1. “Nano Particles used in Untested H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccines
“At a mere 25 nanometers, these particles are so tiny that once injected, they flow through the skin’s extracellular matrix, making a beeline to the lymph nodes. Within minutes, they’ve reached a concentration of DCs thousands of times greater than in the skin. The immune response can then be extremely strong and effective.” 1
There is only one small problem with vaccines containing nanoparticles—they can be deadly and at the least cause severe irreparable health damage.
Nanoparticles, promoted in the mass media as the new wonder revolution of science, are particles that have been produced vastly smaller than deadly asbestos particles which caused severe lung damage and death before being outlawed. Particles at a nano size, (nm = 0,000000001 Meter) fuse together with the membranes of our body cell membranes and, according to recent studies in China and Japan, continuously destroy cells once introduced into the body. Once they interact with the body’s cellular structure, they cannot be removed. Modern medicine euphemistically terms the phenomenon, a continuing infectious reaction.
…
The Beijing Chaoyang Hospital study has now conclusively confirmed that nanoparticles cause lung damage and other toxicity in humans as well. At this point in time, when two of the approved vaccines planned to be mass distributed in Germany and elsewhere contain nanoparticles, failure of the relevant responsible public health and epidemiology officials to order an immediate emergency freeze on distribution of any vaccine containing nanoparticles can only be considered tantamount to criminal negligence. “
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=15092&context=va
2. This is so incredibly insulting to each of us human beings:
“Newly released FBI data offer evidence of the broad scope and complexity of the nation’s terrorist watch list, documenting a daily flood of names nominated for inclusion to the controversial list.
During a 12-month period ended in March this year, for example, the U.S. intelligence community suggested on a daily basis that 1,600 people qualified for the list because they presented a “reasonable suspicion,” according to data provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the FBI in September and made public last week.
…
The ever-churning list is said to contain more than 400,000 unique names and over 1 million entries. The committee was told that over that same period, officials asked each day that 600 names be removed and 4,800 records be modified. Fewer than 5 percent of the people on the list are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Nine percent of those on the terrorism list, the FBI said, are also on the government’s “no fly” list.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/31/AR2009103102141_pf.html
3. “Documents Detail Conditions Found at Secret C.I.A. Jails
F.B.I. agents who arrived at a secret C.I.A. jail overseas in September 2002 found prisoners “manacled to the ceiling and subjected to blaring music around the clock,” and a C.I.A. official wrote a list of questions for interrogators including “How close is each technique to the ‘rack and screw,’ ” according to hundreds of pages of partly declassified documents released Friday by the Justice Department.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01justice.html?_r=4&ref=world
So yes, they have certainly sold their goods to the highest bidders.
Indeed, at least some people trust prostitutes more than elected officials.
But the prostitution analogy is inaccurate.
…
Real whores, after all, personally supply the services their customers seek. Prostitutes do not steal; their customers pay them voluntarily. And their customers pay only with money belonging to these customers.
In contrast, members of Congress routinely truck and barter with other people’s property…
Members of Congress are less like whores than they are like pimps”
…
So to call politicians “whores” is to unduly insult women who either choose or who are forced into the profession of prostitution. These women aggress against no one; like all other respectable human beings, they do their best to get by as well as they can without violating other people’s rights.
The real villains in the prostitution arena are those pimps who coerce women into satisfying the lusts of strangers. Such pimps pocket most of the gains earned by the toil and risks involuntarily imposed upon the prostitutes they control. No one thinks this arrangement is fair or justified. No one gives pimps the title of “Honorable.” Decent people don’t care what pimps think or suppose that pimps have any special insights into what is good or bad for the women under their command. Decent people don’t pretend that pimps act chiefly for the benefit of their prostitutes. Decent people believe that pimps should be in prison.
Yet Americans continue to imagine that the typical representative or senator is an upstanding citizen, a human being worthy of being feted and listened to as if he or she possesses some unusually high moral or intellectual stature.
It’s closer to the truth to see politicians as pimps who force ordinary men and women to pony up freedoms and assets for the benefit of clients we call “special-interest groups.”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/politicans-are-not-prostitutes-they-are.html
5. “There is something ironic — if not downright obscene — about the fact that in the UK the Poppy is used as the symbol of remembrance for all those who have died in the UK’s countless imperial wars, a symbol that is being used to punt the latest ‘adventure’, Afghanistan, home of the opium poppy.
…
In part it’s about waging a war for the minds of the British public, thus punting the Poppy, this time in the name of the ‘War on Terror’ is shoved down our throats every time we turn on the telly and every announcer, every newscaster sports the Poppy badge. And of course, it’s also about being there, yet another forward base for launching military strikes at more ‘enemies’, bases that are intended for military strikes principally against China and Russia. And frankly, it’s not even the UK’s war, it’s entirely made in the USA, that’s how far the British Empire has sunk, (ineffectual) hitman for the Empire.
“According to an official UN report, opium production in Afghanistan has risen dramatically since the downfall of the Taliban in 2001. UNODC data shows more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004-2007), than in any one year during Taliban rule. More land is now used for opium in Afghanistan, than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 93% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan. This is no accident.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15884
6. “Crisis in the Post-industrial Age: Welcome to Role-play
It is therefore evident that the key difference between netocracy and consumeriat (if we use Bard and Zoderkvist’s terminology) is not participating in the creation of a virtual matrix (since everyone is involved in its creation, in one way or another). The essential difference is that netocrats realize the virtuality of this matrix and the conventionality of its laws, and so constantly adjust and rebuild it in conformity with their tastes and interests (“Do not try to bend the spoon. Just understand that there is no spoon”). The consumeriat is oriented to consumption of the finished product and, and, by contrast, does not penetrate into the “internal kitchen” of the game. It is therefore doomed to play by the rules, which are laid down by others. This situation is very familiar to people who have an experience of participating in role-playing games. In such games there is almost always a manifest quality gap between those who play against each other under a proposed script and those who look for vulnerable places in the proposed model and play to change the script itself, thus involving others in their own game.
…
The substantial boundary today is not between Nationalists and Communists, and not between “radicals” and “conformists”. The essential boundary is between those who are satisfied and mindlessly consume the proposed script of role-playing games and those who, aware of the virtual political space and trying to understand the structure of the simulacrum, are learning not to play against the “enemies” (which is specified in the script), but to intercept the script itself.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15885
7. Daniel Ellsberg:
“However, Ellsberg expected more. He expected Americans to change their thinking about wars. He expected us not to fall for obvious lies about wars anymore. He thought that people would digest and synthesize the untold story he exposed. So, in some ways, he was of course disappointed. And, of course, what good he did for the media and Congress quickly wore off.
In the film we’re told that the New York Times decided to publish top secret documents because it thought it would not be able to survive the disgrace of the world eventually learning that it had acquired the documents and not published them. This sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland today in our world where the New York Times buries most interesting stories, where it dutifully kept a warrantless spying story secret for a year, where it still hasn’t reported on most of the stories found in the same book that forced that story out, and where it pushed war lies about Iraq and now does the same for Iran.
Most crimes today are public. Bush and Cheney brag about torture on television. Nothing happens. Documents like the Downing Street Minutes are studiously ignored. Whistleblowers post their stories on the internet. Congress no longer impeaches or even issues subpoenas. And the RAND Corporation, from which Ellsberg leaked his documents, held a propaganda-fest about escalation in Afghanistan on Capitol Hill the same day as the movie premier.
In the film we’re told that Americans were enraged to learn from the Pentagon Papers that the Vietnam War was being fought to “save face.” At RAND’s forum on Thursday, Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution openly argued for an escalation in Afghanistan, because withdrawal would mean a “huge PR victory for al Qaeda”.
Our crimes, like our system of campaign bribery or our degradation of journalism, are mostly out in the open now. No doubt there are documents in the White House or the Pentagon or RAND indicating knowledge of the hopelessness of quagmire continuation in Afghanistan. But who would ever dare leak them? Who would ever dare help that person do so? Once posted online, who would compel a newspaper or a television network to notice? Once the information was in the corporate media, who would force Congress to care? Once Congress cared, who would shut down Washington DC until the powers of subpoena and impeachment were revived?
It seems to me that what we need is not a new Dan Ellsberg for our generation. We need a whole new generation. We need dozens of Dan Ellsbergs and Dan Ellsberg accomplices throughout our government, and we need them to act frequently and with eternal vigilance.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15885
8. “Obama’s latest use of “secrecy” to shield presidential lawbreaking
What was once depicted as a grave act of lawlessness — Bush’s NSA program — is now deemed a vital state secret.
That was the principal authoritarian instrument used by Bush/Cheney to shield itself from judicial accountability, and it is now the instrument used by the Obama DOJ to do the same. Initially, consider this: if Obama’s argument is true — that national security would be severely damaged from any disclosures about the government’s surveillance activities, even when criminal — doesn’t that mean that the Bush administration and its right-wing followers were correct all along when they insisted that The New York Times had damaged American national security by revealing the existence of the illegal NSA program? Isn’t that the logical conclusion from Obama’s claim that no court can adjudicate the legality of the program without making us Unsafe?
Beyond that, just consider the broader implications of what is going on here. Even after they announced their new internal guidelines with great fanfare, the Obama administration is explicitly arguing that the President can break the law with impunity — can commit crimes — when it comes to domestic surveillance because our surveillance programs are so secret that national security will be harmed if courts are permitted to adjudicate their legality. As EFF put it last July (emphasis in original), government officials:
seek to transform a limited, common law evidentiaryprivilege into sweeping immunity for their own unlawful conduct. . . . [They] would sweep away these vital constitutional principles with the stroke of a declaration, arrogating to themselves the right to immunize any criminal or unconstitutional conduct in the name of national security. . . .
For that reason, as EFF pointedly noted the last time the Obama DOJ sought to compel dismissal based on this claim: ”defendants’ motion is even more frightening than the conduct alleged in the Amended Complaint.” Think about that argument: the Obama DOJ’s secrecy and immunity theories are even more threatening than the illegal domestic spying programs they seek to protect.
…
Can anyone deny that’s true? If the President can simply use “secrecy” claims to block courts from ruling on whether he broke the law, then what checks or limits exist on the President’s power to spy illegally on Americans or commit other crimes in a classified setting? By definition, there are none. That’s what made this distortion of the “state secrets” privilege so dangerous when Bush used it, and it’s what makes it so dangerous now.”
