Listen up Sheeple!

People who rely on broadcast media and/or government education to formulate their perceptions often roll their eyes in exasperation and conspiracy-nut-contempt when exposed to reliable information that challenges their beliefs. For the majority, easy prey for predatory propagandists and history revisionists, the possibility that they have been blatantly deceived by their own government is unthinkable, despite the monstrous evidence of pandemic corruption. Denial is the proverbial mental comfort zone; it is an easy refuge. It requires nothing! Schopenhauer said: “All truth goes through three stages, first it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident.” The U.S. Government lies, cheats, steals, misappropriates public funds, seizes and redistributes private funds, outsources middle-class jobs through phony trade agreements, succumbed to the privately-owned Federal Reserve, has given away or sold our technology and public lands to well-connected private citizens and/or foreign countries, has secretly initiated the North American Union, confiscates private property,”¹ kills and maims its own citizens, kills and maims foreign citizens and has established a Nazi-style police state. Individual citizens would receive prison terms for comparable crimes. However, criminal cronies shield each other in and out of office!”² They rationalize these insidious behaviors as necessary with ambiguous phrases – “national security,” or “national interests,” as if everyone in the nation had a common interest, when, in fact, the people’s government serves corporate interests.”³ From extensive experience, they lie proficiently. Even more remarkable, our taxes pay for our own institutionalized indoctrination without our knowledge and certainly without our consent.

Why no dissent? Are we a nation of unthinking, consumer-driven, media-mesmerized, addicted-to-entertainment citizens who have abdicated personal responsibility and independence to the nanny state? Via alleged threats, orchestrated economic chaos through Federal Reserve currency gymnastics and long-term offensive war, we have relinquished our liberties and independence and look to government for safety and solutions – placing our trust in officialdom (arm of flesh) rather than the inspired foundational documents or the Christian scriptures so many warmongers claim to endorse. Where is any evidence of Christianity? Propagandists, playing on our religious beliefs, manipulate us and claim “a righteous cause” against “evildoers” to gain support. Military troops do not “fight for their country” or for God. They fight for the government! Why no dissent?

The first advertising agency was created in 1843 – thus began the age of propaganda and “clever deceptions.” Schools later offered classes on advertising and salesmanship. “It did not take long for the principles of advertising and marketing, developed to sell consumer goods, to be applied to the ’sale’ of political ideas and candidates.”⁴ Decades ago, the lawbreakers in the congressional cesspool authorized propaganda for both wartime and peacetime. Propaganda, the art of mass persuasion, by definition, “involves lies, deceit, half truths, misinformation and exaggeration to control thoughts, beliefs and attitudes of others to influence world opinion.”⁵ “Propaganda involves the dextrous use of images, slogans and symbols that play on our prejudices and emotions; it is the communication of a point of view with the ultimate goal of having the recipient of the appeal come to ‘voluntarily’ accept this position as if it were his or her own.”⁶

Federal agencies were established, funded and approved to work with the news media, Hollywood film studios, and magazines – virtually every communication vehicle. Those friendly, smiling TV and radio personalities may, in fact, be on the government’s payroll. “Inspiring” “patriotic” pro-war movies or Disney’s animations evoke a predictable response. Many media personalities belong to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an organization devoted to destroying America. Okay skeptics, time to roll your eyes, but wait, read on!

In April 1917, Woodrow Wilson, the 1916 peace candidate, created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to garner support for the war which enriched the bankers of the newly-established, privately-owned Federal Reserve. The Director of the CPI was publisher George Creel. He had a staff of persuasive wordsmiths – journalists, writers, intellectuals and advertisers who later admitted they were quite willing to lie,⁷ would use emotional appeal and enemy demonization to generate hate and fear to elicit support for the government’s war. Popular phrases were: “Bleeding Belgium,” “The Criminal Kaiser,” and the always-useful slogan – “Make the World Safe For Democracy.” Propaganda posters and CPI pamphlets filled with fictitious atrocity stories proved useful in gaining support and recruiting troops.⁸ Howard Lasswell said: “If at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man.” “Unlike the pacifist, who argues that all wars are brutal, the atrocity story implies that war is only brutal when practiced by the enemy.”⁹

The CPI staff distributed six thousand “news releases” during the course of the war. This emotionally-charged propaganda, disguised as “news,” was disseminated so successfully that the majority of citizens responded with nationalistic enthusiasm.¹⁰ George Orwell said this about nationalism: “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”¹¹

Austrian-born Edward Bernays, master of manipulation, was head of the CPI’s Export Section and co-head of the Latin American Section of the Foreign Press Bureau. Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, employed his uncle’s views on behavior to manipulate and manage people in the marketplace. Bernays became renowned as the “Father of Public Relations,” assisted by his experience with the government. Bernays contacted Ford, International Harvester and other U.S. firms to distribute pro-war literature to foreign contacts. He orchestrated propaganda in Germany to engender dissent and affect moral. He organized rallies and printed propaganda in other languages to be inserted into export journals. His tenacious persuasion skills changed America’s views toward a very unpopular war.¹²

To give the right spin on America in the aftermath of the World War I, a CPI press team, including Bernays, attended the Paris Peace Conference in 1918. George Creel wrote a book in 1920 entitled How We Advertised America in which he defined how “he and his committee used the principles of advertising to convince Americans to go to war with Germany.”¹³

Hitler (financed by Prescott Bush et al) and his cohort Göebbels controlled the Germans with the “Big Lie” theory – “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed” – (like the government’s version of 9/11). Americans were appalled by Hitler’s organized propaganda and stunned that the Germans fell for it. Actually, the Nazi regime adopted their techniques from the U.S. and Great Britain from their organized use of propaganda during World War I. In Mein Kampf (written on a Rothschild banker’s typewriter),¹⁴ Hitler says, possibly after reading Creel’s book: “But it was not until the War that it became evident what immense results could be obtained by a correct application of propaganda. Here again, unfortunately, all our studying had to be done on the enemy side, for the activity on our side was modest, to say the least…. For what we failed to do, the enemy did, with amazing skill and really brilliant calculation. I, myself, learned enormously from this enemy war propaganda.”¹⁵

Joseph Paul Göebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister said the following:¹⁶ “Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain purpose.”¹⁷ And again: “It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion. Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” Now I am not claiming that the U.S. homeland is exactly like the Nazi motherland. There are some differences! Germany’s hate-radio targeted Jews; America’s hate-radio targets Muslims. Both “civilized” countries, allegedly Christian, not only tolerate the sinister spew but, through our silence, assent to it.

Citizens were required to show “their papers” to the SS in Germany. We will soon have to show our papers to the DHS. In Germany, the government took over big business. In the United States,¹⁸ big business has taken over the government – all of these circumstances, and others, including compulsory vaccinations, represent tyranny, all backed by the international banking cartel, not content with controlling a few countries but wish to supervise the entire world and the people who manage to survive the Power Elite’s Grim Reaper depopulation plans. We have more to fear from our own government and their benefactors than from any other entity.

Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Office of War Information (OWI) in June 1942 which focused on “winning the war.”¹⁹ Propaganda is devised to resemble independent legitimate news agencies, like the government-created United News, which produced newsreels for domestic and foreign distribution. One may purchase them or watch them here. These “newsreels” defined the violence of our “enemies” which stimulated distrust, revulsion, and indignation – effective recruiting tactics. At the same time, the newsreels incited a feeling of American superiority, elevating us to a higher moral ground. OWI also produced several radio series and persuaded Hollywood personalities to do their “patriotic” duty by endorsing government activities. Frank Capra’s film series Why We Fight was made for the War Department.²⁰

Hatred of Hitler and his Nazi accomplices erupted into intolerance and hatred of all German citizens – strangers! Demonized, dehumanized enemies are easier to kill. Our ethically-challenged government typically repudiates horrific war crimes while committing and concealing comparable offenses.²¹ Offenses committed by ordinary citizens, swayed by emotion-filled words and soul-stirring anthems (currently government-sponsored, pro-war TV commercials) to act against foreigners, cast as “evildoers” by power-seeking government officials who bomb citizens into “liberty” elsewhere while suppressing freedom at home.

To legitimize OWI efforts with Congress, Truman transferred propaganda operations to the Department of State on August 23, 1945 – conveniently timed to proliferate the nonsensical theory that it was necessary to incinerate the non-threatening citizens of Japan’s only two Christian cities, Nagasaki and Hiroshima*, in order to “save American lives,” as if 100,000 (Hiroshima) Japanese lives were inconsequential. Americans bought into that propaganda – and still do! (We never hear about Iraqi deaths which are now over a million.) Those non- military-target bombings took place after the Potsdam Conference and several months after the Japanese offered to surrender.²² Then the bombed cities were “off limits” to U.S. journalists “until mid-September.” Rather than expose American atrocities, Washington officials directed media focus on the Japanese POW camps in the north; currently, only “embedded journalists” report any war “news.” The War Department further claimed “that scientists had ascertained that the residual radiation in Nagasaki did not merit concern.”²³ Sheltered officials also assured Manhattan residents that 9/11’s deadly toxic dust was “safe.”
* As reported by John Hershey in his book: Hiroshima, page 146, Robert Lewis, co-pilot of the Enola Gay wrote in the official log “My God, what have we done?” Other military personnel probably repeatedly ask that same question.

The firebombing of Tokyo in March of 1945 possibly killed as many as a hundred thousand people. The Dresden bombing and the resulting firestorm cost the lives of 80,000 to 100,000 residents of that city. Perhaps 600,000 civilians, men, women, and children, died in the indiscriminate bombings of Europe. An equal number died in the bombings of Japan. Americans have killed millions of apolitical foreign citizens to eradicate fascism, communism and terrorism. Those ideologies still exist! Have we failed to enforce “liberty?” The “fight for freedom” is a farce! “We cannot claim that there is a moral distinction between a government which bombs and kills innocent people and a terrorist organization which does the same.”²⁴ Watch this 3 minute video to see the real victims.

The Washington DC-based Voice of America (February 24, 1942-present), a radio and television broadcasting system, is funded by the U.S. taxpayers: $166 million in 2006. VOA broadcasts more than 1,000 hours of simulating news, information, educational, and cultural propaganda every week to an estimated worldwide audience of more than 115 million people in 45 languages.”²⁵ They do not use FCC issued call signs which are required by FCC rules for every broadcasting station on U.S. soil. The government apparently is not required to follow the rules imposed upon others. The FCC is the government agency that licenses and regulates “free speech.” Regulation is control!

VOA is currently under the direction of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), an agency of the government, with nine members, eight of which are appointed by the president. “On October 1, 1999, the BBG became the independent federal agency responsible for all U.S. government and government sponsored, non-military, international broadcasting. This was the result of the 1998 Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (Public Law 105-277), the single most important legislation affecting U.S. international broadcasting since the early 1950s.”²⁶

The BBG’s current chairman is James K. Glassman,²⁷ Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (an assembly of Neo Cons) and a syndicated columnist who has subbed on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. Other current members include: Joaquin F. Blaya, Blanquita Walsh Cullum, D. Jeffrey Hirschberg (Washington lawyer), Edward E. Kaufman (President of Public Strategies, a political and management consulting firm in Wilmington, Delaware), Mark McKinnon (Chief media adviser to Bush who directed his advertising propaganda for the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns.), Steven J. Simmons (Chairman and CEO of Patriot Media and Communications, LLC, a new company formed to purchase cable companies in the United States.), and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.²⁸ Rice was a Chevron Director from 1991 until January 15, 2001.²⁹ The Broadcasting Board of Governors also supervises the following stations: Alhurra, Radio Sawa, Radio Farda, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio Marti and TV Marti So much for unbiased fair and balanced “news.”

Endnotes

1. ^ Gestapo raid on coin-producing enterprise, by Richard H. Timberlake, Jr., PhD, December 3rd, 2007
2. ^ The Bush-Hitler Thing, A Holocaust Survivor Speaks Out
3. ^ A Violent Cartography, Bomb After Bomb By Howard Zinn, December 15, 2007
4. ^ Age of Propaganda, the Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion by Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson, pgs. 9-10
5. ^ Propaganda-Politicians Use Our Money to Pay for Lying to Us by Mark Lowry, January 31, 2007
6. ^ Pratkanis and Aronson, op. cit., pgs. 9-10
7. ^ Wartime Propaganda, World War I, “The War To End All Wars”
8. ^ Ibid.
9. ^ War Propaganda: World War I, Demons, atrocities, and lies
10. ^ The Rhetorical Presidency, Propaganda, and the Cold War, 1945-1955 by Shawn J. Parry-Giles, Praeger Series in Presidential Studies, 2002, Introduction
11. ^ George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism
12. ^ The Father of Spin, Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations by Larry Tye, pgs. 15-20
13. ^ Pratkanis and Aronson, op. cit., pgs. 9-10
14. ^ ‘Mein Kampf’ – Hitler Used Rothschild Banker’s Typewriter By Henry Makow PhD, July 8, 2007
15. ^ Mein Kampf, Volume One – A Reckoning Chapter VI: War Propaganda by Adolph Hitler
16. ^ Joseph Goebbels
17. ^ Joseph Goebbels, Source: Diary, 14 March 1943
18. ^ The Nazification of the United States by Norman Livergood
19. ^ Shawn J. Parry-Giles, op. cit.
20. ^ Why We Fight
21. ^ The New World Order, Criminals and Their Camps by Deanna Spingola
22. ^ Chicago Tribune History by Michael A. Hoffman II
23. ^ Killing Our Own, The Disaster of America’s Experience with Atomic Radiation 1945-1982 by Harvey Wasserman & Norman Solomon with Robert Alvarez & Eleanor Walters The First Atomic Veterans, Part 1
24. ^ Howard Zinn. op. cit.
25. ^ Voice of America, A Trusted Source of News and Information since 1942
26. ^ An Organization of U.S. International Broadcasters
27. ^ Broadcasting Board of Governors
28. ^ BBG Board
29. ^ Chevron named oil tanker the “Condoleezza Rice”

About the Author

Deanna Spingola has been a quilt designer and is the author of two books. She has traveled extensively teaching and lecturing on her unique methods. She has always been an avid reader of non-fiction works designed to educate rather than entertain. She is active in family history research and lectures on that topic. Currently she is the director of the local Family History Center. She has a great interest in politics and the direction of current government policies, particularly as they relate to the Constitution. Deanna’s Web Site

Why Vaccines aren’t safe

Why Vaccines aren’t safe

This two and a half hour presentation, is well researched and presented. Are vacccines safe? Find out how they made it & the LIES about all MERCURY Free vacines. At the end a medical doctor discusses how he gave his child a vaccine and it caused him to have severe autism. He vowed never to vaccinate himself or his family ever again after FINDING out the TRUTH!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6351515212287981735&hl=en

The Unknown $19 Trillion Depository Trust Company

If you own stocks you need to read this

The Unknown $19 Trillion Depository Trust Company
Rumor Mill News ..
http://company.monster.com/detrco/
9-15-99

http://www.monetaryportfolio.com/i_specialReports_01.asp

Part I of II-

This exclusive report is a compilation of interviews and background research from October 1995 through April 1999. The Depository Trust Company (DTC) is the best kept secret in America. Headquartered at 55 Water Street in New York City, the average American has no clue that this financial institution is the most powerful banking corporation in the world.

The general public has no knowledge of what the DTC is or what they do. How can a private banking trust company hold assets of over $19 trillion and be unknown? In a recent press release dated April 19, 1999, the Depository Trust Company stated: The Depository Trust Company (DTC) is the world’s largest securities depository, holding nearly $19 trillion in assets for its Participants and their customers…. Last year, DTC processed over 164 million book-entry deliveries valued at more than $77 trillion.

In dealing with the trust department of Midlantic Bank, N.A. in New Jersey [now PNC Bank, N.A.], this writer was authorized, as trustee and power of attorney, to transfer original trust assets comprising of common stocks and bonds to a new trust set up in another jurisdiction. An Assistant Vice President from the Trust & Financial Management Office of Midlantic Bank said to me “it will take at least 6 weeks to do this as the majority of the stocks and bonds are not held in the name of the trust”. This same Midlantic Bank Assistant V.P. also stated in a letter dated November 17, 1995, “Of the 11 municipal bonds, 8 are held in book entry only.

This means they cannot be physically re-registered with a certificate sent to the new trustees.” (* these are not the actual figures quoted in the letter in order to protect the privacy of the account holder, at their request. Also, we were asked not to name the Midlantic Assistant V.P. in order to protect her privacy Rights. We respect these requests with full moral compliance). In disbelief, I brought this matter to the attention of our research assistants at the Christian Common Law Institute [formerly the North Bridge News] and we began our lengthy investigation into the matter. After 3 years, the can of worms we’ve opened up should frighten every American. With the advent of reported Y2K computer glitches and the possible collapse of our ‘paper asset’ economy, every person who has a stock or bond in their portfolio had better read this report and act on the information we are disclosing here. In November 1995, after encountering numerous “no comments” and a myriad of “that’s not my department” excuses via telephone, I eventually spoke with Mr. Jim McNeff who told me his position was Director of Training for the DTC.

He said he’d been employed there for 19 years and was “very proud” of his employer. During my initial telephone interview, either Jim’s employer or some other unknown person or persons were illegally listening or taping our telephone conversation according to the electronic eavesdropping equipment we have installed on our end. Why did anyone feel it was necessary to illegally record our conversation without advising us?

Was some federal alphabet agency monitoring DTC calls to safeguard National Security? That in itself is suspicious enough to warrant a big red warning flag. Jim informed me back then (1995) that “the DTC is the largest limited trust company in the world with assets of $ 9.1 trillion”. In July 1998, I spoke with Ms. Rose Barnabic of the DTC Finance Department who said that “DTC assets are currently estimated at around $11 trillion”. As of April 19, 1999, the DTC itself has stated that their assets total “nearly $19 trillion” (see above). Mr. McNeff had also stated “the DTC is a brokerage clearing firm and transfer center.

We’re a private bank for securities. We handle the book entry transactions for all banks and brokers. Every bank and brokerage firm must secure their membership with us in case they become insolvent, so your assets are secure with DTC”. Yes, you read that correctly. The DTC is a private bank that processes every stock and bond (paper securities) for all U.S. banks and brokerage houses. The big question is this; Just who gave this private bank and trust company such a broad range of financial power and clout?

The reason the public doesn’t know about DTC is that they’re a privately owned depository bank for institutional and brokerage firms only. They process all of their book entry settlement transactions. Jim McNeff said “There’s no need for the public to know about us… it’s required by the Federal Reserve that DTC handle all transactions”.

The Federal Reserve Corporation, a/k/a The Federal Reserve System, is also a private company and is not an agency or department of our federal government, according to the 1998 Federal Registry. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is listed, but they are not the owners. The Federal Reserve Board, headed by Mr. Alan Greenspan, is nothing more than a liaison advisory panel between the owners and the Federal Government. The FED, as they are more commonly called, mandates that the DTC process every securities transaction in the US. It’s no wonder that the DTC (including the Participants Trust Company, now the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division of the DTC) is owned by the same stockholders as the Federal Reserve System. In other words, the Depository Trust Company is really just a ‘front’ or a division of the Federal Reserve System.

“DTC is 35.1% owned by the New York Stock Exchange on behalf of the Exchange’s members. It is operated by a separate management and has an independent board of directors. It is a limited purpose trust company and is a unit of the Federal Reserve.” -New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Now, let’s see how this effects the average working American family. If you’re not aware how the system works, you should visit or call a stock broker or bank and instruct them you want to purchase some shares of common stock or a small municipal bond, for example.

They will set up a brokerage account for you and act as your agent with full durable power of attorney (which you must legally sign over to them) to conduct business on your behalf, upon your buy or sell instructions. The broker will place your stock or bond purchase into their safekeeping under a “street name”. According to Mr. McNeff of the DTC, no bank or broker can place any stock or bond into their firm’s own name due to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations. The broker or bank must then send the transaction to the DTC for ledger posting or book entry settlement under mandate by the Federal Reserve System. Remember, since your bank or broker can’t use their name on the certificate, they use a fictitious street name. “Since the DTC is a banking trust company, we can’t hold the certificates in our name, so the DTC transfers the certificates to our own private holding company or nominee name.” states Mr. McNeff. The DTC’s private holding company or street name, as shown on certificates we have personally examined from numerous certificate holders, is shown as either “CEDE and Company”, “Cede Company” or “Cede & Co”. We have searched every source known to learn who CEDE really is, but have been unable to get any background information on them. Is Cede Company fictitious or is their identity perhaps a larger secret than DTC?

We must presume that the information Mr. McNeff gave us was correct when he confirmed that Cede Company was a controlled private holding company of the DTC. We have now found the following proof that CEDE is real from the Bear Stearns internet site: NEW YORK, New York – March 16, 1999 – Bear Stearns Finance LLC today announced that it will redeem all of the 6,000,000 outstanding 8.00% Exchangeable Preferred Income Cumulative Shares, Series A (“EPICS”) of Bear Stearns Finance LLC, liquidation preference of $25.00 per Series A Share, CUSIP number G09198105. All of the Series A Shares are held by Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, and the payment of the redemption price will be made to Cede & Co. by ChaseMellon Shareholder Services, LLC, as paying agent, whose address is: 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. The banks and brokers are merely custodians for their clients. By federal law (SEC), they cannot hold any assets in the customer’s name.

The assets must be held in the name of DTC’s holding company, CEDE & Co. That’s how DTC has more than $19 trillion dollars of assets in trust… or is it really in “trust” if the private Federal Reserve System is technically holding it in their “unknown” entity’s name? Obviously, if stock and bond certificates you’ve purchased aren’t in your name, then the “holder” (the Federal Reserve System) could theoretically refuse to surrender them back to you under a “national emergency” according to the Trading with the Enemy Act (as amended). Is this the collateral being held by the private Federal Reserve System to pay off the national debt owed to them by our federal government, first initiated by Lincoln’s debt bonds of 1864? According to Mr. McNeff, the DTC was a former member of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), and “Our sister company is the National Securities Clearing Corporation… the NSCC” (they have since merged). He was correct since we now know that the NYSE holds 35.1% of the “ownership” of the DTC on behalf of their NYSE members.

Simply put, the Depository Trust Company absolutely controls every paper asset transaction in the United States as well as the majority of overseas transactions, and they now physically hold (as of April 1999) 99% of all stock and bond book-entrys in their street name, not the actual owner’s names. If you have stock or bond certificates in your name buried in your back yard or under your mattress, we suggest you keep them there. If not, it might be very wise to cancel your brokerage account and power of attorney status, re-register the stocks and bonds in your name (if you still can), and keep them hidden where only you know their location. Otherwise, you have absolutely no control over them (see Part II of our exclusive research report on the DTC for more information on beneficial ownership status).

However, getting a stock or bond certificate these days is not so easy if possible at all: “For the most part, issuers know little about the role of the Depository Trust Company (DTC). The DTC was created in 1973 as a user-owned cooperative for post-trade settlement. Our members are banks and broker/dealers, whom we refer to as participants. We handle listed and unlisted equities, including 51,000 equity issues and 170,000 corporate debt issues, equating to more than 78% of shares outstanding on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). We also have more than 95% of all municipals on deposit. In the 1980s, the “Group of 30″ [business leaders] recommended that stock certificates be eliminated, because physical certificates create risk. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a concept release in 1994 to gradually decrease certificates, providing optional direct registration on the books of the issuer instead of a certificate…. this enhances the portability of shares between transfer agents and brokerage accounts. With the direct registration system, brokers transmit instructions to purchase through DTC, which the issuer or transfer agent then registers, so shares can be delivered electronically.” -John D. Faith, Manager, Corporate Trust Services,

The Depository Trust Company (1996) Now we’re about to reveal to you the most shocking discovery we came across during our research into this matter. Most of us remember a few years back the purported computerized selling of stocks that resulted in Wall Street’s “Black Monday”: Dow Dives 508.32 Points in Panic on Wall Street “The largest stock-market drop in Wall Street history occurred on “Black Monday” — October 19, 1987 — when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 508.32 points, losing 22.6% of its total value. That fall far surpassed the one-day loss of 12.9% that began the great stock market crash of 1929 and foreshadowed the Great Depression. The Dow’s 1987 fall also triggered panic selling and similar drops in stock markets worldwide” -Source: Facts on File World News CD ROM The stock exchanges had dramatic record losses, and a record volume of shares were traded on that infamous Monday in October 1987. We all asked ourselves how computers could have done this by themselves without someone knowing about it. After all, someone has to program a computer to tell it what to do, what not to do, or even when to do or not do it.

During my telephone conversation, Mr. McNeff was trying to assure me that they [the DTC] have “never lost a certificate or made a mistake in a book ledger transaction”. In attempting to give me an example of how trustworthy the DTC is when I asked him how he could back up such a statement, he replied “DTC’s first controlled test was 4 or 5 years ago. Do you remember Black Monday? There were 535 million transactions on Monday, and 400 million transactions on Tuesday”. He was very proud to inform me that “DTC cleared every transaction without a single glitch!”. Read these quotes again: He stated that Black Monday was a controlled test. Black Monday was a deliberately manipulated disaster for many Americans at the whim of a controlled test by the DTC. What was the purpose of this test?

Common sense tells you that you test something before you intend to use it. It’s quite obvious that the stock markets are going to ‘crash and burn’ at some future date and for some ‘unknown’ reason since the controlled test was so successful. Was this just one of the planned tests for a Y2K internationally planned worldwide economic meltdown?

The Great Depression is about to be repeated, and it will be as deliberate and manipulated as the first one that began with the stock market crash of 1929. We are, without a doubt, on the brink of the Mother of all economic Depressions. As of May 3, 1999, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) went above a record 11,000 points. Just prior to the 1929 stock market crash, Wall Street was posting record prices, record earnings, and record profits…. just like the scenario we are experiencing today. Will Y2K be a manipulated and deliberate a financial meltdown?

Too many facts already support this probability. On June 7, 1995, the federal government issued a new regulation requiring stock and bond certificate transfers to be cleared in three days instead of the previous five day time period. It coincided with the infamous Regulation CC that purportedly gave us faster three day availability of funds from deposited checks. This means that brokers and banks must get your stock or bond transaction into the street name (Cede & Co.) of the DTC within 3 working days.

That’s hard to do considering banks claim it takes 3 or more days to clear a check that you’ve submitted to pay for a stock purchase. But, there’s a reason for this new regulation and it coincides with the introduction of the new FRS “dollars”. On February 22, 1996, “the DTC will flip the switch” according to Mr. McNeff. “What switch?”, I asked. “This is the day that clearing house funds will no longer be accepted for stock or bond transactions” was my reply from Jim. “Instead, only Fed Funds will be accepted”. Fed Funds, or a Fedwire, are electronic computer ledger debit transfers between Federal Reserve System member banks. No checks or drafts have been allowed from that day, just as Mr. McNeff accurately stated.

This is more commonly called a ‘cashless transaction’. I call it the reality of the mark of the beast. This is the manifestation of the new international god, the New World Order [I prefer the term 'New World DISorder' as a more accurate description]. [RMNews: In case you are new to all of this and you don't understand that the Federal Reserve Banking System is a privately owned bank, there is an article on the www.rumormillnews.com page that will help you begin to understand.

It is found by clicking the Gunther Russbacher button and then clicking on the headline that reads: An Expose of the Federal Reserve. This article was written in late 1991 or early 1992. At the time is was published in many diferent newspapers and newsletters. It was the first introduction the American people had to the "new money" that is referenced in this article.

Consider this my fellow Christian Americans: All pension funds and other institutional 'managed funds' are comprised of paper asset investments such as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. These certificates are technically in the name of DTC's private holding company, CEDE and Company. The DTC is owned by the private Federal Reserve System owners (Click for a complete list of names). Congress has attempted, on no less than two occasions since 1995, to pass legislation allowing pension funds to be used by the government as purported 'loans'. All the Federal Reserve System has to do is hand it over. But, what happens to the people counting on those pension fund investments in order to feed themselves in their retirement? Too bad for them.... they're out of luck because for the 'good of the nation', they may be forced to share or relinquish their lifetime of hard-earned wealth.

This can be done without the consent of Congress under an Executive Order based on the War and Emergency Powers Act and a state of National Emergency, just like we are already under (See further Executive Orders). Since the Federal Reserve System already holds our stocks and bonds in their fictitious DTC "street name", CEDE, then perhaps they'll cash them in for the federal government's failure to repay the loans that have become way overdue. Heck, some of Lincoln's gold backed bonds from 1864 have not been repaid yet.... and for a reason. On March 6, 1933, all bullion gold and gold coins were forcibly taken from the hands of private citizens (see New York Times). Under the War Powers Act, President Roosevelt declared a national emergency touted as a "Banking Holiday".

It was declared due to the deliberately calculated stock market crash that preceded the Great Depression. Where did this gold end up? Into the hands of the Federal Reserve System owners. The majority is stored in the impervious rock vaults they own beneath New York City. Is it any surprise that the DTC physically holds all the remaining non-book entry issued stock and bond certificates in the same place? Technically, our entire nation is still under the Executive Order declaration of the War Powers Act and in a continual state of national emergency (See Clinton's 1994 Executive Order 12919). The President can enforce any new emergency at any time under Executive Order or Presidential Directive. In 1995, we [the former North Bridge News] published that we expected a new national “dollar” emergency to be declared within a year or two. Just like we thought at the time, they have now blamed it on the purported drug dealers who are allegedly destroying our currency by money laundering schemes. Since late 1996, old U.S. $100 FRB notes issued by the Federal Reserve Bank are being exchanged for new $100 FRS issued by the Federal Reserve System.

These new notes have scanable magnetic platinum encryption on the plastic strips embedded inside the bills. The U.S. Treasury claims this is for “the blind”. Now, new $20 and $50 FRS’s are replacing the older notes as well. What people don’t realize is that very soon, the older FRB notes will no longer be ‘legal’ and there will be a penalty for hoarding them. This is what happened to those Americans holding gold and gold coins after 1933. “We are most gratified with the successful introduction of the new $100 and $50 notes and look forward to the same success with the new $20s,” Chairman Greenspan said. For the first time, a machine-readable capability has been incorporated for the blind. A new feature in the $20 will facilitate the development of convenient scanning devices that could identify the note as a $20. -U.S. Treasury, Office of Public Affairs, RR-2449 released May 20, 1998. Why new paper ‘money’ and for what purpose? Because the new FRS notes in your pocket can be scanned and whoever scans them can know exactly how much money you have on you. The older FRB notes are not encoded to do this. This writer knows firsthand of at least one machine, manufactured by Diebold, Inc. (a/k/a InterBold) that scans the money in your pockets, wallet or purse no different in theory than a credit card scanner, but much more sophisticated. I participated in a ‘test’ of this machine at a U.S. international airport in 1998. To me, it looks much like the standard metal detector scanners you walk through at all airports. I was asked (by who I believe was a U.S. Treasury Agent, as he introduced himself and flashed his ID quickly in my face so I couldn’t read it) if I had any of the new $100 or $50 bills in my pockets.

I looked in my wallet and saw I had one new $100 FRS note. I told him “yes”, then he said “Good, but don’t tell me how much”. After saying he would “really appreciate it” if I would help them with a test, he asked me to walk through what looked like a typical airport scanner. No beeps. No noise. No sound at all. He looked at a computer screen and said “Do you have a new $100 bill?”. When I confirmed that was true, he thanked me and told me to please move on. I tried to ask him how the machine knew that, but he ignored my question. I took a good look at the scanning system and believe I have now spotted them at Kennedy, Atlanta, Miami and Los Angeles airports. The odd part about this is that these machines seem to all be located in the customs areas where you enter the U.S. from a foreign country. Obviously, they want to know if someone is carrying more than $10,000 into the U.S. Common sense dictates that they should be more concerned about people leaving with more than $10,000 if they’re really trying to thwart the drug dealers…. until you begin to realize that there must be some other hidden agenda:

They are apparently going to stop money from entering the U.S. for a reason. Will the President call for the confiscation of all gold bullion and bullion coins as Roosevelt did? Who will end up with it? The Federal Reserve System owners, just like before. Since June 1998, international gold supplies have been so low that some private Swiss Banks have been paying a premium above the market wholesale value for gold bullion. This was confirmed to us by a gold and diamond mining Chief Executive from Rex Mining in Guinea, West Africa, who supplies raw gold to a major Swiss Banking company smelter and processor The spot gold market has been manipulated to keep the price low so that the Federal Reserve System owners can purchase all that is available through their various trusts and corporations. World gold availability on the open market is now at a record low and mining production of gold is also at a record low output. What happened to ’supply and demand’ with gold and silver?

Normally, when supply is high the price decreases. When supply is low, precious metal prices increase. Perhaps the private FED will peg the new dollar to gold prices, as many experts have already speculated. What will stocks and bonds purchased with old dollars be worth then? Pennies to the dollar, so to speak. Who ends up being the only winner? The Federal Reserve System stockholders. They control the circulation amounts of paper money in the U.S. Combine that with the new scanner to stop large amounts from entering into the U.S., and the scenario amounts to a planned shortage of paper FRS notes, the banning of the older FRB notes, and the soon to be astronomical price of gold which most Americans will be forbidden to have or hoard, once again.

The facts we’ve presented in this report all point to this. People will be at the mercy of the federal government for daily food and for jobs. Checks are soon to be totally phased out. Banks issue ATM debit cards and tell you they must charge more for your account if you use a real live human teller instead of the machine. The switch is being turned on. This is not speculation. This is the truth of reality. It’s already been tested, and their new system works. Just ask Jim McNeff of the DTC. The day has come when you must decide to accept or reject the beast and the New World Disorder.

Click below for part II

http://www.monetaryportfolio.com/i_specialReports_01b.asp

History Channel Admits Anthrax Attacks after 9/11 were an Inside Job

 

NEWS BRIEF: “History Channel Admits Anthrax Attacks are an Inside Job – Anthrax came from American Defense Department!”, You Tube Video

We encourage you to listen carefully to this video. These expert witnesses testify that the “investigation” into the Anthrax scare was a “sham” and actually asks the question, could the terrorists be hiding within the Defense Establishment? One witness said that the only people who knew about the subject of Anthrax were the suspects — experts within the Department of Defense.

Another expert witness called the Anthrax attacks “an inside job”! While the emphasis of this video was on one rogue individual within the Defense Department, we know that the spreading of pathogens amongst the people was part of the Illuminati Plan, as revealed by the “Illuminati Card Game”. This video comes the closest to any Mass Media presentation which places the finger of blame where it belongs — to our government.

Remember the time frame of the Anthrax attacks: they began occurring within weeks after the 9/11 attacks, and while President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft were demanding that Congress pass the extremely dictatorial “Patriot Act” laws. This legislation gave the President the greatest dictatorial powers possible. Their passage was certainly aided by the general fear of alarm and fear. The Anthrax attacks greatly aided the government in the passage of the Patriot Acts.

It is clear that this was just one more action the government undertook in order to overthrow the Old World Order so the New could be established.

Source www.cuttingedge.org

AN OVERVIEW ON THE POLIO VACCINE

AN OVERVIEW ON THE POLIO VACCINE

by Mary Tocco
January 27, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

I get asked regularly about the polio epidemic in the 1900’s and those who ask me feel that the vaccine is responsible for saving thousands of lives. They also believe the vaccine eradicated polio. I share this with you to hopefully give those who grew up in the 1920’s to 1950’s a different point of view. Often, they recall someone who was struck with polio or other infectious illnesses that would leave them paralyzed or permanently ill. Yes, it is true that many were unfortunate and suffered with paralysis but we must not assume that because polio is no longer a threat in this country that the vaccine is the reason for this decline. Let me addresses this topic from a historical view.

First, looking back historically, these infectious illnesses referred to were very prevalent in the mid 1800’s to early 1900’s. Several studies have proven that these infectious diseases were almost completely gone before vaccines were introduced. The death rates were at all time lows through out United States, Great Brittan and countries without vaccines also had decreases. I believe that Americans have been sold a lie. The following quote is from a very reliable source and is one of many that document that death from infectious illnesses was at an all time low before vaccines were introduced.

“According to the World Health Statistics Annual of 1973-1976 said that there had been a steady decline in infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of vaccines administered. They believe that the diseases disappeared as a result of improved sanitation, improved water supplies improved personal hygiene and better nutrition. In addition, diseases for which there were no vaccines also declined dramatically. From 1850 to 1940, diseases had declined by 90% and were at an all time low, just when vaccines were being introduced.”

Imagine living in the turn of the century where we lived with animals and their by- products, used their fur and feathers in our homes, no refrigeration, no running water, poor food storage infected with rodents and bugs, poor personal hygiene, shallow wells near out houses, ponds and rivers for washing our bodies shared by animals…. It was not a clean environment. As we began to improve all of these things including waste water treatment and sewer systems, better nutrition and clean drinking water, illnesses and death from infectious illness decreased dramatically. Another great study that comes up with the same conclusion, Medical Measures and the Decline of Mortality by , St. Martin’s Press, New York states “It is estimated that at most, 3.5% of the total decline in mortality since 1900 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the diseases considered.” Furthermore, medical measures were introduced several decades after marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influences in most instances.”

The American Medical Association and the Center for Disease Control have taken credit for eradicating diseases in the United States when in fact; they were on their way out because of previously stated reasons. Small pox is often referred to as the “great success story” and yet the vaccine had very little to do with eradication. Only 10% of the world’s population received the vaccine. In a June 19-20, 2002 meeting in Atlanta Georgia after 911 when the government was debating to bring back the small pox vaccine, the Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practice said, “Small pox would have died out on its own due to improved sanitation, improved water supply and improved nutrition.”

I have been researching the “risks of vaccinations” for the last 27 years. What I have learned about the polio vaccines used in this country is not only shocking but will affect millions. Consider these facts:

• It is known that the live polio vaccine contained SV40, a cancer-producing virus and for the first time a hearing was held in Washington on September 9, 2003 by the Subcommittee on Human Health and Wellness, U.S. Government Reform Committee Chaired by Congressman Burton (R-IN). SV40 is associated with brain, bone and lung tumors found in children and adults today from vaccinations. This vaccine was used until the late 90’s.
• Previously in Washington on August 3, 1999 at a Polio Vaccine Hearing by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and House of Representatives, the following testimony was not reported in the evening news! I have met Dr. Howard Urnovitz on several occasions when he has presented the results of his research. He has dedicated his life to cancer research and vaccines. Here is a portion of his written testimony: “I am grateful to this committee for allowing me to address the issue of vaccine safety. I am Dr. Howard B. Urnovitz. In 1979, I received my doctorate degree in Microbiology and Immunology from the University of Michigan, where I studied vaccines. I am testifying today as the Scientific Director of the Chronic Illness Research Foundation. For the record, I am also the chief science officer of a biotechnology corporation. On the issue of informed consent: Had my mother and father known that the polio virus vaccines of the 1950s were heavily contaminated with more than 26 monkey viruses, including the cancer virus SV40, I can say with certainty that they would not have allowed their children and themselves to take those vaccines. Both of my parents might not have developed cancers suspected of being vaccine-related, and might even be alive today. Government, industry, and medicine should embrace the ethical principle of informed consent about possible adverse reactions associated with vaccines.”

Our government is trying to hide behind “junk science” riddled with conflict of interest. Our Institute of Medicine, Federal Drug Administration and the Center for Disease Control all refuse to acknowledge the injuries caused by vaccination. The time is coming when they will not be able to deny their responsibility in the catastrophic rise in illness due to toxic vaccines. Thank God, we stopped using the live polio virus vaccine in the late 1990’s because it was the cause of almost all of the polio in this country since the 1980’s when they began to track it.

How did we get so programmed? Could it be that a whole generation of Americans has been told a big lie? The reality is that we are the victims of very carefully planned out conditioning that has been going on for many years. According to Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, renowned pediatrician for 30 years and author of several books such as, “The Medical Heretic” and “How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor, he writes the following; “The pediatrician serves as the recruiter for the medical profession. He indoctrinates your child from birth into a lifelong dependency on medical intervention. The best way to raise a healthy child is to keep him/her away from the doctors except emergency care. Most doctors ignore the fact that the human body is a wondrous machine with the astonishing capacity to repair itself.” Dr. Mendelsohn goes on to say, “The first stage of the indoctrination is the well baby visit- a cherished ritual of the pediatrician that enhances their income but does nothing constructive for your child. Well baby visits are worthless…” page 24-24. “The purpose of the pediatrician is to vaccinate your child.” In chapter 19 he states, “The greatest threat of childhood disease lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them-mass immunizations.” He goes on to call vaccines the “sacred cow” of modern medicine.

Most parents do not know what they are consenting to, just as I believe most doctors who promote vaccines do not know what they were injecting when they vaccinate. After attending my vaccine presentations, most parents will think hard and long before giving any vaccines and most importantly, will make a fully informed decision, understanding all the risks.

I believe in Freedom and Liberty. As a parent, an American and an adult, I do not want my government telling me what I must put into my body or my children’s bodies. I no longer trust those who hold powerful positions in our government because I believe their motive is no longer the well being of the citizens of this country. Vaccines, at this time, are the only mandated drugs and therefore, should be proven safe and effective. There are no long term safety studies and the studies the drug manufactures present are flawed and bias. The Institute of Medicine gets a percent of every vaccine given in this country. There should be no financial ties allowed.

I love this quote!

“When we give the power to government to make medical decisions for us, in essence, the state owns our bodies.”

Dr. Ron Paul M.D. U.S. Representative, 2008 Republican nominee for president.

Parents, it is up to you to make this very important decision. Take the time necessary to investigate all the childhood recommended vaccines before you sign a consent form. We do not live with the same threat of illness as the generations before us did. We have many options other than vaccination that do not carry the level of risk. Because of vaccines, we now have a whole generation of children who suffer with chronic, life long health issues. I believe there is a happy balance where we are active in promoting health. My opinion is that when a healthy child gets normal childhood illnesses, it will help that child develop a strong immune system. Nothing in the body gets strengthened by avoidance, only by over coming challenges.

I have spent thousands of hours investigating the facts and now you can benefit from my 27 years of work. My three hour fully documented DVD; “Are Vaccines Safe?” is now available.

I appreciate your emails and your opinions are welcome.

© 2008 – Mary Tocco – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

---

Mary Tocco is currently managing/owner of Vitalityhealth LLC, in Charleston, SC and I work with my daughter, Dr. Renee Tocco, who is a chiropractor and the clinic director. I have been working in the chiropractic field since April of 1981. I have organized workshops outside the office on health topics and have been public speaking on health issues for the last thirteen years. I attend yearly vaccine conferences sponsored by the state of Michigan as well as other conferences on issues pertaining to vaccines.

Mary’s studies have included natural cooking, natural birthing, home births, breast-feeding. I have had four home births and have successfully raised our five children outside the medical model utilizing a vitalistic healthcare approach (no drugs or surgeries). I have researched vaccines/immunizations for the last twenty-seven years and in August of 2006; I released my DVD called, “Are Vaccines Safe?”

Website: MaryTocco.com
Website: Childhoodshots.com

E-Mail: mary@marytocco.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Tocco/mary1.htm

The Truth About the Drug Companies:How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It

The Truth About the Drug Companies:
How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It

In this book, her most recent, Marcia Angell explores pharmaceutical research, deplores the rapidly expanding involvement (and distortion of truth) of Big Pharma, and implores us all (physicians, patients, politicians) to do something about it. The dust-jacket blurb asserts that Angell, “during her two decades at The New England Journal of Medicine had a front-row seat on the growing corruption of the pharmaceutical industry.”

Since leaving the Journal, she’s gone behind the curtains of Big Pharma, Big University, and Big Faculty. Drawing on her own work and on her thoughtful analysis of research, company financial statements, and investigative reports into drug development and marketing, Angell writes with the unambiguous and unyielding style that Journal readers came to expect and trust.

The current slide toward the commercialization and corruption of clinical research coincided with the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act, a new set of laws that permitted and encouraged universities and small businesses to patent discoveries from research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Research paid for by the public to serve the public instantly became a private, and salable good—one that is producing drug sales of more than $200 billion a year.

Commercialization had both specific and broad effects. Readers of this journal and others are familiar with investigations into the control that research sponsors at pharmaceutical companies exert on the design and analysis of clinical trials (including the distortion of primary outcome measures in trials) and the issue of reporting, nonreporting, and biased reporting of results.

Angell reminds us of the increasingly cozy relationships between big industry and the faculties of universities. Not only are narcissistic donors renaming the medical schools; they are buying access to the best minds of their faculties. Angell’s examples of the large consulting fees paid by industry to individual faculty members and to NIH scientists and directors are astounding.

The broader effects are felt in the commercialization of universities, medical faculties, and our profession. In 2000, in a letter written in response to Angell’s Journal editorial, “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” a reader supplied the answer: “No. The current owner is very happy with it.” The increasing intrusion of industry into medical education and the almost complete domination of continuing medical education (especially regarding drugs) by the marketing departments of large pharmaceutical companies are a scandal.

The same companies also spend heavily to lobby governments. According to Angell, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the pharmaceutical industry’s U.S. trade association has “the largest lobby in Washington,” which in 2002 employed 675 lobbyists (including 26 former members of Congress) at a cost of more than $91 million. The result has been above-average growth in corporate profits during both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The most recent and perplexing lobbying effort caused Congress explicitly to prohibit Medicare from using its huge purchasing power to get lower prices for drugs, thus opening up a dollar pipeline, in the form of higher drug prices, directly from taxpayers to corporate coffers. These changes, along with the cave-in by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1997 that permitted direct-to-consumer advertising to bypass mention in their ads of all but the most serious side effects, have further augmented profits. The overall effect has been a corruption not only of science but also of the dissemination of science.

Angell documents that, contrary to what they claim, large pharmaceutical companies have “paltry output” in innovative research. In fact, as permitted by Bayh-Dole, pharmaceutical companies buy discoveries coming out of the basic-science enterprises, including universities and publicly funded granting agencies. The real costs of research on drugs by pharmaceutical companies are much less than the oft-quoted $800 million or so per new drug brought to market. Most of their research is on me-too drugs—unoriginal, tax-deductible (and thus paid for in lost taxes by the public), and mostly unnecessary. The Big Pharma companies are, in essence, manufacturing and marketing companies.

Angell’s concluding chapter, the least convincing in an otherwise fascinating and penetrating book, contains the solutions, all of them predictable: control me-too drugs, re-empower the FDA, oversee Big Pharma’s clinical research, curb patent length and abuse, keep Big Pharma out of medical education, make company financial statements transparent (so we can tell what the costs of research really are, as distinct from marketing), and impose price controls or guidelines. Granted, the problems are so prevalent and the corporate tentacles so entwined with our way of being that it is hard to see what else to recommend.

But perhaps Angell is right. We must change the way we manage research and the development and distribution of new drugs. Not only are health and health care at risk, but so are the research enterprise and the reputations of universities and governments. The integrity of scientific research is too important to be left to the invisible hand of the marketplace.

John Hoey, M.D.
john.hoey@cma.ca 

New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 351:1580-1581, October 7, 2004, Number 15
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/15/1580 (payment required to view article)

To purchase The Truth About Drug Companies from amazon.com, click here
The quote at the top is from Dr. Angell’s summary of her own book in the New York Review of Books.

For a riveting 10-page summary of Dr. Angell’s book, click here

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11
January 14, 2008 at 11:56:43

Official Account of 9/11: “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover-up”, “A White-Washed Farce”

January 14, 2008 – Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation.  They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others.  They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story.  The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_080112_twenty_five_u_s__mil.htm

Original post by: red pill (Thx BIGBIRD)
http://www.myspace.com/eatingredpills 

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

 

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney
<HMS@proparanoid.com>
(c) 1997, 2000, 2001 All rights reserved

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author’s Web site: http://www.proparanoid.com

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even “good guys” can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation… to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not… or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found… but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation ~

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish

Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist ~

1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino’s character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days — just as it was at the People’s Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known ‘liar’s’ testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance — the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution — very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role — the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of “higher standards” of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid — and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or — put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don’t apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused — reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation ~

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

(1) Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil ~ Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

Example: Media was present in the courtroom (Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby) when CIA agent Marita Lorenz ‘confession’ testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported was that E. Howard Hunt lost his libel case against Liberty Lobby (Liberty Lobby’s newspaper, The Spotlight, had reported Hunt was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane’s remarkable book, Plausible Denial, for the full confessional transcript.

Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up. In this case, it would be the entire Time-Warner Media Group, among others. This author is relatively certain that reporters were hand-picked to cover this case from among those having intelligence community ties.

(2) Become Incredulous and Indignant ~ Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.

Example: ‘How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America’s finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint.’

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern of abuse of power that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 – become incredulous and indignant)?

(3) Create Rumor Mongers ~ Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.

‘You can’t prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his ‘proof’ that flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn’t. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that’s been floating around the Internet for months.’

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a similar statement by a Congressman, neither of which had actually seen Pierre’s document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger’s credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 – create rumor mongers)?

(4) Use a Straw Man ~ Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. The disinformationalist, later identified as having worked for Naval Intelligence, simply stated: ‘If these images exist, the public has not seen them. Why? They don’t exist, and never did. You have no evidence and thus, your entire case falls flat.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics (rule 4 – use a straw man)?’

(5) Sidetrack Opponents with Name-Calling and Ridicule ~ This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ’sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Example: ‘You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics — does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Willis DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding slanderous statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges against the messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly in the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 – sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?’

(6) Hit and Run ~ In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

Example: ”This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.’ Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won’t seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. If you do not like reading ‘this crap’, why do you frequent this NG which is clearly for the purpose of such discussion? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – hit and run)?’

(7) Question Motives ~ Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

Example: ‘With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. If you think what has been presented are ‘lies’, why not simply so illustrate? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – question motives)?’

(8) Invoke Authority ~ Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

‘You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8’s (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams — for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals nor have they ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I’m not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. You simply cite ‘Jane’s-like’ information to make us think you know what you are talking about. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 – invoke authority)?’

(9) Play Dumb ~ No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Example: ‘Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (Rule 9 – play dumb)?’

(10) Associate Opponent Charges with Old News ~ A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

Example: ‘Flight 553’s crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won’t revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant to truth. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 – associate charges with old news)?’

(11) Establish and Rely Upon Fall-Back Positions ~ Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

Example: ‘Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy it makes us feel, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters being discussed. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 – establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?’

(12) Enigmas Have No Solution ~ Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

Example: ‘I don’t see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can’t prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and in Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and the secret Grand Jury, and on, and on, and on. It’s hopeless. Give it up.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 – enigmas have no solution)?’

(13) Alice in Wonderland Logic ~  Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

Example: ‘The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story — often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven’t reported it, so there can’t have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony ‘confession’ by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. THAT, would have been the biggest story of the Century, but they didn’t print it, did they? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 – Alice in Wonderland logic)?’

(14) Demand Complete Solutions ~  Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

Example: ‘Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?’

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray’s innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 – demand complete solutions)?

(15) Fit the Facts to Alternate Conclusions ~ This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

Example: ‘The cargo door failed on Flight 800 and caused a catastrophic breakup which ruptured the fuel tank and caused it to explode.’

Proper response: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet from the Warren Report. This was eloquently defeated in court but media blindly accepted it without challenge. Thus rewarded, disinformationalists do not shrink from its application, even though today, thanks in part to the movie, JFK, most Americans do now understand it was fabricated nonsense. Thus the defense which works best may actually be to cite the Magic Bullet. ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented. You invent a cargo door problem when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the cargo door hinges and locks disprove you. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 – fit facts to an alternate conclusion)?’

(16) Vanish Evidence and Witnesses ~ If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

Example: ‘You can’t say Paisley is still alive… that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can’t you accept the Police reports?’ This is a good ploy, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long and the teeth weren’t his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it — all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.

Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the discussion, you can respond… ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention ONLY because of highly suspicious matters such as the simultaneous and mysterious vanishing of three sets of evidence. The suspicious nature itself tends to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 – vanish evidence and witnesses)?’

(17) Change the Subject ~ Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Example: ‘There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn’t happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election: Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform.’ Assistant’s response. ‘You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what’s wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on…’ One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one…

Proper response: ‘You are both avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response to a new topic — a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane, and take it to one of the more appropriate politics NGs. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?’

(18) Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents ~ If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ’sensitive they are to criticism.’

Example: ‘You are such an idiot to think that possible — or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the ‘gubment’ is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.’ After a drawing an emotional response: ‘Ohhh… I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What’s the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help…’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let’s here it — preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 – emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)?’

(19) Ignore Proof Presented, Demand Impossible Proofs ~ This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Example: ‘All he’s done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren’t qualified. Where’s his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press — as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team — as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, — about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren’t qualified. Then you demand us to produce evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence held by FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 – ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)?’

(20) False Evidence ~ Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy ‘confession’, since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination (see below.)

Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in time… ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have been designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt, James McCord, and others, met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose ‘Solidarist confession’ was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder AWAY from CIA. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 – false evidence)?’

(21) Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or Other Empowered Investigative Body ~ Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

Example: According to one OK bombing Federal Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested.

Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up. This happened locally in Oklahoma, and as a result, a new Grand Jury has been called to rehear evidence that government officials knew in advance that the bombing was going to take place, and a number of new facts which indicate it was impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done the deed without access to extremely advanced explosive devices such as available ONLY to the military or intelligence community, such as CIA’s METC technology. Media has refused to cover the new Oklahoma Grand Jury process, by they way.

(22) Manufacture a New Truth ~ Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Read The Professional Paranoid or Phsychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by Alex Constantine for more information. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own “research findings”, that there is no such thing as Mind Control.

Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are not well equipped to fight this tactic.

(23) Create Bigger Distractions ~ If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?) to talk about — or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on the whole gun control thing?

Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the ‘news flap’ or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents.

(24) Silence Critics ~ If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to flight 800 — send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn’t work, you can always plant drugs and bust them.

Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing.)

(25) Vanish ~ If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don’t, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.

Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play or deceit as part of a deliberate cover up.

---

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney <HMS@proparanoid.com>
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved(1) Avoidance ~ They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

(2) Selectivity ~ They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

(3) Coincidental ~ They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

(4) Teamwork ~ They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

(5) Anti-Conspiratorial ~ They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

(6) Artificial Emotions ~  An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

(7) Inconsistent ~ There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

(8) Time Constant ~ Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: (1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. (2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command. (3) In the NG example (1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay — the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require… or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

---

References

(Source: http://www.propagandacritic.com)

(1) Chase, Stuart: Guides to Straight Thinking; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956.
(2) Combs, James & Nimmo, Dan: The New Propaganda: The Dictatorship of Palavar in Contemporary Politics; New York: Longman Publishing Group, 1993.
(3) Doob, Leonard: Propaganda: Its Psychology and Technique; New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1935.
(4) Edwards, Violet: Group Leader’s Guide to Propaganda Analysis; New York: Columbia University Press, 1938.
(5) Ellul, Jacques: Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes; New York: Vintage Books, 1965.
(6) Hummel, William & Huntress, Keith: The Analysis of Propaganda; New York: William Sloane Associates, 1949.
(7) Institute for Propaganda Analysis: Propaganda Analysis; New York: Columbia University Press, 1938.
(8) Institute for Propaganda Analysis: The Fine Art of Propaganda; New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1939.
(9) Lee, Alfred McClung: How to Understand Propaganda; New York: Rinehart and Company, 1952.
(10) Lowenthal, Leo & Guterman, Norbert: Prophets of Deceit; 1949. Palo Alto: Pacific Books Publishers, 1970.
(11) Miller, Clyde: The Process of Persuasion; New York: Crown Publishers, 1946.
(12) Pratkanis, Anthony & Aronson, Elliot: Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion; New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1991.
(13) Rank, Hugh: Language and Public Policy; New York: Citation Press, 1974.
(14) Thum, Gladys & Thum, Marcella: The Persuaders: Propaganda in War and Peace; New York: Atheneum, 1972.

---

Kill the Messenger – The Sibel Edmonds Story

This documentary reveals how a foreign spy ring with links to Al-Qaeda has been discovered working within the FBI.

Sibel Edmonds began work at the FBI translating wire taps in an investigation into a foreign spy ring operating in the US. She became suspicious of her colleagues after discovering some mistranslations and was then invited to join the spy ring which had evidently infiltrated the FBI itself.

She went straight to her bosses and rather than being hailed as a hero she was promptly sacked. After going public on 60 Minutes she has been officially gagged.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6359380037815212420&q=kill+the+messenger&total=329&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Pentagon’s PSYOPs: Information Warfare Using Aggressive Psychological Operations

Pentagon’s PSYOPs: Information Warfare Using Aggressive Psychological Operations

By Brent Jessop

Go To Original

Information Operation Roadmap Part 4

The Pentagon’s plans for psychological operations or PSYOP in the global information environment of the 21st century are wide ranging and aggressive. These desires are outlined in the 2003 Pentagon document signed by Donald Rumsfeld in his capacity as the Secretary of Defense called the Information Operation Roadmap.

More detail about the origins and purpose of this document can be read in the first part of this series here. Also, a description of the Pentagon’s desire to dominate the entire electro-magnetic spectrum and their need to “fight the net” as outline in the Information Operation Roadmap were previously described.

What is a PSYOP?

A PSYOP is not specifically defined in this document but it does provide some insight into the wide ranging activities that are considered PSYOP.

“The customary position was that “public affairs informs, while public diplomacy and PSYOP influence.” PSYOP also has been perceived as the most aggressive of the three information activities, using diverse means, including psychological manipulation and personal threats.” [emphasis mine] – 26

“One result of public affairs and civil military operations is greater support for military endeavors and thus, conversely these activities can help discourage and dissuade enemies, which PSYOP does more directly with its own tactics, techniques and procedures.” [emphasis mine] – 10

“PSYOP messages disseminated to any audience except individual decision-makers (and perhaps even then) will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public.” [emphasis mine] – 26

“A PSYOP force ready to conduct sophisticated target-audience analysis and modify behaviour with multi-media PSYOP campaigns featuring commercial-quality products that can be rapidly disseminated throughout the Combatant Commanders area of operations.” [emphasis mine] – 63

“PSYOP products must be based on in-depth knowledge of the audience’s decision-making processes and the factors influencing his decisions, produced rapidly at the highest quality standards, and powerfully disseminated directly to targeted audiences throughout the area of operations.” [emphasis mine] – 6

“Better depiction of the attitudes, perceptions and decision-making processes of an adversary. Understanding how and why adversaries make decisions will require improvements in Human Intelligence (HUMINT) and open source exploitation, as well as improved analytic tools and methods.” [emphasis mine] – 39

“SOCOM [Special Operations Command] should create a Joint PSYOP Support Element to coordinate Combatant Command programs and products with the Joint Staff and OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] to provide rapidly produced, commercial-quality PSYOP product prototypes consistent with overall U.S. Government themes and messages.” [emphasis mine] – 15

“SOCOM’s ongoing PSYOP Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration and modernization efforts should permit the timely, long-range dissemination of products with various PSYOP delivery systems. This includes satellite, radio and television, cellular phones and other wireless devices, the Internet and upgrades to traditional delivery systems such as leaflets and loudspeakers that are highly responsive to maneuver commanders.” [emphasis mine] – 15

“PSYOP equipment capabilities require 21st Century technology. This modernization would permit the long-range dissemination of PSYOP messages via new information venues such as satellites, the Internet, personal digital assistants and cell phones:

- (U) PSYOP ACTD. Commencing in FY04, SOCOM [Special Operations Command] initiates an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) to address dissemination of PSYOP products into denied areas. The ACTD should examine a range of technologies including a network of unmanned aerial vehicles and miniaturized, scatterable public address systems for satellite rebroadcast in denied areas. It should also consider various message delivery systems, to include satellite radio and television, cellular phones and other wireless devices and the Internet.” [emphasis mine] – 65

“Rapid, fully integrated nodal and network analysis providing Combatant Commanders with holistic kinetic and non-kinetic solutions for a full range of electromagnetic, physical and human IO [information operations] targets.” [emphasis mine] – 39

“Capabilities such as physical security, information assurance, counter intelligence and physical attack make important contributions to effective IO.” [emphasis mine] – 23

Third Party PSYOP

The Pentagon is also willing to use third parties for their PSYOP.

“Identify and disseminate the views of third party advocates that support U.S. positions. These sources may not articulate the U.S. position the way that the USG [US Government] would, but that may nonetheless have a positive influence.” [emphasis mine] – 27

Under recommendation number 48 – “Create a Joint PSYOP Support Element” – is the following:

“Contract for commercial sources for enhanced product development.” [emphasis mine] – 64

The use of third party advocates or front groups for the dissemination of US government propaganda is well documented. A couple of recent examples include the illegal payment of $1.6 billion for domestic fake news and similar activities in Iraq using the Lincoln Group among others.

Virtual PSYOP

Not only is the Pentagon exploiting new and old technology for aggressive behavior modification, they can also practice and refine their techniques in a virtual simulation of the entire world.

From an article by Mark Baard:

“U.S defense, intel and homeland security officials are constructing a parallel world, on a computer, which the agencies will use to test propaganda messages and military strategies.”

“Called the Sentient World Simulation, the program uses AI routines based upon the psychological theories of Marty Seligman, among others. (Seligman introduced the theory of “learned helplessness” in the 1960s, after shocking beagles until they cowered, urinating, on the bottom of their cages.)”

“Yank a country’s water supply. Stage a military coup. SWS will tell you what happens next.”

“The sim will feature an AR avatar for each person in the real world, based upon data collected about us from government records and the internet.”

How useful do you think your new MySpace or Facebook account is in helping the Pentagon develop a detailed psychological profile of you? Do you think they would be shy in exploiting such a valuable source of personal data?

AIDS Awareness

PSYOP in the past, however, often was used to support U.S. Government public diplomacy and information objectives with non-adversarial audiences. These actions include counter-drug, demining and AIDS awareness programs in friendly countries.” [emphasis mine] – 25

It is a minor point in the context of this document, but it is worth reflecting on why US military PSYOP were used for AIDS awareness.

Are There Any Limits to Information Warfare?

An obvious question arises from the description of PSYOP described by the Information Operation Roadmap, are there any limits? Can PSYOP be conducted on the American public or just foreign audiences? On adversaries or non-adversaries? Can they be performed during peacetime? My next article will attempt to show just how few limits there actually are.

Girls age three hitting puberty

By ALEX WEST

Published: Today

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article683176.ece

 

 

 

GIRLS are starting to hit puberty at the age of THREE.

Shocked doctors blame hormones in food and water for some British toddlers showing signs of breast growth.

Other pre-school youngsters even experience periods that normally start in their teens – and have temper tantrums just like adolescents.

The phenomenon is feared to have become more common since the 1990s – with doctors having to give increasing numbers of tots jabs to keep puberty at bay.

The mum of one girl, who at three was found to have the “bone age” of a nine-year-old, told how she was stunned when her daughter began acting like a ratty teen.

Hayley Holden said: “She used to slam doors and try and hit me. We’d go to supermarkets and she’d lie on the floor screaming.

“At the time, I just thought I had an ‘Omen’ child.”

She was stunned when medics told her Ellie-May – now eight – needed hormone injections to stave off puberty.

Harley Tedds, now ten, also has the painful jabs. Her mother Bernie said: “At five-years-old Harley was shaving her armpits and legs.

Bullied

“Her face and hands were appearing puffy – the nurse noticed she was developing breasts.”

Harley said: “I used to get bullied about how I look and I used to get dirty looks from people.

“You just want to be the same as your friends.”

Junk food diets could be another factor in the early onset of puberty, according to hormone expert Peter Clayton.

He said: “There might be a link between the increasing amounts of obesity in childhood and early puberty.”

The condition is examined on ITV1 at 8pm tonight in Teens Too Soon: A Tonight with Trevor McDonald Special.

a.west@the-sun.co.uk

 

Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire

Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire Paul and Obama cheated out of 3rd and 1st by voting machines, hand count fraud

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Wednesday, January 9, 2008

There were several major vote fraud issues to arise out of the New Hampshire primary revolving mainly around Ron Paul and Barack Obama, who were both seemingly cheated out of third and first places respectively as a result of rigged Diebold voting machines and deliberate malfeasance in the counting of hand-written paper ballots.

- Obama had a 13 to 15 point lead over Hillary Clinton heading into the primary. Nothing occured that boosted Hillary’s numbers immediately before the election, in fact immediately after the staged crying incident, many pundits argued it could only have harmed her chances. And yet Hillary somehow managed to instigate a near 20 point swing to defeat Obama by three per cent. If not for her 7% swing as a result of Diebold voting machines, Hillary would have lost to Obama. If Obama was struggling he would probably contest this bizarre outcome, but he is likely to accept the results simply to save face.

- The New Hampshire town of Sutton admits that it voided every vote Ron Paul received. The Congressman got 31 votes and yet due to a “human error,” Sutton reported zero votes for Ron Paul. How “human error” can explain not counting 31 votes in succession for one single candidate is beyond the pale and Ron Paul’s campaign should ask for a recount across New Hampshire immediately.

- As soon as people went public with the fact that their votes in Sutton had not been counted, other districts where Paul had supposedly received zero votes, such as Greenville, suddenly changed their final tallies and attributed votes to the Congressman.

(Article continues below)

- Going into New Hampshire Ron Paul was polling in the early teens and was a strong bet to take third place behind McCain and Romney. Four days before the vote, Rasmussen had Paul at 14% – a significant lead over Huckabee on 11% and Giuliani on 8% – and yet Ron Paul finished with just 8%. Proof of clear vote fraud, allied with the fact that Paul’s numbers show a 6% swing from normally accurate pre-polling forecasts, clearly indicate chicanery was at hand, especially considering the fact that Paul lost those crucial few percentage points to Giuliani as a reuslt of electronic Diebold voting machines which are known to be wide open to tampering and fraud.

- Going purely on hand-counts, which as we saw in Sutton were by no means angelic but at least harder to cheat on than Diebold voting machines without getting caught, Ron Paul would have won 15% of the vote and finished third. This figure would have more accurately correlated to the pre-primary polls rather than the ridiculous 8% he was eventually given.

- Numerous districts reported totals of anything up to 22% for “other candidates”. What on earth does this black hole of “other candidates” mean? How can one vote for a candidate that is not on the ballot without spoiling the ballot paper? The district of Lisbon reported 22.5% votes for this mysterious “other” candidate, while in the large district of Londonderry, the “other” candidate received 10%. Many are now alleging that these “other” votes were merely siphoned from Ron Paul to keep his final number low.

- Rudy Giuliani, the 9/11 candidate who beat Ron Paul thanks to the aid of a 3% swing on Diebold voting machines, received 9.11% of the vote in three different towns. Coincidence or somebody’s idea of a sick joke?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010908_widespread_fraud.htm

New Hampshire District Admits Ron Paul Votes Not Counted

 

Prison Planet
January 9, 2008

The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count.

As we reported earlier today, an entire family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, yet when the voting map on the Politico website was posted, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.

Vote fraud expert Bev Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming “human error” was responsible for the mistake.

Two or three votes not counted could be a plausible mistake – but 31 votes for one candidate?

“The classic method for rigging a hand count is to write the wrong number on the form,” Harris told the Alex Jones Show.

“They are counting everything in public real nice, they fill out a form in public real nice and then they transfer it to another form and they call that a summary sheet and then that is the one they send in,” explained Harris.

“What happened is she said they did not transfer the number correctly and put zero instead of 31 – that is unacceptable as an answer.”