Truthspace’s Research

In a world of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act

Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“. Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al-qaeda, a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after. This video documentary is off the hook…

http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html

FOX NEWS Interview with Ian Blair (LINK):Blair said, “Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working … but this has the hallmark of that approach.”

Still no connection between Saddam and Al-qaeda – March 2008


http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080310/wl_mcclatchy/2875005

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876

Advertisements

March 18, 2008 Posted by | 9/11, new world order | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

This war on terrorism is bogus

This war on terrorism is bogus

The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

This article appeared in the Guardian on Saturday September 06 2003 . It was last updated at 12:15 on December 04 2003.

Massive attention has now been given – and rightly so – to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush’s younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says “while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role”. It refers to key allies such as the UK as “the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership”. It describes peacekeeping missions as “demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN”. It says “even should Saddam pass from the scene”, US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently… as “Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has”. It spotlights China for “regime change”, saying “it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia”.

The document also calls for the creation of “US space forces” to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent “enemies” using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons “that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool”.

Finally – written a year before 9/11 – it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a “worldwide command and control system”. This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that “al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House”.

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).

All of this makes it all the more astonishing – on the war on terrorism perspective – that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence.”

Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan’s two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden’s extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that “casting our objectives too narrowly” risked “a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured”. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that “the goal has never been to get Bin Laden” (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.

The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: “To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11” (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that “the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to… the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East”. Submitted to Vice-President Cheney’s energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, “military intervention” was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October”. Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban’s refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them “either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs” (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into “tomorrow’s dominant force” is likely to be a long one in the absence of “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the “go” button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world’s oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.

This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing “severe” gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.

A report from the commission on America’s national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron’s beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India’s west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that “the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts” with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the “global war on terrorism” has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda – the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

· Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003

meacherm@parliament.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq

March 4, 2008 Posted by | 9/11 | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

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 

January 24, 2008 Posted by | 9/11, Mind Control | , , | Leave a comment

Rockefellers “Joked” About Controlling The World

Rockefellers “Joked” About Controlling The World
Elitist sons would carve up the planet into different thiefdoms, “something really behind the joke,” admits biographer

   



Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, December 18, 2007

 


The elitist Rockefeller sons would sometimes “joke” about which parts of the world they would each control according to biographer Peter Collier, carving the world up into different thiefdoms. Collier’s admission that there was “something really behind the joke” is an understatement considering the revelations of the late Aaron Russo about what Nicholas Rockefeller told him.

The admission is taken from a segment of a History Channel documentary about the Rockefeller family which hit You Tube today.

“Sometimes they would joke about it, they would say well David gets Europe, Nelson’s gonna have Latin America, and you know John D. the third gets Asia and then they’d make some joke about what Winthrop got, you know which would be something like Arkansas – but nonetheless there was something really behind the joke,” states Peter Collier, who wrote a glowing biography of the family with top Neo-Con and former Marxist David Horowitz.

 

The elitist Rockefeller sons would sometimes “joke” about which parts of the world they would each control according to biographer Peter Collier, carving the world up into different thiefdoms. Collier’s admission that there was “something really behind the joke” is an understatement considering the revelations of the late Aaron Russo about what Nicholas Rockefeller told him.

The admission is taken from a segment of a History Channel documentary about the Rockefeller family which hit You Tube today.

“Sometimes they would joke about it, they would say well David gets Europe, Nelson’s gonna have Latin America, and you know John D. the third gets Asia and then they’d make some joke about what Winthrop got, you know which would be something like Arkansas – but nonetheless there was something really behind the joke,” states Peter Collier, who wrote a glowing biography of the family with top Neo-Con and former Marxist David Horowitz.

Of course the so-called “joke” was a thin veil for the fact that by the end of the 1950’s the Rockefellers had become the pre-eminent elitist family and controlled huge swathes of economies, infrastructure, media and business worldwide.

Revelations on behalf of the late Aaron Russo concerning what Nicholas Rockefeller told him about his family’s predatory control of the planet were explicit in their honesty and scale.

Nick Rockefeller told Russo in advance that an “event” would precipitate the invasion of Afghanistan so the U.S. could run oil pipelines through the country before invading Iraq and establishing military bases throughout the Middle East. He also stated that we would see soldiers looking in caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan for Osama bin Laden and that there would be an “Endless war on terror where there’s no real enemy and the whole thing is a giant hoax,” so that “the government could take over the American people,” according to Russo, who said that Rockefeller was cynically laughing and joking as he made the astounding prediction. This was all related to Russo nearly a year before 9/11 happened.

———————————————————————————-
PRISON PLANET.TV CHRISTMAS SPECIAL – IT’S BACK!
Subscribe today for just $39.95 and get the equivalent of 5 months free!

———————————————————————————-

Rockefeller also related how members of the elite were obsessed by creating a world identification society where people had to carry ID cards and prove who they were at all times.

During one conversation, Rockefeller asked Russo if he was interested in joining the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) but Russo rejected the invitation, saying he had no interest in “enslaving the people” to which Rockefeller coldly questioned why he cared about the “serfs.”

“I used to say to him what’s the point of all this,” said Russo, “you have all the money in the world you need, you have all the power you need, what’s the point, what’s the end goal?” to which Rockefeller replied (paraphrasing), “The end goal is to get everybody chipped, to control the whole society, to have the bankers and the elite people control the world.”

Rockefeller also told Russo that his family’s foundation had created and bankrolled the women’s liberation movement in order to destroy the family and that population reduction was a fundamental aim of the global elite.

Watch a clip of Russo’s interview with Alex Jones in which he details the admissions of Rockefeller below.

 

The History Channel documentary also mentions the Rockefeller’s involvement in population control in the clip below.

 

 

 

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE

Social bookmark this page
Print Friendly Page Yahoo! MyWeb Del.icio.us Digg Reddit

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121807_rockefellers_joked.htm

 

December 19, 2007 Posted by | Government, Illuminati, new world order | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM

SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM


by Scott Tips, JD
December 2, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

I was recently struck by a thought that in this new “Age of Terrorism” we – you and I – have been subjected to a form of terrorism that can best be described as “scientific terrorism.”

Of course, if a terrorist pulls a gun on innocent people and shoots them, or blows himself up in a crowded area and takes innocent lives, then he has clearly committed a terrorist act. The definition of terrorism itself is, I know, at once vaguer and more involved than that; however, it is enough for my purpose here to describe it in this way because such terrorists will have, if successful, deprived those individuals of their health and even lives.

With Diplomas, Not Guns

Consider, then, those persons who don’t use guns but instead diplomas, impressive titles, and computers to deprive us of our health and even our lives. For most people, these kinds of terrorists are hard to spot. They often wear suits and ties, sport enough degrees after their names to choke an elephant, and speak in serious and seemingly knowledgeable tones about science and health. And they can kill you just as dead as any trigger-happy terrorist hefting a box-cutter or an AK-47.

So where do we find these scientific terrorists? Unfortunately, they usually occupy positions of power and authority – in the medical community, in universities, and in government circles. And from these lofty bastions of dominion, they issue pronouncements that they expect most people to believe and act upon, starry-eyed and without looking beyond the superficial credentials and appearances. Regrettably, most people do.

For years, these Scientific Terrorists have been telling you:

  •  

    To take drugs when they are either unnecessary or contraindicated;

  •  

    To undergo surgery when either unnecessary or contraindicated;

  •  

    To undergo radiation treatment when either unnecessary or contraindicated;

  •  

    To undergo hospitalization when either unnecessary or contraindicated;

  •  

    That pesticide and herbicide residues in your foods will not hurt you or your children;

  •  

    That vitamin-and-mineral supplements are a waste of money and result in nothing more than expensive urine;

  •  

    That organic and whole foods are unnecessary and a waste of money;

  •  

    That expensive and costly regulations are necessary to protect your health; and

  •  

    That you are incapable of making “complicated” health and safety decisions affecting you and your family’s health, which decisions are better left in the hands of the educated elite.

 

The Butcher’s Bill

But, as we know, these experts – who are supposedly so smart and capable – almost always get “it” wrong. And, worse, when they get it wrong, they do a spectacular job of it too. Although the data varies depending upon the source, just look at what the butcher’s bill comes to:

  •  

    106,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $12 billion, from adverse drug reactions;

  •  

    98,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $2 billion, from medical errors;

  •  

    115,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $55 billion, from bedsores;

  •  

    88,000 deaths annually from infections, at a cost of $5 billion, caused by medical intervention;

  •  

    37,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $122 billion, from unnecessary medical procedures;

  •  

    32,000 deaths annually, at a cost of $9 billion, from surgery-related medical intervention

 

The above figures do not include those outpatient deaths from medical intervention (some 199,000 annually at a cost of $77 billion), or the astounding figures from Dr. Lucien Leape’s 1997 study of medical and drug-error rates (3 million deaths annually, he reports!) (Leape LL, “Error in Medicine,” JAMA, 1994 Dec 21;272(23):1851-7).

On the more conservative end of the spectrum, even an expert panel from the Institute of Medicine (of the National Academy of Sciences) found that medical errors kill from 44,000 to 98,000 Americans each year. (British Medical Journal, 1999 December 11; 319(7224): 1519.

Medical errors in the United States alone cause more deaths annually than car crashes, AIDS, or breast and prostate cancer. This is equal to a 300-person jumbo jet crashing every single day of the year, day after day after day.

And They Are Still At It

These terrorists, though, are not just content with subjecting us to their brand of medieval medicine. They also seemingly want to make sure that we are vulnerable to diseases and medical problems, which in turn will require increased use of their medicines and hospitals. Why do I say this? Because every time that any of us use effective preventative measures to protect ourselves, they try to suppress them – through the media, through doctors, and, above all, through their coercive enforcement tool – the government.

And what are examples of this? Just consider the attempts of some “institutions” to limit the potency of dietary supplements, which are scientifically-proven disease preventatives. At the Codex level and in the European Union, the German Risk Assessment Institute (BfR) has put forth what it considers to be the maximum permitted upper levels of safe consumption of vitamin-and-mineral supplements. They caution, for instance, that no niacin supplements above 17 milligrams should be sold to consumers. Nor should Vitamin C tablets exceed 225 milligrams. For mineral supplements the BfR is equally strict: zinc tablets should not exceed 10 milligrams, nor should selenium capsules go above 70 milligrams each.

Given the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists showing not only the safety of such supplements but their efficacy, there can only be two reasons why they are trying to suppress these alternative means: Either they are (1) completely clueless, or (2) they are trying to keep us sick, or worse, kill us.

Of course, there are well-intentioned individuals in every such group. But for those who are engaging in these activities knowingly and with, as they say in law school, deliberate aforethought, these persons are terrorists in every sense of the word. And there is a very special place in hell reserved for them, I’m sure.

Fortunately, there are many of us working together to stop this form of scientific terrorism. The National Health Federation has been on its own anti-terrorist mission for years now throughout the World, but especially in the United States and at Codex. They may have the advantage of more money, but we have the advantage of something more important: We actually fight for Freedom, and for Life itself.

To better understand the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the global food standards and guidelines that it is creating, you must read Codex Alimentarius – Global Food Imperialism. This book is a collection of articles by those few health-freedom activists with first-hand knowledge of Codex and the dangers that it poses to our health and health freedom. Compiled by Scott Tips, this easy-to-read book can be purchased here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2007 – Scott Tips – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

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


Scott Tips received his Bachelor of Arts degree, magna cum laude, from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1976, studied at the Sorbonne (Paris I) from 1976-1977, and obtained his Juris Doctorate degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) in 1980, where he was the Managing Editor of the California Law Review. A California-licensed attorney, he has specialized in food-and-drug law and trademark law, but also engages in business litigation, general business law, and nonprofit organizations, with an international clientele.

Since 1989, Mr. Tips has been the General Counsel for the National Health Federation, the World’s oldest health-freedom organization for consumers, and is now its president. He also writes a regular column for NewsWithViews.com and Whole Foods Magazine called Legal Tips, a column he started in 1984. Currently, Mr. Tips is occupying much of his time with health-freedom issues involving the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its and other attempts to limit individual freedom of choice in health matters.

To understand better the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the global food standards and guidelines that it is creating, you must read Codex Alimentarius – Global Food Imperialism. This book is a collection of articles by those few health-freedom activists with first-hand knowledge of Codex and the dangers that it poses to our health and health freedom. Compiled by Scott Tips, this easy-to-read book can be purchased here.

Website: National Health Federation

E-Mail: sct@thenhf.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Tips/scott.htm

December 18, 2007 Posted by | Health | , , , , , | Leave a comment