The politics of greed is what keeps this world wrapped in corruption. If you want to stick around for a while longer, I suggest you educate yourself and try to do something constructive to help save what little good, honesty, and trust we have left.

A motto for us old vets: Take one with you!

Use your Go Back and Go Forward commands to get to where you were in a previous file.

Go to Home

Highest Go To numbers are the latest Links of all coruption pages.


Go to 12824
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=7060
Old & Sick Will Be Allowed To Die In Disaster
03-03-2008
Sacremento Bee

Older, sicker patients could be allowed to die in order to save the lives of patients more likely to survive a massive disaster, bioterror attack or influenza pandemic in California.

It's not how nurses and doctors are accustomed to doing things, nor how Californians expect to be treated. But it is part of a sweeping statewide plan being praised for its breadth, even as it rankles providers who will have to carry it out.

The new "surge capacity guidelines" released by the state Department of Public Health, depict a post-disaster health care environment that looks and feels nothing like the system most Californians depend on.

It provides for scenarios in which patients could be herded into school gymnasiums for life-saving care or animal doctors could stitch up the human wounded and set their broken bones.

The 1,900-page document lays the practical – and ethical – groundwork for local and county health departments, hospitals, emergency responders and any able-bodied health care worker likely to be called upon in a catastrophe.

Striking in its specificity and its frank focus on the need to suspend or flex established laws and to ration health care, the plan is being hailed as a model for the rest of the nation.

"I don't know of any state that has taken it to this level of detail in outlining a surge plan for everyone who needs to respond to an emergency of this magnitude," said Jeff Levi, executive director of Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit group that has criticized the nation's emergency preparedness. "It's exactly the kind of dialogue that has to happen."

The conversations emerging from the plan will be very painful, especially for professionals trained to save a life at almost any cost, said Betsey Lyman, deputy director for public health emergency preparedness at the state Department of Public Health.

"Today, the practice of medicine is do everything you can for an individual patient," Lyman said. "This is, 'OK, we have limited resources. How do we best save the greatest number of lives?' That can mean saying to an individual patient, I can't give you a ventilator because I don't have enough for everybody."

The $5 million plan was developed as a result of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2006 health care surge initiative. That $172 million effort included the stockpiling of millions of doses of antiviral medications, thousands of ventilators, mobile field hospitals and extra hospital beds.

But health care officials acknowledge that when and if a global pandemic or major disaster strikes, no amount of extra drugs or supplies will be sufficient to manage the impact on an already strained health care system.

That's why the state assembled public health professionals, hospitals, ethicists, nurses and others to hash out guidelines for procedures they hope will minimize red tape and maximize survival rates.

The plan lists, for example, which responsibilities and patient protections can be waived if the governor declares a state of emergency.

Hospitals will not have to report births, deaths, infectious disease outbreaks, medication errors, and suspected child or elder abuse. Existing rules that protect patients' privacy also can be tossed out.

Dr. Ron Chapman, Solano County health officer and a key surge plan participant, cited as an example the bare-bones approach to caring for people in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. There, he said, a friend's leg was sliced open by a piece of glass while he was helping haul away debris.

"They took him to a Wal-Mart parking lot. He stood in line, walked in, they sewed him up, gave him a pack of antibiotics and sent him on his way," Chapman said. "They never asked his name or his insurance status."

The guidelines say California's strict nurse-patient ratios can be ignored, and nurses can be assigned to jobs for which they have no experience.

The scenarios worry nursing leaders. "If you are going to throw out regulations … we know the consequences can be very bad," said Donna Gerber, government regulations director for the California Nurses Association. "(The regulations) wouldn't be there except to protect the public."

During a health care surge, even nonlicensed, or retired health care providers whose licenses have lapsed, will be recruited to provide emergency care.

National surveys indicate that more than 40 percent of health care employees would not come to work during a massive disaster or pandemic, either because of fear or because of their own household demands.

"It means that people are going to be volunteering and coming in and helping who may not be properly credentialed," said Duane Dauner, president of the California Hospital Association.

A hospital janitor, for example, could get an emergency credential to stitch up wounds or start intravenous lines if that janitor had experience as a military medic.

It means, Dauner said, that a volunteer veterinarian could be asked to mend broken bones, stanch bleeding or jump-start a patient's heart.

"In times when there is nobody else, getting someone like a vet to help out is better than not treating a patient," Dauner said.

It also means that a pharmacist will be able to dole out drugs even without a doctor's prescription.

"It's not what we are used to, but when someone with diabetes comes in and they need insulin but they can't get in to see their doctor because the doctor is sick, why can't a pharmacist give it to them?" Chapman asked. "It's all about saving lives."

Such practice stands in stark contrast to the normal workings of any hospital, where restricting the provision of medical treatments to authorized individuals is serious business.

Even though he is a licensed primary care doctor, Chapman, for example, is not authorized to operate a ventilator, even in hospitals where he has privileges to otherwise treat patients.

Under surge guidelines, he said, even a patient's family member could be trained to maintain the machine.

"Right now, ventilators are considered a high-level technical piece of equipment," Chapman said. "But in that scenario, we won't have nearly enough intensive care nurses and doctors to run them."

Perhaps the most jarring aspect of the guidelines, though, is the seemingly hard-hearted treatment of some kinds of needy patients.

The plan will allow hospitals to empty beds for higher priority patients, sending ill patients into hallways, make-shift hospitals in tents, nursing homes or even back home.

"Everybody will have to think differently," Dauner said. "Radio, TV and police will direct patients where to go. People will be herded like cats."

Scarce life-saving resources will be rationed under a radically different system of care that puts the good of the larger population over that of the individual patient.

That means that instead of starting with the sickest or most critically injured, treatment will go first to those more likely to survive with immediate intervention. A patient's kidney disease or congestive heart failure could diminish their chances of getting life-saving treatment in such an emergency.

The plan emphasizes that treatment decisions must not be based on a patient's ability to pay for care, their perceived worth to society, or whether their past behaviors contributed to their health status.

These will be very difficult decisions to make, particularly for nurses who – by their training and nature – are patient advocates, said the CNA's Gerber.

"The nurse is usually the one who says 'Excuse me, but I don't think that's the right dose, or I really don't think my patient is ready to be discharged," she said. "These are very draconian kinds of situations and … that is not what we are trained to do."



Go to 12823
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C03%5C02%5Cstory_2-3-2008_pg5_15
March 02, 2008
Commodity prices at historic heights

* The price of gold rose to a record high $976.32 per ounce on Friday

LONDON: Oil, gold and tin prices soared to historic highs this week on buoyant demand for commodities on the back of a sliding dollar.

Oil: Oil prices charted fresh record territory Friday, rising to $103.05 per barrel as the US currency fell to all-time lows against the euro. Oil’s rally “was part of a broad-based commodities run based on the continued weakness of the dollar,” said Petromatrix analyst Olivier Jakob.

A weak US currency boosts demand for dollar-denominated raw materials such as oil because it makes them cheaper for buyers using stronger currencies. The increased demand, if it outstrips the fall in the currency, leads to higher prices.

OPEC, which pumps 40 percent of the world’s oil, was unlikely to change its production level at a meeting next week should crude prices remain around 100 dollars, acting Libyan Oil Minister Chukri Ghanem told AFP on Friday.

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, comprising 13 countries including Libya, was to meet in Vienna on Wednesday to reconsider its production ceiling of 29.67 million barrels per day, excluding output by Iraq.

Key OPEC members Iran and Venezuela have called for the cartel to cut output ahead of an expected drop in demand during the second quarter with the end of the northern hemisphere winter.

According to analysts, their support for a cut has contributed heavily to oil’s push to record heights this week. By Friday, New York’s main oil futures contract, light sweet crude for delivery in April, had soared to $102.07 per barrel from $97.52 a week earlier. Brent North Sea crude for April jumped to $100.40 from $95.94.

Gold and silver: The price of gold rose to a record high $976.32 per ounce on Friday. “It does appear that the scale of demand is sufficient to propel gold to $1,000 per ounce,” said James Moore of the LondonBullionDesk.com.

Silver struck a fresh 27-year high in reaching $19.95 per ounce. On the London Bullion Market, gold climbed to 971.50 dollars per ounce at Friday’s late fixing from 943 dollars a week earlier.

Silver rose to 19.62 dollars per ounce from 17.94 dollars.

Platinum and palladium: Platinum eased after striking an historic high of $2,206 per ounce the previous week. The white metal faces a tight supply situation because South Africa, which produces about 75 percent of the world’s platinum, is in the grips of a power crisis that has badly hit the country’s mining industry.

In recent months, South African production of platinum has also been severely hampered by accidents and a miners’ strike.

Platinum’s sister metal palladium, which has also been affected by the South African situation, hit a six-year high of $585.50 per ounce this week. On the London Platinum and Palladium Market, platinum dipped to $2,150 per ounce at the late fixing Friday from $2,155 a week earlier. Palladium advanced to 568 dollars per ounce from $506.

Base metals: The price of tin struck an historic peak as the base metal was bolstered by high demand and tight global supplies. On the London Metal Exchange (LME) Thursday, the price of tin for delivery in three months reached 18,900 dollars per tonne — the highest point since 1989 when it was re-introduced on the London market.

“We have been positive on tin price prospects for a while now ... on the back of the market’s tight fundamentals,” wrote Barclays Capital analysts. “LME tin stocks continue to hover close to their lowest levels since June 2007.”

The market was also supported by supply outages in key producer Indonesia, which is the world’s second largest producer after China. Tin prices have risen by more than 35 percent over the past 12 months. afp



Go to 12822
http://www.rense.com/general81/panic.htm
The Panic Of '08 - The
March Meltdown
3-3-8

RHINEBECK, NY -- The United States' economy is in meltdown mode. The Panic of '08, the beginning of the worst financial crisis to ever have hit modern America, is under way.

But despite the daily doses of dire economic data pointing to disaster, the media doesn't report how bad it really is (if they report it at all), while Wall Street and Washington deny a recession is coming ... or proclaim that should one arrive, the economic landing will be gentle.

For all those needing more proof of just how bad it is or how bad it will get, the evidence is clear and the outcome is predictable.

The Dow fell 315 points on Friday, capping off its fourth-straight monthly decline. Oil prices have passed $103 a barrel, while gas at the pump is expected to hit $4 a gallon by the summer driving season.

The beaten down dollar continues its dive against the euro, and keeps dropping against six major counterparts to the lowest level since 1973 when Richard Nixon decoupled the greenback from gold.

New home sales are at their lowest level since February 1995, house prices slid by a record 15 percent from a year ago, and construction spending fell the most since 1994. Home prices in 20 US cities fell in December by the most on record and sales of existing homes in the US fell in January to the lowest level since records began. Nearly 200,000 newly constructed single-family homes are sitting empty, the most since 1973 when the Commerce Department began compiling the statistics.

Consumer prices surged 4.1 percent last year, the most in 17 years. Wholesale costs accelerated to 7.4 percent in January, the biggest jump since 1981. Durable-goods orders for January plunged 5.3 percent and consumer sentiment fell to the lowest level since February 1992.

The Commerce Department reported the economy grew a paltry 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007, while the National Association for Business Economics estimates growth for the first quarter of 2008 will slow to a meager 0.4 percent.

The Labor Department reported initial claims for unemployment insurance climbed 19,000 last week the second-highest level since a surge in claims in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

The National Association of Purchasing Managers-Chicago index of regional business conditions tumbled to 44.5, its lowest since December 2001 ­ well below the level of 50 that separates growth from contraction ­ while manufacturing shrank at the fastest pace in almost five years.

Duh Evidence
Yet, despite the facts that tell the story, "experts" and politicians claim the economic damage is light and the ship of state isn't sinking. "The evidence is piling up that the economy is slipping into at least a mild recession," said Scott Anderson, a senior economist at Wells Fargo & Co., who had forecast that the Chicago index would only drop to 48.

"I don't think we're headed to a recession," President Bush said last Thursday, echoing Fed Chief Bernanke's prediction to Congress that "the US economy will return to a strong growth path with price stability."

Inconceivably, despite the ample evidence pointing to Wall Street's failure to predict past and current economic trends ... and Washington's dismal track record of massive strategic blunders and costly economic errors the press pumps out the swill for the ill-informed and terminally gullible to swallow.

Publisher's Note: We do not provide financial advice, we are trends forecasters. As Trends Journal subscribers, you are well aware of our dollar/gold forecasts and their accuracy over the past several years. With the Federal Reserve trending toward moving interest rates lower and with the Euro zone planning to keep their rates steady the prospects for the dollar to dive toward $1.60 euros is highly probable before the fourth quarter.

As the dollar weakens, gold prices will move closer to hitting our $2000 per ounce target. (See "Gold 2000," 4 November 2007.) In the interim, and in the absence of wild card events, we forecast that gold will swiftly move toward the $1,200 to $1,500 trading range, and experience a sharp correction before proceeding higher.

Gerald Celente
Founder/Director
The Trends Research Institute
E-mail: gcelente@trendsresearch.com
Website: www.trendsresearch.com

Media Relations: 845.876.6700 Ext. 311
Cheri Van Deusen:Cheri@trendsresearch.com



Go to 12821
http://www.rense.com/general81/madness.htm
The Madness Of Israel
Must Not Continue
Jim Kirwan
3-4-8

In a day or so Condoleezza Rice will yet again appear at the microphones in the Middle-East spewing new lies upon old promises while mouthing all the same-old worn-out words that have no meaning to anyone that's been watching for these last four decades. She will be coming to talk about her Owner's two-state solution: Here's a recent map: can you see any possibility for anything like two separate but equal states?

This open wound in the heart of the Middle East was created by a combination of deceptions and black-ops intrigues that has over the decades only continued to deepen. We must close this wound by force if necessary.

Just today we learned what really happened to the money that the Pentagon lost at the beginning of the Iraq war-it went to Israel!

"Think of this as part two of Recherche du trillions perdu, my Online Journal article on Dov Zakheim, former Bush appointee as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as I mentioned, was buried under 9-11's rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim's watch.

Yet on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense. So the dark card was shifted to another part of the deck.

Judicial Inc's bio of Dov (linked below) tells us Zakheim was/is a dual Israeli/American citizen and an ordained rabbi and had been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. He is, as I described him earlier, the bionic Zionist. In fact, Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel's armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value."(1)

And if that's not enough to make your blood boil, add the three trillion more that the war will directly cost the US taxpayers, for our part in the fighting and the dying that will last until the last US casualty dies.

Six trillion dollars, and tell me again-how many Israeli's have died in that war! The US taxpayers have armed Israel to the teeth, and we have not demanded anything in return. We should leave Iraq immediately and replace every one of ours with IDF forces so that they can begin to fight their own actual wars: instead of just bombing and strafing the civilians inside Palestine and elsewhere. If Israel were actually threatened by armed and angry enemies that can fight back, she might not be so cavalier about killing so very many Palestinians as she has been since 1946. (2)

A great many people have been sucked in to believing Israel's one- sided explanations for their current position, in their continuing genocide against the Palestinians. However there's a new book coming out about something that happened in 1953: Something that cast a huge amount of light on our own position in Iran at that time, and as it turns out, in the entire Middle-East, right up until today.

STEPHEN KINZER" from his book: "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror:" was Bruce Laingen, who had been the chief American diplomat in Iran and was the most prominent figure among the hostages that were held there for 444 days. And I knew that Laingen had become an advocate of reconciliation with Iran, which I consider quite remarkable, considering the ordeal that he suffered.
He told me an amazing story. He said, "I had been sitting in my solitary cell as a hostage for about a year, when one day the cell door opens, and there is standing one of the hostage takers, one of my jailers. And all of my rage and my fury built up over one year sitting in that cell just burst out, and I started screaming at him, and I was telling him, 'You have no right to do this! This is cruel, this is inhumane! These people have done nothing! This is a violation of every law of god and man! You cannot take innocent people hostage!'" He said, "I went on like this for several minutes. When I was finally out of breath, the hostage taker paused for a moment, and then he leaned into my cell and said, in very good English, 'You have no right to complain, because you took our whole country hostage in 1953.'"
The interview continues:

"Just very briefly, so we placed the Shah back on his peacock throne. The Shah ruled with increasing repression for twenty-five years. His repression set off the explosion of the late 1970s, what we call the Islamic Revolution. That revolution brought to power a clique of fanatically anti-American mullahs. That revolution also inspired radicals in other countries, like next-door Afghanistan, where the Taliban came to power and gave shelter to al-Qaeda with results we all know. That instability in Iran that followed that revolution also led Iran's great enemy next door, Saddam Hussein, to invade Iran. That not only set off an eight-year war between Iran and Iraq, but it also brought the United States into its death embrace with Saddam. We were the military allies of Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, and we were supplying Saddam with military intelligence, with Bell helicopters that he used to spray gas on Iranian positions. President Reagan sent a special envoy twice to Baghdad to negotiate with Saddam and ask him how we could help him. And, of course, that envoy was Donald Rumsfeld. So that instability set off by that revolution also led the United States into the spiral in Iraq that brought us to the point where we are now.

That revolution in Iran also spooked the Soviets. They were terrified that there would be copycat fundamentalist revolutions all along their southern flank. And to prevent that, they invaded Afghanistan. That brought the United States into its position in Afghanistan, where we brought Osama bin Laden there, we trained all these tens of thousands of jihadis in how to kill infidels, which they later became the Taliban. We later became the infidels they wanted to kill. So why is this all so important for today?

AMY GOODMAN: And, in fact, it affected the Carter-Reagan elections, brought Reagan to power.

STEPHEN KINZER: Oh, and it devastated the presidency of Jimmy Carter forever, absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: Which had enormous effect then on Latin America, when you look at Reagan's role in Latin America in the '80s.

STEPHEN KINZER: You can-they call it in the CIA "walking back the cat." You can walk back the cat endlessly on this one. And the reason the story is so relevant is that it tells us the main thing you need to know in assessing the current idea of an attack on Iran, which is the worst consequences are ones you can't even imagine. . ." (3)

For years I've been screaming about the lack of consequences for our actions everywhere in the world. It appears that I was very, very wrong on this one: because there have been consequences everywhere, hiding in plain sight! Which is all the more reason that Americans must demand that our Owners reign in the madness that we have unleashed, through Israel onto what's left of Palestine?

Look at that map above one more time and ask yourself what happened to all that land that Israel, as the occupying force, was supposed to be protecting for the Palestinians, its rightful owners! It is not what aggressor nations say that matters but rather what they do! And between the USA and Israel we have been the aggressors now for 52 years: THAT'S LONG ENOUGH, we need to CHANGE that situation so that everything else can return to the normal levels of political corruption that all of us take for granted!

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net


1) Following Zakheim and Pentagon trillions to Israel and 911
Go to 12820
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1047.shtml

2) Iraq: The Three Trillion Dollar War
Go to 12819
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4259

3) The 1953 CIA Coup in Iran and the Roots of Middle East Terror
Go to 12818
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/3/stephen_kinzer_on_the_us_iranian


Go to 12817
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2008/03/04/042.html
Business
A A A Tuesday, March 4, 2008. Issue 3854. Page 5.
Putin Calls for Gold and Forex Reserves to Be Better Managed
Reuters
President Vladimir Putin on Monday called for better management of the country's $484 billion gold and foreign exchange reserves, the world's third-largest, Russian news agencies reported.

"I ask you to prepare proposals on optimization of the management of the country's financial reserves, taking into account what is happening in the world economy," Putin told a Cabinet meeting.

Putin said he meant the country's gold and forex reserves, which include the $125 billion Reserve Fund and $32 billion National Welfare Fund, where Russia collects the revenues from its booming oil exports.

Putin is due to step down as president in May following the election victory of his anointed successor, Dmitry Medvedev, but said he is likely to stay as prime minister to ensure a smooth transition of power.

Putin said there was a need to create tools for long-term refinancing of the banking sector, which was hit by rising interest rates in international capital markets, but he did not elaborate.

"We have certain ideas. There will be no revolutions, but we need to react to what is happening in the world economy," Putin said.

Analysts say the country's oil wealth is likely to become the focus of a huge tussle between advocates of fiscal prudence, who want to invest it in safe foreign stocks, and interest groups at home, which want their own piece of the pie.

Putin has struggled to resist the pressure to spend the cash at home, and investors question if Medvedev, who lacks the political clout of his mentor, will be able to stop it being pillaged by vested interests.

The Central Bank, which manages the reserves, and the Finance Ministry, which manages the two oil funds, were not immediately available for comments.



Go to 12816
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7274481.stm
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
'Testosterone link' to depression

Hormones may alter brain chemistry
Older men with lower levels of the male sex hormone testosterone in their blood may be more prone to depression, a study suggests.
A study of about 4,000 men aged over 70 found those with lowest testosterone were three times more likely to be depressed than those with the most.

Researchers suspect the hormone may affect levels of key brain chemicals.

The study, by the University of Western Australia, features in Archives of General Psychiatry.

It would be no surprise that low testosterone reduces mood

Professor David Kendall
University of Nottingham

Research has found that women are more likely to be depressed than men until the age of 65, when the difference between the genders almost disappears.

Testosterone levels decline with age - but there is wide variation.

The Australian team studied 3,987 men over the age of 70. Each gave blood samples and took part in tests to determine whether they were depressed.

In total 203 of the participants were assessed as being depressed.

They had significantly lower levels of both total testosterone, and free testosterone, which is not bound to proteins.

The researchers then adjusted the data to take account of factors such as educational attainment and body fat levels.

They found those men whose level of free testosterone was in the bottom 20% were three times more likely to be depressed than those in the top 20%.

The researchers said further work was required to confirm their findings.

But their work raised the possibility that treatment to boost testosterone levels in older men may be an effective way to treat depression.

Raised death risk

A previous study of 800 men over the age of 50 found that those with low levels of testosterone had a 33% increased risk of death over an 18-year period than those with higher levels.

They appeared significantly more likely to have a cluster of risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

This raises the possibility that men with low testosterone levels may be prone to depression because they are also more likely to be in poor physical health.

However, the Australian researchers concluded that this could not fully explain the link, and that some other factor must also be in play.

Testosterone replacement therapy has also been shown to help elderly men with mild Alzheimer's disease.

Research has suggested that levels of testosterone in men of all ages are falling.

Professor David Kendall, an expert in pharmacology at the University of Nottingham, said there was a wealth of evidence to show that testosterone levels were linked to mood.

For instance, farmers had long castrated their stock to pacify them.

Research on animals had also shown that removal of their gonads blocked the action of anti-depressants on key mood-controlling chemicals in the brain.

"It would be no surprise that low testosterone reduces mood," he said.

"Testosterone therapy offers a relatively simple intervention, potentially, for some groups of older depressives with hypogonadism (low production of sex hormones)."

Professor Stafford Lightman, a hormone expert at the University of Bristol, said testosterone potentially had many small effects which could raise the risk of depression. For instance, low levels had been linked to poor cognitive performance.

However, he warned that depression, particularly in elderly people, was often the result of many different, inter-relating factors, and warned against placing too much emphasis on one in isolation.

"My view is that low testosterone could be a contributory factor to depression, but probably not a very powerful one," he said.



Go to 12815
http://www.rense.com/general53/over60.htm
The Overthrow Of The
American Republic - Part 60
Bush White House Created Violence
By Sherman H. Skolnick
6-16-4

News from all over, some overground, some underground. With analyses and details censored by the oil-soaked, spy-riddled monopoly press. Taken together, it may clarify a few matters.

To further the overthrow of the degenerate, backward Saudi Royals, and to seize the Saudi oilfields, the Western oil cartel continues to murder foreign oil executives, including Americans, resident in Saudi. This, to justify bringing Emergency Troops into Eastern Saudi to grab the oil facilities; U.S., British, and French forces will be the Saudi oil facilities occupiers and overlords. France has been previously blocked, since a one-sided agreement, since 1922, from dipping into the Mid-East oilfields. French possession of films and other proof of the American CIA/British Intelligence/British Royals' complicity in the murder of President Kennedy, is a device to strongarm and blackmail the Bush White House and Queen Elizabeth II.

A great flare-up of supposedly unrelated violence, to be falsely blamed onto "Arab terrorists", rather than covert espionage special forces, is now to be expected. Why? Disgruntled and restive top U.S.Military brass, Admirals and Generals, persist in vowing to arrest Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush for treason. Including staying silent after Daddy Bush told him of some great impending violence, which was September 11, 2001. With the younger Bush going along with Daddy's pre-arranged military stand-down. Including staying silent about the "pulling" of the World Trade Center twin towers and WTC Building 7, with prior-inserted internal explosives. [Larry Silverstein, leasing boss of WTC, used the secret architecture term "pulling" on a post-911 TV Show when discussing how Building 7 fell down, many hours after the morning, and with no flying object having hit the building.]

To keep up the price of oil, the cartel has arranged to blow up one or more Iraqi oil pipelines and to murder a top Iraqi oil official.

Saddam Hussein's wife and daughter visited him in person in supposed U.S. custody. They say IT IS NOT HIM! Apparently, U.S. has in custody a superior put together double, a virtual twin. In the fall of 2003, Kurdish militia seized what they thought was Saddam, imprisoned him in a hole, and asked the Bush White House for ransom.

The Kurds wanted 40 million dollars and promises of Kurdish independence. The Kurds, with U.S. Troops as staged grabbers, turned over "Saddam". When the Kurds persisted in their demands for the ransom, the Bush Crime Family, notorious cheapskates, refused to pay. Instead, as arranged by Daddy Bush, former head of the U.S.Secret Political police, and the handler and supervisor of son George in the Oval Office, arranged to silence Kurds. At a huge Kurd gathering, the American CIA blew up the place, killing and seriously wounding 200 top Kurdish tribal and other leaders.

The real Saddam Hussein is most likely parked in a basement in Moscow. This was reported in April, 2003, shortly after the U.S. invasion, without a Declaration of War, of Iraq. [Guess who talked about this publicly? Hint: he is co-host of the Cloak and Dagger Program.]

The real Saddam Hussein, not the virtual twin, is too dangerous to be publicly put on trial. He was created by the American CIA. [Sheepishly admitted in a detailed report, 4/10/2003, by the CIA News wire service, United Press International. They claimed to have been able to find and interview numerous current and former CIA officials about the spy agency's role in creating Saddam. Also the Reagan/Bush White House, run actually by Vice President Daddy Bush, supplied Saddam with various ingredients for horrendous weapons. Documented in "Spider's Web", by Alan Friedman, published 1993.]

Saddm can give direct, eyewitness testimony how Daddy Bush instigated the eight year Iraq-Iran War, to keep up the price of oil, September, 1980 to 1988.And how Daddy Bush, through U.S.Ambassador April Glaspie, on behalf of Daddy Bush, in 1990, fooled Saddam into believing Iraq's quarrel with Kuwait over slant-drilling and Kuwait occupying oilfields actually belonging to Iraq; that the fight, said Glaspie to Saddam, was a private matter, in which the U.S. would not interfere.

The real Saddam Hussein is one of the world's richest men, a result of being a private business partner with Daddy Bush in previously jointly
extorting huge sums from the oil-rich weak sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf. Details came out as a result of an unpublicized Chicago law case.. [Visit www.skolnicksreport.com "Secrets of Timothy McVeigh"].

Saddam's eyewitness, irrefutable testimony could put the entire Bush Crime Family in prison for various high crimes against the American people and against the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Including but not limited to Daddy Bush bringing into the U.S. supposed Iraqi military intelligence and other military "defectors", many believed to be double agents, at the close of Persian Gulf War One. Two thousand are resident in Oklahoma City. Some were implicated in the multiple explosions, with diabolical internal weaponry, of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building, April 19,
1995.

For geopolitical advantages, two huge foreign terrorist-instigated events, occuring in the U.S., have been covered up by the Bush Crime Family in conjunction with their fellow financial and military criminals, William Rockefeller Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[As to Clinton and the Rockefellers, visit my website series, "Wal-Mart and the Red Chinese Secret Political Police, www.skolnicksreport.com]

Timothy Mc Veigh was a domestic dissident, as a surrogate for Iraqi Intelligence. [To be noted, Iraqi Intelligence, it was later discovered, paid for the huge Anti-Iraq War Movement in the fall of 1990, just prior to the start of the actual shooting war, January 16, 1991.]

The second actual foreign terrorist event was the July, 1996, two missile shoot-down, off New York, of TWA Flight 800. Several years ago, as moderator and producer of a non-commercial, public access Cable TV Program, I did a one-hour taped show with some of the leading counter-terrorist experts in the world. Off-camera, they gave me the details, known in their trade, of how two missiles brought down Flight 800.

The missiles were fired from an Iranian-owned former Soviet submarine, manned by a Russian mercenary crew. The missiles were fired in airflight take-off slot which was to have included El Al, the Israeli Airline. El Al was delayed, and TWA, taking off in El Al's slot, became the target.

Bill Clinton, running for re-election in 1996, ordered the true nature of what happened suppressed and blamed instead on internal supposed technical defects in the Boeing plane. Clinton did not want to start a geopolitical confrontation with the Moscow government that took over after the downfall of the Soviets.

Flight 800 was scheduled to be going to Paris. When Clinton refused to dredge up the remains of the downed plane from the ocean bottom, the French were about to send over a 300-man crew to do the same. After all, 60 French nationals died in the shoot-down, including 8 top officials of the French CIA. The French spy agency team leader, perhaps from prior knowledge, refused to get on Flight 800 with his team.

President Clinton reluctantly relented and ordered a dredge up of the remains of Flight 800. The pieces showing the missiles hitting the front of the plane were suppressed. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, long a sabotage aircrash whitewasher, covered up the pertinent details. Some two hundred eyewitnesses who saw the trail of the missiles coming up from the water and hitting Flight 800, were not allowed to be witnesses at the NTSB fake hearings.

[Visit our website series, "The Secret History of Airplane Sabotage".]

The Bush Crime Family is in no position to start up with the Iranians. The Teheran government has various documents, films, video, and eyewitness testimony available, of the treason committed by Daddy Bush in paying for the delay of the release of the 52 U.S. hostages in Iran. The Reagan/Bush ticket won the White House in 1980, by treason, sidestepping the dreaded possiblity of an "October Surprise" were it possible for incumbent Jimmy Carter running for re-election to have succeeded in getting the hostage release just prior to the 1980 Election.

Now, the Iranians are reportedly massing troops on the Iranian-Iraq border. They are seeking to pressure, if not blackmail, the Bush Crime White House, into somehow withdrawing our troops from a terrible bloody quicksand called Iraq. The Iranians have plenty to blackmail the Bushies with. Such as how they brought in the downfall of the Shah of Iran who on behalf of the Persians, demanded a bigger cut from the oil cartel.

Religious folks from all over the Moslem world are coming into Iraq, through their porous borders, to fight for the sanctity and honor of their religion. They gladly become assassins, even suicide bombers, to throw out the American foreign invaders that are defiling the Mid-East. Many Iranians actually visit religious shrines and artifacts located in Iraq.

In sum, the Bush Crime White House has various motives to orchestrate violence, domestic and elsewhere, and blame it on somebody else's relgiion. Such as to divert a patriotic military seizure of the currently treasonous U.S.. Central Government. Such as to divert attention from the impending U..S. financial collapse, including the absolute destruction of the U.S. credit infrastructure. Such as, to divert attention from details possibly becoming more publicly known of the treason involved in putting our young people in harm's way, by sending them to be seriously wounded or die in Iraq, for no American interest or purpose. That is a country of upwards of 300 million people attacking, without justifiable cause, a nation of less than 20 million people.

Question: Will the peons of America, the shirtless ones, the common folk, be cursed by failing to somehow stop the rise of America's Hitler?



Go to 12814
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq
This war on terrorism is bogusThe 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
Michael Meacher The Guardian, Saturday September 6 2003 Article history · Contact us Contact usClose Contact the Politics editor
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk Report errors or inaccuracies: reader@guardian.co.uk Letters for publication should be sent to: letters@guardian.co.uk If you need help using the site: userhelp@guardian.co.uk Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:
+44 (0)20 7278 2332

Advertising guide License/buy our content About this articleClose 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



Go to 12813
http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/legally_avoid_shots.htm
How To Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations Of All Kinds

As you read this work and put its principles into practice, there are two basic axioms you never want to forget. They are the rock upon which all your actions are based.

Nobody, anywhere or any time and under any circumstances has the right or power in this country to immunize you or your children against your will and conviction. If they attempt to do so, you can legally charge them with "assault with a deadly weapon" and have the full resources of our laws behind you.

At all times in attempting to avoid unwanted immunization, you have the Law of the Land behind you. Those who would try to vaccinate you against your will are on very shaky ground. Into every compulsory immunization law in America are written legal exceptions and waivers which are there specifically to protect you from the attempted tyranny of officialdom. It is not only your right, but your obligation to use them, if this is what your conscience tells you.

Article I
In all your contacts with any member of the school, public health, or legal establishment, always remain calm, courteous, and humbly reverent toward their position. You are only asking of them that which the law duty binds them to give you. There is no reason, or advantage, to be gained by antagonizing them.

Most of these officials believe they are discharging their trust as outlined by law. If they are overstepping the law, then you must very diplomatically bring the true facts to their attention, but without attempting to belittle them.

The more you can preserve their ego, the more easily and quickly you are likely to get what you desire - a waiver of immunization.

Rule No. 1: Do not harass, belittle, or antagonize officials unnecessarily.

Article 2
All compulsory laws concerning vaccination (including the military) contain exceptions and waivers. It is these protections placed in the laws that you may legally use to exclude yourself and your children. Surprisingly, these exceptions were placed there, not for your sake (although you may take advantage of them), but for the protection of the establishment.

How is this? Let us assume that these exceptions were not there and everyone was actually forced to be immunized. Should a child die or become mentally or physically disabled, the parent would have the perfect case to sue the doctor, the school, the health department, and even the state legislature for enormous damages.

Since they allowed no exceptions, they must accept full responsibility for all the adverse consequences of the law.

However, if exception waivers are placed in the law, the responsibility is then transferred back to the parent. If a child should be injured by immunization, the officials can say, "Well, the parent should have exempted him if they thought there was any danger."

Therefore, there is in truth no such thing as a compulsory vaccination law in this country. They are ALL, in essence, voluntary. The problem is that practically no one in authority will let you know this fact.

Rule No. 2: There are no compulsory vaccination laws. All are voluntary, and you are held responsible for the adverse results upon you or your children.

Article 3
While all immunization laws have exceptions you can use, the wording in each state differs, and you must know the exact wording for your state to make the proper request of waiver. This information can be obtained in one of two ways.

Go to the reference section of your local library- look in the State Statute Revised Law Book under Public Health Law or Communicable Disease sections. The list of immunization requirements will appear first and then the exemptions will be given. Usually one or two provisions will be listed: either on religious or medical grounds or both.

You may call or write your state representative and ask for a copy of the immunization laws in your state. Making this available is part of his job, and it will be sent promptly.

Rule No. 3: Know your own state law so that you can conform to its exact requirements for exemption.

Article 4
There are two basic reasons for exception - medical or religious. Which one you choose will often depend upon the wording of the law in your state and your personal convictions.

We shall discuss medical exemption first. While laws do vary, nearly all states require that a note or certificate of waiver be submitted by a physician licensed in the state of residence. In some areas where states are small and people continually travel from one to another for business, a statement from a physician in a contiguous state will be accepted.

In this letter it is usually necessary to state the reason for the requested waiver and the length of time it should extend. Many laws limit all such letters to a school year and they must be renewed each fall.

The two most valid reasons for medical waiver are "the fear of allergic reaction in a sensitive child" and "to prevent possible damage to a weakened immune system." Both of these can occur in a child who has been immunized, and since no one but the physician and the parent will be held responsible for their consequences, it is up to them to protect the child.

It is possible that some states may require the letter from an M.D. or D.O., but many will allow an exemption letter from a chiropractor if it is courteously and properly written, as outlined above.

Rule No. 4: Medical waivers are always valid but must be written to fit each state law and often need to be renewed annually.

Article 5
The foregoing may work for school exemptions, but are there any such waivers in the Armed Forces? Yes. All branches of the Service provide "immunization waivers."

Again, if they did not you could sue them for millions of dollars if a reaction occurred from their immunizations. Because of these waiver provisions, you become responsible if you react.

When you first sign up or enlist, you must state your objection to the vaccinations and tell whether it is "religious conscience" or medical reasons, such as allergies or a low tolerance to medication of any kind. If you do not show objection at this time, you have given the military the right to do what they will with you.

If there is any difficulty, the same rules apply here as in the school program. Never forget, even though you may be in the Service, no one has the right to immunize you against your will. You do not give up your constitutional rights when you join the Armed Forces.

Rule No. 5: The rules that govern school vaccination exemption also apply to the military. Never let anyone tell you otherwise. They do not know, or are hiding, the facts of the law.

Article 6
What about international travel? May I go around the world without vaccination?

The World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva grants American visitors the right to REFUSE shots when traveling internationally. However, if an area you wish to enter is infected, you may be detained until the public health servant gives you the "go" (at his discretion).

Thousands travel world-wide each year without shots - so you may if that is your choice. Many of our co-workers have traveled over much of the world and have never taken any immunizations, nor were they ever detained.

It would be wise to request a copy of Foreign Rules and Regulations, Part 71, Title 42, on immunization when you receive your passport. Never forget the basic rule, "No one will vaccinate you against your will because by doing so they assume full responsibility for the consequences both legal and medical."

Rule No. 7: You may travel wherever you wish in the world without vaccination. The worst that can happen is that in very rare circumstances you may be detained temporarily.

Some Important Details
The above seven articles constitute all the basic rules. However, there are many important little "tricks of the trade" to having your legal requests honored. These will now be discussed.

While waivers and exemptions are written into all laws on immunization, most public health officials, doctors, and especially school officials are loathe to discuss their existence when questioned, and rarely, to our knowledge, volunteer such information.



Go to 12812
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C1717572%2C00.html
The World's Growing Food-Price Crisis
Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008 By VIVIENNE WALT/PARIS
People push to receive food distributed by the Kenyan Red Cross in the Mathare slum in Nairobi.
AFP / Getty
Article ToolsPrintEmailReprintsSphereRSS Add another item to the list of threats to world peace: Food.

Related Articles
Food Price Hikes Roil Pakistan
Musharraf's party lost the election because of the price of flour and food. It's the foremost problem facing the next government
Soaring prices of staples — which have risen about 75% since 2005, driven by growing demand, rising oil prices and the effects of global warming — have sparked riots in several countries, as people reel from sticker shock and governments scramble to feed their people. Crowds tore through three cities in the West African nation of Burkina Faso late last week, burning government buildings and looting stores; when officials tried to talk peace with one group of protesters, the enraged crowd hurled stones at them. The riots followed similar violent protests over food prices in Senegal and Mauritania earlier this year. And, last October, protesters in India burned hundreds of food-ration stores after stockpiles emptied, leaving thousands of people unfed.

Governments might succeed in quashing the protests, but lowering food prices could be far tougher and will likely take years, according to analysts who track global food consumption. The Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute, or IFPRI, said last December that high prices are unlikely to fall soon, partly because world food stocks are being squeezed by soaring demand. The wild ride in agricultural markets has attracted intense speculation among investors, with billions of dollars being poured into commodities markets. On Monday, the price of wheat shot up about 25% on the Chicago Board of Trade, after officials in Khazakstan announced plans to restrict exports of their giant wheat crop in order to ensure the food supply to their own citizens. Russian officials have also said they are planning to restrict grain exports.

For the world's poorest people, the price rises are already proving devastating, since the speed at which prices have risen has wrought havoc on government relief programs. Earlier this month, a top official at the U.S. Agency for International Development admitted that in order to meet current targets, it had been forced to skim off funds from future food-aid programs, worth about $120 million.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that millions more people who were previously earning enough to feed their families can now no longer afford the food in their local stores, and are now swelling the ranks of those expecting relief from aid organizations. "We are seeing a new face of hunger," the executive director of U.N.'s World Food Program, Josette Sheeran, told TIME on Tuesday. "People who were not in the urgent category are now moving into that category." The organization currently feeds about 73 million people, including millions who get by on just 50 cents a day. After hosting a series of emergency meetings with international organizations and food experts this month at WFP's Rome headquarters, Sheeran said the organization has concluded that food prices will remain high for years. She announced on Monday that the organization might have to cut its relief programs unless it raises an extra $500 million this year. "There is no way we can absorb a 25% price rise in one day and the volatility of the markets," Sheeran said.

One factor driving up the cost of food is the rocketing price of oil, which raises agricultural costs of everything from fertilizer to transport and shipping. Like the oil price, the cost of food is responding, in part, to the burgeoning demand in China and India, where rising incomes allow people to eat bigger meals, and to buy meat far more frequently. That, in turn, has helped to squeeze the world's supply of grain, since it takes about six pounds of animal feed to produce a pound of meat.

Then there is climate change: Harvests have been seriously disrupted by freak weather, including prolonged droughts in Australia and southern Africa, floods in West Africa, and deep frost in China and Europe. And the push to produce biofuels to replace hydrocarbons is also adding to the pressure on food supplies — generous U.S. subsidies for ethanol has gobbled up needed food acreage, as farmers switch from producing food. "The area used for biofuels is increasing each year," says Nik Bienkowski, head of research at ETF Securities, a commodities trading firm in London.

The food price rises are not bad news for everyone, says Bienkowski, who estimates that his company took in about $2 billion worth of investments last year. And millions of farmers whose income has languished through years of cheap food are now earning well.

"U.S. and British farmers are laughing all the way to the bank," says Simon Maxwell, director of the London-based Overseas Development Institute, an independent think tank. "And some poor people will get jobs on farms or in local communities." Yet those people will need to buy food, whose prices are rising far faster than wages. With relief agencies struggling to feed the hungry and the shelves in Pakistan, Burkina Faso, Senegal and many other countries in the developing world stocked with food many locals can no longer afford, the prospects for chaos are steadily growing.



Go to 12811
http://www.rense.com/general81/d2nc.htm
I Like Ron Paul
And He Can Win
By Alan Stang
3-2-8

In 1952, the country was on fire (as usual). The Democrats had ruled for twenty years. Swindler, mass murderer and traitor Franklin Roosevelt was safely dead. Harry Truman, who to everyone's amazement had beaten Republican globalist Thomas Dewey in 1948, was now completing his term. And the truth about Communist infiltration and influence under the Democrats was oozing out.

If the magnitude of that infiltration became generally known, the conspiracy for world government could have suffered a devastating defeat. The Communists had literally been directing federal policy. Because of that policy, Patton's advance had been stopped, so Stalin could seize all of Central Europe. Soviet agent Alger Hiss, a top official of the Department of State, ran the San Francisco meeting that founded the Communist United Nations. And on and on!

And waiting in the wings to succeed Truman was staunch Republican patriot Robert Taft, of Ohio. In 1952, it would not have mattered whom the Democrats decided to nominate. Immensely popular Bob Taft would have won. And Taft would have conducted the exposé the world government traitors so feared. They had to find a way to deny Taft the nomination. But how?

First, they recruited Dwight Eisenhower, an unimportant colonel in the 1930s with no military talent, who didn't need any because he was a favorite of Eleanor Roosevelt's. Promoted to general over the heads of more experienced, more talented men, Eisenhower had been Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, but he had never seen a battle, except in the movies and maybe when Mamie found out about Kay Sommersby.

There was nothing more to Eisenhower than the fact that he was a factotum of the conspiracy for world government. He fired Patton. He conducted Operation Keelhaul, in which he forcibly returned to the Soviets a couple of million people who had used the war to escape. Some of those people had served in our military in our uniform. Many committed suicide rather than return to Stalin. Mothers threw their babies off bridges and then jumped off themselves. Eisenhower was merciless.

In another incredible war crime, Eisenhower killed a million or so demobilized German soldiers, ordinary men who had nothing to do with any Holocaust and maybe didn't even know about it. He kept them caged in the open, utterly without shelter and starved them to death. So, Eisenhower should have been on trial beside Hitler. Like Roosevelt, he was a Soviet front man and a mass murderer.

But the conspiracy for world government not only destroys the reputations of its enemies; it also creates spurious reputations for its own. So it created a reputation for Eisenhower. They made him NATO commander. He still had never been in combat, but was the hero who had "defeated Germany." They brought him back to become president of Columbia University.

They couldn't run at Taft directly. He was too popular. So, they devised a brilliant slogan: "I like Taft, but he can't win." As soon as they had maneuvered Taft out of the nomination - thereby preventing the exposé and preserving the conspiracy - they transmogrified the slogan. Now it was, "I like Ike." Thereby, they piggybacked Taft's popularity onto Eisenhower. The implication was that Ike could win and of course he buried the Democrat, Adlai Stevenson.

What do we have now? Wherever I go, I find very few people who dislike Ron Paul. Because you will never meet a man more humane, what could a normal person dislike? I go out of my way to ask black people about him. Those who have heard of him smile. So far, I have not found one who dislikes him. There is no reason to believe your experience is any different. Everyone but the totalitarians likes Dr. Ron, but many won't vote for him because "he can't win."

As the Texas primary approaches, these are the people to whom these comments are directed. What does it mean to like Ron Paul but not to vote for him because "he can't win?" First, there is the obvious fact that enough such people could add up to the old "self-fulfilling prophecy." If enough people who believe he "can't win" don't vote for him, then obviously he can't.

Second, we are not talking about the Marx brothers in "A Day at the Races." The point of all this effort is not to outwit the law of probability and pick the winner; not to be able to boast we did that. This is Election Day. We are choosing the candidate who more likely will work to restore and preserve our constitutional system. If you believe Ron "can't win," one possible choice is not to vote for President at all, in which case you are in effect telling other people to choose the winner. You are saying, "Ron can't win because I made him lose."

Or you could vote for someone else. Who? The only other candidates for the Republican nomination who remain are McCain and Huckabee. McCain is deranged, he is corrupt, he betrayed his fellow Prisoners of War, which is just one of many good reasons to believe that his Soviet interrogators sent him home as one of their own and his record in the Senate is as far left as Mao Tse-tung, which is another. He says he would happily keep us in Iraq for a century.

It now becomes apparent that Huckabee lost that hundred pounds and wrote the book about it in preparation for his presidential campaign, which in turn is the key to his new career in show business. Recently, I saw this presidential candidate playing straight buffoon on a comedy show. He is in the race for whatever he can get, an Elmer Gantry equivalent to a courtroom shyster. Before he started stealing Dr. Paul's platform, Pukeabee was a rabid socialist, doing whatever he could to encourage the illegal alien invasion.

The experts tell us Traitor McCain almost has it nailed down. If that is true, there is nothing to lose by voting for Dr. Ron. If he "can't win," your vote won't change anything, except that the more votes he gets, the more obvious it will be that the natives are restless; the more influence Dr. Ron will have at the national convention. So the question is, if you share Dr. Paul's beliefs, why not go ahead and vote for him in an election in which there is no "lesser of two evils?"

There is something even crazier. Believe it or not, some Texas Republicans say they will vote for B. Hussein Obama to stop the Clinton womanoid. Of course that would ensure the nomination of Republican Traitor McCain and it could win the state for Democrat Hussein, who would be much harder for McCain to beat in November, despite his connections to racism, Islam and Communism.

Remember that the womanoid comes to us with dozens of corpses of the heroes who opposed the Clinton crime family or were just in the way, like Billy Dale and Vince Foster. The names of some Presidents are connected to a single major scandal. If I say "Nixon," you think "Watergate." The womanoid comes to us with a decades-long record of major felonies, any one of which would put her away for many years. I would not be surprised to learn that she has been a member of the Communist Party. Her election would trigger an eruption of rampaging bull dykes.

Hussein does not have anywhere near as much smelly baggage. He is movie star charming. He is a novelty. Many brainwashed white victims would vote for him to expiate the guilt they imbibed in government school for something other white people they can't name allegedly did more than 150 years ago, and the fact that Hussein would impose just as much Communism - and maybe more Islam - as the womanoid is more than overcome by the brilliance of his dictum that the future is before us.

Yes, considerable bad feeling overcame the good between the races for many years after Lincoln's Communist War to Destroy the Union. It was engendered by "Reconstruction," calculated by Communist Yankees (some of them foreigners) to humiliate whites, who were thereby inspired to humiliate blacks. Thank God we are done with all that.

Every day I get emails from people who complain in effect that Dr. Ron isn't perfect. Didn't I write as much myself a while ago? Again, the only perfect candidate would be Jesus Christ, but so far He hasn't declared His candidacy, maybe because He already owns the whole place. If you haven't kicked your wife out yet, stop complaining about Dr. Paul.

Did you forget about what Dr. Ron would do despite his faults? On Inauguration Day he would start to abolish IRS and the Fed. He would secure our borders. He would stop the handouts that inspire the illegal aliens to come. He would restore the Constitution and our national independence.

He would pull us out of the North American Union the world government traitors are trying to trick us into. He would start extricating us from Iraq. He would not make more war in the area. He would restore our military and take good care of our veterans. How is all that for a start? All the other candidates in both parties would do exactly the opposite.

So who is the "lesser of two evils?" Why not vote what you want for a change? Traitor McCain still does not have it. Because he is deranged, he could unravel at any moment. If he still doesn't have it at the national Convention, there could be a deadlock and a "brokered convention." Is that a long shot? Yes, about as long as it can get. Why not go for it?



Use your Go Back and Go Forward commands to get to where you were in a previous file.