd then that public debate on the issue in Canada has been a non-starter. Especially when, between the two countries, it's Canada where the World Wide Web is most poised to become the latest plaything of the rich and the powerful. 'Sounds innocuous, but isn't' To understand what net neutrality is and why it's important, it pays to take a look at what's been happening south of the border. In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) redefined "broadband," recasting it as an information, rather than a telecommunication, service. "It sounds like an innocuous change, but it isn't," explains Ben Scott, a spokesperson for net neutrality for Free Press (http://www.freepress.net/), a media democracy NGO based in Washington, D.C. With the stroke of a pen, Scott says the decision undid the entire regulatory regime attached to telecom services, thrusting them into "a category that has virtually no regulations." The change didn't bode well for a broad spectrum of Internet users, from start-up companies to anyone who uses Google or YouTube. Whereas previously telcos were legally obliged to deliver packets of bits and bytes blindly, as an information service that restriction was no longer in force. This opened the door for what Scott calls a "CEOs-go-to-Wall-Street" scenario: almost immediately, the major carriers began to toy with the idea of creating a two-tier Internet, replete with a fast-track for content creators willing to pay for preferential service, and a slow lane for everyone else. The idea of telcos acting as gatekeepers, combined with what that would potentially and physically do to the Internet, set off a firestorm of public protest. And in spite of the fact the telcos spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Capitol Hill, a bill that would have paved the way for a two-tiered net died along with Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. Now, Scott says a climate of intense public and congressional scrutiny will bar the telcos from acting as gatekeepers until net neutrality can be protected by law. But what's to stop them in Canada? Less and less, it would appear. Canada's hands-off stance Professor Michael Geist has been talking about net neutrality and digital rights in his Toronto Star and Ottawa Citizen columns and via his blog for a while now. The Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law says that even though Canada is rapidly deregulating the telecom industry, public debate amounts to little more than a whisper. Just like in the States, net neutrality in Canada hovers in a state of legal limbo; the threadbare language of the Telecommunications Act means that two-tier Internet is more than a distant possibility; it's already here. "I think it's already happening now but for the most part people don't recognize it," says Geist, who is based at the University of Ottawa. "Some of the providers are already engaged in some of these kinds of activities, with little transparency and considerable uncertainty as to whether or not the legal system prohibits it." Geist offers the example of profs who post their lectures online via an application called BitTorrent, free software designed to send large amounts of multi-media data from point A to point B. He says lately these video clips and audio files "slow to a crawl" when students try to download them because of "package-shaping" practices by companies like Rogers. Digital profits up for grabs Packet-shaping, or prioritizing the kinds of information being sent through the pipes, is the thin edge of the wedge, says Geist. All kind of digital rights are up in the air right now. Much of this is because Internet service providers (ISPs) like Telus and Shaw have always offered "unlimited" bandwidth to subscribers, counting on the fact that the vast majority of users only use a sliver of it. But with today's wave of user-generated content -- video, wikis, podcasts, MP3s, open source software and Internet telephone -- the old "unlimited" paradigm is broken. Telecoms are as tired of watching the average user eat up more and more bandwidth as they are of watching 100 million video clips a day zip through their wires, via free sites like YouTube. And their shareholders aren't seeing any of that Internet cornucopia -- like Google's recent $1.65 billion purchase of YouTube -- reflected in their company's quarterly reports. While he says he can appreciate the telcos' concerns -- something's got to be done about the shrinking amount of available bandwidth -- Geist says they're going about it the wrong way. "If all you're doing is saying, 'This is our existing service and we just want to extract additional dollars because we think Google makes too much money'...I don't know that that's a particularly convincing argument." McArthur goes further. He says companies are in effect creating a problem so they can charge to fix it. "[Even] if everyone paid for a tier-one service, it would be THE EXACT SAME service we have today," he wrote by e-mail. "Quality of service only works while someone else is getting screwed." "It's an attempt to extract more rent out of your server," Geist summarizes, "even if it comes at the expense of both their users' interests and the broader interest of the Internet as a whole." Telus declined to address the issue of net neutrality in an interview and Shaw representatives did not return calls. COA versus CNN Steve Anderson's situation brings the potential effect of two-tier Internet into focus. Anderson is a master's student in online media studies at Simon Fraser University. He's also the managing editor of an independent online news source called COAnews (http://www.coanews.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=1586 ), where he and a coterie of mostly volunteer editors stream a lot of audio and video files that sometimes fly in the face of what you see on the evening news. Under a two-tiered system, he says COA's shoestring budget would almost certainly keep it off the fast track. "Right now we can literally compete with CNN or whatever if we provide news that people want to look at," he explains. "But if that situation goes through, then we just can't afford to pay the fees that CNN can, just like we can't afford to put up a cable news television show." With few willing to wait for clips if they download at a snail's pace, the slow lane bottle-neck would be the death of independent online media, both for COAnews and for the thousands of other grassroots efforts trying to get their message out there. The Internet, he thinks, is in danger of falling in the for-profit footsteps of its predecessors radio and television. Telus you didn't do it Another wrinkle with deregulation is what happens when the carriers start to peep at what it is they're carrying, and then discriminate based on what they see. The landmark example -- the one that even advocates in the U.S. cite -- actually took place here in Canada when Telus blocked a website run by striking Telus employees called "Voices for Change." Free speech activists were furious, but the company defended itself, saying it was acting to protect the identities of the people who chose to cross the picket lines, whose photographs were purportedly posted on the site. Regardless of their rationale, Telus cut access to another 766 totally unrelated sites by pulling the plug on the Florida server that hosted Voices for Change. Marita Moll and Leslie Shade call these and other incidents of information-tampering "good reasons for Canadians to be concerned." The pair, who work with the Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking, recently penned a joint e-mail to The Tyee in which they criticized the conclusions of the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel (TPRC), which delivered a 400-page report last year calling for sweeping changes to Canada's telecom oversight body, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). In a nutshell, the panel determined that the CRTC should concern itself with monitoring the social and technical aspects of telecommunications, and leave economic issues up to market forces. Markets are to be regarded as competitive unless proven otherwise, said the panel, a conclusion warmly welcomed by the Conservative government. But Moll and Shade see the sidelining of the CRTC as having negative ramifications for the industry, and moreover for the public good. "Telecommunications are oligopolies and do not really engage in competitive behaviour," they wrote. "They own the markets together and they will co-operate in protecting those markets. As such, they have a huge incentive to collaborate to contain bandwidth use to the infrastructure channels they are prepared to provide." The Big Four By Geist's count, the biggest four Canadian providers (Telus, Shaw, Rogers and Bell) control 60 per cent of the country's $32 billion telecom market; the top eight control upwards of 80 to 90 per cent. Last week's Canwest-Alliance merger only highlights the how the list of players is shortening. "There is the real incentive for some of these providers to exclude or diminish the quality of some of the new content that is emerging that I think will increasingly be seen as competitive." Case in point: the CRTC's favourable ruling for Vonage, an Internet telephone company that complained about a quality of service fee imposed by Shaw, a decision which was overturned by Stephen Harper's Conservative government. Geist is concerned about the fact that the expert panel intended to oversee Canadian telecommunications is increasingly being told to butt out. "They've actually tried to be hands-on on some issues and got themselves slapped down pretty good by the government." You don't have to look to Internet telephone to see how the same near-monopolies work with web services. Even if there are eight Internet service providers in Canada, Geist says consumers typically only have the option of choosing between one of two providers for an Internet connection. "You get cable or ADSL, or nothing," he notes. "That's not a competitive environment at all." Which means that if in the future companies anger customers the way Telus or Shaw have in the past, "there's little reason to believe that consumers will have options to move to other services if they're unhappy." Regardless of the situation, telecom deregulation is still "quite clearly the top priority of the Industry minister [Maxime Bernier]," says Geist. "But the [government's] focus again has been solely one-sided: it's just been on deregulating without addressing these kinds of issues. And there's a certain irony there because this represents by far the best opportunity to build in some net neutrality provisions." Canada's backwardness in this regard is made all the more apparent given a surprising move by the FCC in the recent AT&T-BellSouth merger. As a condition of U.S. government approval for the takeover, the FCC made both companies agree to respect network neutrality for two years, when clearer-cut legislation is expected to replace the murky language that currently regulates net neutrality in that country. That move finds no parallel in Canada, where Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act offers no clearer guidance on the topic than the following line: "a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public." Experts like Geist, McArthur, Moll and Shade agree that guideline is as outdated as it is insufficient. In Ottawa last October, Moll and Shade took part in the Alternative Telecommunications Policy Forum, where a panel drafted the following proposal for a guideline: "network operators shall not discriminate against content, applications, or services on broadband Internet services based on their source or ownership." That clause, meant as an appendix to the net neutrality recommendations in last year's TCRP report, has so far fallen on deaf ears on Parliament Hill. According to Geist, Industry minister Maxime Bernier has thus far shown "little appetite" for inserting any such language into the Telecommunications Act. Bernier did not respond to e-mails requesting an interview. Canadians asleep on issue For the moment, and judging by every indication, Canada limps into an uncharted electronic future in a near-total policy vacuum on the matter of net neutrality. That vacuum, twinned with public apathy, is nothing short of a boon for telecom companies, say Moll and Shade, who go on to add that "public policy is obviously serving their needs." And while the telecom lobbies swamp commissions like the recent TCRP with thousands of pages of testimony, "the few folks sending in submissions in the public interest are barely on the map," they say. Given that fundamental aspects of how the Internet works are being decided by the PMO, Shade and Moll say it's up to the public to get Canadian politicians "up to speed" on net neutrality the way the American public did in the U.S. To date, there is scarce indication that any of the major parties are thinking about the issue; McArthur says a letter to his Conservative MP in Edmonton didn't even generate a standard response letter. He says only the Green party and the NDP are actively working on net neutrality. So while many tout the digital revolution as ushering in a new wave of democracy, only 217 of them in Canada have stepped back from the glow and done something to protect it. "There are lots of things to be really optimistic about online," says Geist, "but this isn't one of them."

TOPIC: Fluoride

truthmovement — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:47:36 GMT

My investigation into the the topic of fluoride began with watching the video "THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION: An Interview with Christopher Bryson" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2886269353175462948 . Before watching this video, I did not really have any concerns over the use of fluoride in our water supply. I wasn't aware the uses of fluoride in its various forms include: aluminum smelting, phosphate processing, coal combustion and the manufacturing of steel, bricks and glass products. One of the biggest and most important uses of fluoride...it was a key chemical in enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. .....to be continued

QUESTION: How do we get people to care about what is really going on?

truthmovement — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 23:10:17 GMT

I try hard to spread the message of the Truth Movement to anyone & everyone I can. I would have to say that the majority of people may think there is some validity to it, but they don't care enough to actually "jump in with both feet". The number one response has to be "how does all this really affect me and what could I, as one person, really do about it?" If I could be better at addressing this comment, I know I could reach more people.