Thursday, 31 December 2009

Obama Becoming a Law Unto Himself

I am disturbed by some info I have just come across regarding a recent (16/12) Executive Order issued by Obama that exempts Interpol from operating in the US without being subject to the Constitution & its Bill of Rights, in particular the Fourth Amendment. The bottom line of my blog, as someone put the matter on the WorldNetDaily site:

"But the Obama critics at the Obamafile weren't convinced.

"'By this EO, Obama has conferred diplomatic immunity upon INTERPOL, exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, exemption from U.S. taxes, and immunity from FOIA requests, etc. … Does INTERPOL have a file on Obama – or his associations?'"

A little background.

During Obama's run for the presidency, the Right in general began to look deeper into his background. They found some disturbing things. Some are widely known about: his association - for years - with his fiery pastor; and something of a link with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, of Weathermen infame. Some are lesser known about. One of those bits is a tape of a telephone conversation with a US pastor and Obama's paternal step-grandmother in Kenya, who seemed to affirm that he had been born in that country, and that in point of fact, she had been present at his birth. But where I want to go with this blog is to another lesser-known bit of backround: the tape of a radio show interview in Chicago with Obama while he was an Illinois senator. In the course of the i/v he commented on the Constitution - how it was primarily about what the federal government can't do to the citizenry; but what would be better, would be what it not only can, but should, do FOR the citizenry. The i/v didn't go into any further detail about his thoughts on that subject. But it highlights one of the concerns of the Right: that he is a socialist in spirit and sentiment; and may well not be above bending the law a little to accomplish his desired ends (as 'liberals' are notorious for doing, in regarding the Constitution as 'a living document', subject to interpretation, not by 'original intent' perspectives, but by an attitude of 'broad construction').

And now, whilst in that office of major prestige and power, he quietly amends by Executive Order one issued by Reagan during his term in the office, which specifically did not exempt Interpol from constitutional oversight when operating in this country.

Why is this little matter important?

See above. Especially in the context, eg, of the possibility that Obama might want to keep some information about his background from the US public. Take questions about his passport, or passports (a subject that would naturally involve Interpol). There are serious questions about his eligibility, which include questions regarding what nationality he traveled to Pakistan under years ago, ie, was he traveling under Indonesian citizenship. He might also have been traveling under the British citizenship he inherited from his father; and so on, question upon question, as to who, really, is Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro. All of this goes to his eligibility to be president of the US - and to have run for that august office in the first place.

Questions, that are not helped when it turns out that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party did not do a proper check of his credentials, as it were. To be as understanding as possible in the matter: It might just have been an assumption, that he couldn't have gotten as far as running for the job if he WEREN'T eligible. But since the office of the president of the US - and the office of vice president- require a more specific level of citizenry than other elected offices, that is a terribly irresponsible oversight, if that is in fact the case.* Although there are factors involved that make it look as though that is too positive a spin on the matter - that someone of high responsibility in the Democratic Party camp in fact knew there might be some question here. And a decision was made to simply try to sneak the matter by the American people.

The philosophy of ends justifying means.

So, the upshot is that there is considerable question about Obama's eligibility, and his stonewalling about authorizing the release of his original, vault-copy birth certificate has not helped matters any. And nor has his refusal likewise to authorize release of other personal documents, like his school records (did he apply for financial support as a foreign student?) - and his passport. Or passports.

About which there is some serious question. Involving secret changes after the fact. And accesses to his State Department file regarding the matter, which involve the death of one investigator.

The people, in short, have 'a right to know' - to know all about the man who has been elected to the highest office in the land.

Possibly under false pretences.

With a particular political slant, as an agenda, that can be called, in a word: socialism.

A Change that the American people haven't really voted on.

* The difference is in the legal definition of a "natural born citizen", which requires the person to have been born on US soil of US citizen parents. Note the plural. It was a clear understanding of definition at the time of the ratification of the US constitution. The Founders of the fledgling republic did not want persons occupying those offices who might have divided loyalties (particularly to England, at the time).

Friday, 18 December 2009

Betrayals of our Potentials

The theme of betrayal is up for me. Betrayal in general, and betrayals in particular. In general, I can think of the end-justifies-the-means positions of such as former president George W. Bush, who, when a reporter called out to him, on his way to or from the White House helicopter, asking what bin Laden had to do with 9/11, replied back: "Nothing," and continued on his merry neocon way. And this week, of former UK PM Tony Blair, who when asked about Iraq and all that, said that in hindsight he would have done the same thing, because Saddam Hussein was a bad man. Of which there are, indeed, more than a few around. Or the pending example of, say, an Al Gore, who, if it turns out that the skeptics were right, and there really was/is no anthropegenic global warming going on - enough to make the sort of difference claimed - might well say, "Well; we're better off for what we've done; no?"

No. Because we're talking about the truth of matters. Not the agendas of the powerful. The ability of the power-hungry to hide behind smokescreens, in order to achieve their purposes.

But what really 'did it' for me this week was an article in The (Glasgow) Herald about depression, and the treatment thereof, by the professionals of our day and compromised age. To their credit, the authorities quoted on the subject referred to alternative treatments to drug therapy, the latter of which they acknowledged was getting out of hand (by its nature). But the only 'alternative' therapies/treatments that our culture recognizes are 'talking therapies' - aka cognitive behavioural therapy - and exercise. Not good enough. Nor is the slavish response of the mainstream media to the establishmentarian approach to this issue, and other such issues, in feature articles on the subjects. My letter (unprinted; no surprise there):

"Dear Editor,

"There is something decidedly unhealthy about the approach to the subject of depression by mainstream medicine, and its reportage by the mainstream media ('One in 10 now taking drugs to fight depression', The Herald, December 16).

"Depression is a symptom, not a disease. It has underlying causation, and that is where the treatment for it needs to take place, not primarily, or exclusively, on the symptom level. For example: when too little vitamin B6 is obtained from one's diet (easy to do, in our modern diets, with processed foods stripped of many nutrients), an essential amino acid called tryptophan is not used normally, instead is changed into a substance known as xanthurenic acid. This can damage the pancreas and produce diabetes; but in the current context, this biochemical process is important because tryptophan is a precursor to serotonin, the main 'feel good' neurotransmitter. Less tryptophan, less serotonin.

"The medical-pharmaceutical complex tries to compensate for this deficiency by artificially increasing the serotonin in the synapses, via SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors); but this is not dealing with the root cause, which can have multifactorial effects, like the aforementioned diabetes.

"And there's another amino acid, called tyrosine, whose main role is as a precursor to both serotonin and dopamine - both important to the proper functioning of the brain. (And dopamine is also involved in the alarming rise of ADHD, also reported on in this article.)

"There are other causes of clinical depression. Other parts of the B complex (which has been eliminated from our diets in large part with the advent of the high-speed milling process of wheat), which can be used up by stress, with 'coping' difficulty results. A wonky thyroid (which can come about via fluoride displacing the iodine); insufficient omega 3 oils, or in proper balance with omega 6 oils. And so forth. I am saying that more emphasis needs to be placed on causation and less on the band-aids of either drug treatment or talking therapies. Or we will just continue to have 'mental illness' problems blighting our society. And growing. And growing. All for the want of a nail.

"Yours sincerely," (etc.)

I could have said more. 'Other causes' includes a lack of sunlight (especially with already low levels of serotonin. This condition is known as SAD - seasonal affective disorder). And the treatment of the subject of 'mental health' was grotesquely insufficient - except in the terms of current western medicine, and the charities dealing with these fallout conditions, and the mainstream media's pitiful parroting of the official line on these matters. (It's the same with multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's disease, and so forth and so maddeningly on.) But I understand what's behind it all, and have to curb my temper.

Because I agree with the basic premise of life: of the importance of free will.

Which is how we learn our lessons, and grow therefrom.

I just get angry, and saddened, at how people get stuck in it. And identify with their momentary, learning-vehicle persona. And act accordingly, with its short-range vision.

Let me clarify. I am happy for people to relate to their roles. Male, female, father, mother, daughter, son, sister, brother, nephew, niece, business owner, janitor, scholar, sportsperson. But they are just that: roles. You are not your role. You are much more. You are 'a peece of the continent, a parte of the maine'. A spark of divinity. You are God. And if 'you' understood that - fully - you would act accordingly.

And it's time to get to that state of understanding.

The world - Gaia - needs us to.

And we need us to.

As the title of a book on reincarnation pointed out, clearly and concisely: We Are One Another.

And I for one don't want to be a part of the corrupting of the noble calling of medicine, where a natural approach to the subject has been not only ignored, but actively attacked and suppressed, by the established order.

We have bigger fish to fry, now, than just experiencing life through our roles, and getting so comfortable in the momentary reflection of what is in actuality a process that we forget that that's just what they are: roles. The means to an end.

The end of enlightenment. And Oneness with the All. The consciousness of being One with the All.

It is important work. And that work is calling on us now to rise to the occasion.

Join me. Join the (r)evolution.

And make of 'us' a gift worthy of The Giver.

By recognizing that we have just been playing roles. And now it's time for the real thing.

the 'real thing' of Ascension.

Moving up to a higher orbit of the atomic Body of our Creator.

To express that potential more fully. For mutual progression of the Whole.

And to do that, the key, now, to such a progression, is to do away with money. The training wheels of 'money'. Of personal aggrandisement - for its own sake - and damn the consequences. Not very mature.

And I'm not talking about the anti-free will philosophy of disallowing choice. The idea that the answer to, say, envy, or greed, is to take away the opportunity to experience the vices of the human heart. The answer is to transcend them, by creating a civilization wherein virtue is its own reward; and we 'do' for the sake of the Whole because that's the point of the exercise.

The aligned, and fulfilling, exercise of the Will of the Creator, to allow us to dawdle along the path - or even lose sight of the path - if we so choose.

Choose not to. For your best sake as well. Because you are, after all, a part of the Whole.

A peece of the continent, a parte of the maine, in the words of the philosopher-poet, John Donne...who also observed, in this context:

"The bell doth toll for him that thinkes it doth; and though it intermit againe, yet from that moment that that occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God."

May YOU have such a moment.

And join us, moving further on the path. With closer attention to, and fidelity to, the purpose of the exercise.

The purpose, of experiencing Unity, and knowing it as if for the first time.

Sunday, 13 December 2009

The Turning Point

"...As we enhance the lives of others, protect our environment, and work toward abundance, all our lives can become richer and more secure. If these values were put into practice, it would enable all of us to achieve a much higher standard of living within a relatively short period of time; a standard of living that would be continuously improved."
(from FAQ, Jacque Fresco's answers to people about the Venus Project, carried on Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist Movement website)


My email of today to Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement (who answers questions weekly on a radio show):

"Dear Peter,

"I appreciate the good work that you & Jacque & Roxanne are doing to help people look outside of the current paradigm of how things are or can be done in the world. But in your take on it all: Why would people be 'good' and support the process, of a moneyless, resource-based economy, without a reason to do so other than that it would be nice & would work if people DID. To say: If there is no fundamental reason for being, then life has no real meaning, and people would/could as easily care only for themselves and their own personal wellbeing as not; for the end of the closed system of life could, then, as easily be seen as that as anything else. I am saying, that without an ultimate meaning to life, how do you answer a response to your vision of, 'Nothing really matters but me'?

"I'm sorry, but your vision sounds like a humanistic pipedream to me. Now if you put an additional, spiritual dimension to it, you'd really have something. You would have the true zeitgeist movement for our times: the Turning Point."

These thoughts of mine have been prompted by a number of articles on the web recently, where I have chosen to make comment on the Comments threads to them. The first of these was to an article in Rolling Stone by Naomi Klein on the current scene, from her inimitable perspective. My contribution to the discussion (on November 12; under my user name there of 'kibitzer'):

"So, we're at impasse - great. That means it's time to look beyond the level of the problem. And since the level of the problem is global, that means the solution is a step above 'the global'. And that means above the current global paradigm. And the current global paradigm is calculated with an interest-bearing money system,. Now what if...

"i suggest we look at fundamentals here. The fundamental motivating factor in the world currently is making a profit on one's efforts. But what if people were - could be - motivated by another 'carrot'. What if they were - could be - motivated by an understanding that the universe has purpose, and that purpose is Good; and part of that purpose is to live to our highest potential, as essentially souls on a spiritual journey -'spiritual beings have a human experience' - giving of our best, since life has meaning, beyond one's single incarnation. So: we can do away with money - especially money treated as a commodity in itself, instead of merely as a medium of exchange (as it started out being, before greed, & a sense of separation, crept into the picture). Which we can do electronically now, with a system of credits and debits, like local LETS systems do already.

"Of course, this will require humanity to recognize its essential Ground of Being being beyond merely the physical dimension. But there's plenty of evidence for that now - that there is more than Man in the grand scheme of things. So - it's time, to get serious on this essential matter. Great Crisis creating great Opportunity.

"The left and the right can duke it out if they want. But really it's time to move beyond the current paradigm.

"The planet - our home base, while we experience physical life - is waiting on us to get it. And getting rather impatient, it would appear, and so to speak.

"(R)evolution, anyone?"

The second was in response to an exchange on staunch anti-collectivist G. Edward Griffin's e-newsletter site ( between him and a contributor who took exception to his belief in the value of returning to the gold standard; the contributor believing its trading value & thus its control being in the hands of the Rothschild's, and Griffin standing his ground on the issue (my contribution dated 5 December):

"Dear Ed,

"Re your response to Brian of Central Queensland Free State concerning gold/'social credit':

"I haven't read the book in question. But I do know that

"(1) It is time to look anew at life on this lovely planet; and

"(2) 'You' don't need money to provide each other with goods and services. Yes, gold is a good 'standard' by which to measure value. But a return to that standard is to miss the fullness of the historical point, of where we're at in our evolution.

"We must not continue to be suckered by people of power who want to continue in their positions of power. All a person needs is a motivation to give of their best to one another. And I submit that that motivation - that best motivation - exists not in the relative value of gold, but in the exquisite qualiity of gratitude. Gratitude for life with meaning. The gift of the Creator to that Most High's offspring.

"We have a planet of abundance, to live in harmony with. It's time to do so, on a global, as opposed to a tribal, level. 'Tribal' as in separate races and religions and nationalities. It's time, that is to say, for ascension; to a new, higher level of our being on this lovely planet we call Earth - a higher level of being based on this lovely planet, as we now verge on starting to go exploring in our region of the galaxy. For a start. As a mature race, ready now for such an adventure; and responsibility, to do it with love, and the aforementioned gratitude.

"Practically, all we need is a system of credits and debits; much like the LETS systems of our day. It can all be done electronically. Just not under the thumb of the NWO crowd, and their immature allusions to power. That's of the old, to be shrugged off.

"'Human nature' is involved in all this, yes. But I submit to you that it is time to move out of the old paradign in which that expressed itself, into the new.

"We can do it. And in part now, because we must. Or we unravel back down into our past.

"Been there. Done that. No thanks.

"Keep up the excellent work," (etc)

Griffin's comment regarding 'human nature' was to the effect that any pie in the sky (in this case, the theory of Scottish engineer Clifford H. Douglas regarding 'social credit' and the implicit assumption therein that people would do the right thing merely on spec) would be brought splatting down via its auspices, ie, that people are people; fallen souls, in effect, and there is nothing new under the sun.

And speaking of which, on to my last entry in this review of recent comments of mine to 'timely' offerings on the internet, as it were. This one was to another article at Rolling Stone, by a columnist who was clearly disillusioned by Obama's choices for financial advisors. The article was headed 'Obama's Big Sellout'. My comment (on December 10):


"I can appreciate your feelings as to how the American people were made over for many years by the Republicans and their BB [for Big Business] cronies, but Matt is doing a major favor to The People by pointing out the facts of life regarding the Democrat side of politics as well. Succinctly put: The fix is in at the top. So: what to do?

"I encrouage some blue-sky thinking here. Corruption is rampant wherever you look. Globalisation has made the whole world economic system vulnerable to collapse. Answer: Let it. And give thanks.

"Crisis = Opportunity. Great Crisis = Great Opportunity. Stop & think: What is needed in life is, simply, a motivation to exchange goods and services, and give of our best to each other in appreciation of others doing the same to us. You don't need money - and definitely not interest-bearing money; and definitely not money that has become an end in itself, rather than merely the medium of exchange that it started out to be - to do that. Perhaps it was needed, like training wheels, during this early stage of our evolution here. But look around: there is something new under the sun. In a word: technology.

"I submit that the best motivation we can have, to give of our best to one another, exists not, eg, in the relative value of gold (& certainly not in the fool's gold of fiat money), but in the exquisite quality of gratitude: Gratitude for life with meaning. The gift of the Creator to that Source's offspring.

"Don't believe there is something more than Man? Ach, weil. I have no answer for you. But I do have a suggestion. Examine your premises. Seriously. And then join the move up a notch, on this lovely planet, NEEDING us now to give of our best.

"Your choice. Our choice.

"As for fascism, or socialism, or any other merely humanistic ism: Been there. Done that. No thanks.

"A higher outcome is calling us up out of ourselves. It's time to listen to that voice. And stop listening to these siren songs around us, of the old."

As for feedback: My contributions disappear into cyberspace with no noticeable effect. The threads continue right on, as if my offerings have been at the most a curious glitch in the process, like a stone that the river just keeps rolling by, and over.

Sometimes I despair if people are ever going to get it.* But then I 'trust the process', and allow things to unfold as they will.

But not without comments from time to time; tossed into the pot, for a little seasoning...

And speaking of seasoning: Happy holidays.

P.S. In case Griffin gets back to me on the question/excuse of 'human nature', and in response to Jacque Fresco's attitude (& by extension, Peter Joseph) that the matter is not 'human nature' so much as 'human behavior' - ie, in 'his' belief system, that we are blank slates, and it is merely our environment that makes us the way we are - I will be pointing out to both of them, for different reasons, that part of our 'human nature' is our conditioning from past lives. That that matter has to be taken into consideration as well, regarding who we 'are', and how we respond to our environment.

But that conditioning can be overcome. In part by grace. The grace of a loving Creator.

Wanting us to have our experiences, meaningfully (as part of The Plan). But not totally divorced from the process.

With a little help from his/her friends, the angels...

But I won't be holding my breath, as to a response from either of them. Based on my past experience in cyberspace...

...yet, patience is a virtue.

Still. After all these years.

* A despair that particularly dates back to the early 60s, when I 'got it', and decided to share it in the best way that I could think of, at the time, and in terms of the time. I wrapped up my life to then, and started out from Los Angeles, to the east, on foot, dropping off the following message at newspaper offices along the way:

"I am a young man walking on his way to Washington, to see the President and draw to his attention that the way to rid ourselves of all our aches and evils is to do away with money.

"If after considering the matter thoroughly you agree, I suggest you write a letter saying so to Mr. Kennedy."

As to the outcome of that little adventure: I in fact got to the White House, although only as far as a member of the Secret Service, who stopped my little bullet from reaching the President. And then I picked up my life again after that watershed point OF my life.

Watershed, as in: nothing would ever be the same again, for me.

It was commitment time.

Saturday, 5 December 2009

Of Cabbages and Kings

The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things...

...that are well and truly heating up. And causing me to heat up, in my response to them.

Some of them:


* Vaccines


* Obama's eligibility question

(1) AGW is now front and centre (the swine flu 'pandemic' having moved itself off the main pages, for its fizzle out), so I'll deal with it first.

Where to begin. A statement: There is truth on both sides of the debate. But the fact that there is - that it is not all one-sided, as the proponents in particular would make it out to be - should give us pause. To say: Why such harsh treatment of the naysayers? Calling global warming 'deniers' the same as Holocaust 'deniers', and so forth? Yes: because the stakes are big. But when advocates start pushing as hard as they are doing, and when the MSM takes up their cry and demonizes the 'deniers' to the extent that they are doing, it makes one wonder. It makes this truthseeker wonder. And notice. And 'consider the source'. For example: Al Gore. Who stands to make a fortune on the Cap and Trade scheme. And who has said that the issue speaks to the need for "global governance".

Well; could do. If it were true.

But what if it weren't, quite...

Anyway; factors here: Power and profit. The old question: Cui bono.

And speaking of the demonization going on, and the role of the MSM in all this:

(2) Vaccines. In particular, the current hype about the swine flu, and the rubbishing of those speaking out for a role in the autism ''epidemic' going on of vaccines.

I'll cut to the chase here. The government health authorities, and their advisers from the orthodox medical field, are mounting a major campaign to try to silence their critics on both fronts, and get the public to "just take the damn vaccine", for them and for their children (including, outlandishly, their unborn; though none of the flu vaccines have been tested on pregnant women, and no accountability for 'possible side effects' will be allowed). And interestingly, using the same harsh invective as those trying to silence their critics on the 'climate change' front of the current battle. The current battle, between 'the authorities' and 'the people'.

Power and profit. They go together like a horse and carriage.

People, people. We are being fleeced.

Maybe for more than one purpose, in each case. But the end result is the same: authoritarianism. Control over the people by the elite. Top-down governance.

You can't be trusted to make the right choices...

I won't go into all the details of the downsides of vaccines here. Suffice it to say, they are rather horrific. Yes, vaccines do some good. But at what cost, is the question.

A question not looked at by the authorities. But having been done so, by many an honest investigator. With deep concern as an outcome.

It really couldn't be otherwise. Vaccines 'work' by triggering an inflammatory reaction to the (ingredients of the) vaccine, in order to create antibodies to the antigens in them. But antibodies also get created to the other ingredients as well. Like the Myelin Basic Protein (MBP) that is a contaminant from the chick embryo cells that a number of vaccine viral components are cultured on (eg, the measles virus in the MMR shot). Result: an autoimmune reaction, the body attacking its own MBP, and myelin being the insulation to and for the cranial nerve systems. Or to the squalene adjuvant used in some vaccines (an adjuvant being a substance included to enhance the immune reaction). Squalene is a substance found in our own bodies. So those vaccines can trigger an autoimmune reaction in this way as well. Plus the fact that the developers put food proteins in vaccines; hence, allergies, and anaphylactic attacks. And so forth. To say: vaccines, by and large, can easily be causing more trouble than their benefits, because of their myriad of side effects.

Are they? We don't know, in general.+ Why not? Because - altogether now: 'The benefits of vaccines far outweigh their risks.'

You don't know that, Doc. It's a true belief.

Power and profit. And hubris.

Harris L. Coulter, PhD - a leading medical historian - outlined in his book 'Vaccines, Social Violence and Criminality' the link between vaccines and those conditions. Read it, and be outraged. His summary of the literature has never been refuted. And since vaccines can quite easily be the cause of all manner of mental misalignments - leading to all manner of terrible crimes, including horrific rapes and mutilations of both adults and children - the medical authorities have been criminally irresponsible in their lack of proper oversight to this matter.++

Who else to blame? Government oversight authorities? But they have to rely on the advices of medical authorities, who are the experts in these matters - these matters, of adverse mental conditions. And those advices have been tainted by a true-believer mentality - the mentality that has said that the benefits of vaccines 'far outweigh' the risks, without due and proper professional regard to the possible full potential of those risks. Including what is called ADD & ADHD & dyslexia & dyspraxia, and 'Pervasive Developmental Disorders' including ASDs. In a word: brain damage.

The argument seems to be that the childhood diseases themselves would cause these brain damage conditions, so the vaccines are actually a major benefit to society in this mental-damage arena, in addition to their marvelous work in damping down the childhood diseases. My question to those who propose such an argument is: Where is your proof. The answer seems to be: They do so because...the benefits of vaccines far outweigh their - ie, a circular proof offered as evidence.

Not good enough.

The evidence actually seems to be that the inflammatory effects of vaccines are causing these conditions, beyond what the childhood diseases might themselves do, because of the toxic ingredients in vaccines beyond the antigens themselves - ie, the attenuated viruses or bacteria themselves.

But not to get bogged down in this discussion in these details. The main point is: the authorities are misleading the public regarding the true nature of vaccines. And the question is: Why.

Some of that answer has been addressed above. But there is a deeper answer. And it has to do with the use of vaccines in the past, as vectors for various purposes.

Like dispensing anti-fertility agents, to cut the populations in 'developing' countries.

Like the spreading of AIDS, in chosen populations as well.

We are, in short, up against a 'people control' agenda.

By whom.

Part of that answer is obvious; and part of it is not so obvious.

The elite, certainly; wanting to maintain their grip on power.

But who all are they? To say as well: is there more than one camp involved in this caper?

Indeed there is.

Al Gore and the Clintons and George Soros and Maurice Strong and Noam Chomsky and John Deutch, and Barack and Michelle Obama (with Bernardine Dohrn and her ghost-writing Weathermen partner Bill Ayers looking as inconspicuously as possible in the background), personify one such camp. And the Bushes and Cheney and other neo-cons personify another.

And the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds (among others) stand behind them both. Ready to pick up the pieces regardless of which side - the fascists or the socialists - ultimately comes out on top.

Just the like the 'I care not who decides the laws' Rothschilds did in the deciding battle between England and France.

Because ultimately the power is with the ones behind the kings. And it has to do, really, with just one thing.

Money. And the love thereof.

And so it's time to pull that plug.

Because our evolution as a species on this lovely planet is calling us forth to a better future than is dreamt of in these camps' philosophies.

Which are part of the answer. But they are not the answer.

The answer is that it's Ascension time.

To leave our cabbage heads behind. And inherit the New.


+ We do know in some particular instances. For example, the Classens have found that the Hib vaccine's basically-understood benefits are outweighed by the number of cases of type 1 diabetes that it has been associated with. Google it.

++ Perhaps the reason that his book hasn't been acknowledged by the medical authorities is because it is subtitled 'The Medical Assault on the American Brain'. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Partial bibliography:

Coulter, Harris L. (mentioned above; also 'DPT: A Shot in the Dark', with Barbara Loe Fisher)

Horowitz, Leonard: 'Emerging Viruses: AIDS And Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional?', plus others. See his website.

Blaylock, Russell L. - many papers & three books. See his website.

Saturday, 28 November 2009

The Destruction of the Old Order Cometh - One Way or Another

As the United States approaches bankruptcy within the next 12 months - through being unable to refinance its debt (or trying to by revving up the printing presses; which will crash the dollar, and result in the same end anyway) - I invite the discerning member of the public to envision two scenarios: the scenario of the world economic system collapsing under onerous debt and the oligarchical elite picking up the pieces in the final execution-stage of their well-planned-for New World Order, of power over the people; or the release from a scarcity system into something new, that in point of fact releases abundance to become manifest, in a scenario that emphasizes the power of the people. The latter scenario comes about via the elimination of money, as the false god it has become; and even as simply the medium of exchange that it has historically been.

What in the world am I talking about.

I am talking about lifting our eyes a bit. And backing off our nose a bit. To say: We've had our nose too close to the grindstone for too long, to be able to see another way of doing things. We haven't seen clearly the nature of things, and our time and place within the nature of things.

America has just celebrated its Thanksgiving cultural holiday, when they are reminded to appreciate what they have. It dates to the early colony days, when the Pilgrims and other Europeans celebrated in thanksgiving with the help of the North American natives, after a time of near-starvation. There is also a political spin to the holiday, by its commemorating the release of an early form of communism as the pervading societal idea of the Pilgrims - all things to be held in common - and the advent of capitalism in the New World, with individuals in the settlements allowed to own property and sell the food raised therein excess to their familial needs to others. And fair enough. In a scarcity situation, those who labor the hardest deserve the fruits of their labors, over those who don't labor as hard. But what happens if/when humanity arrives at a point on its timeline where it can experience abundance?

I invite you to think of the future, and picture it, and see a world that works: People happy, doing what makes their heart sing, and contributing periods of service to their communities; an abundance of food and shelter; high technology in energy sources and so forth. And I invite you to consider that what makes it work is not money but gratitude: Gratitude for life with meaning.

I recently posted a comment on a conservative blogger's site, to an article wherein this 'issue' of the first Pilgrims' progress in the New World was raised with the intention to note the value of a capitalist economic system over a socialist one (as a warning to current trends noted in the country with the advent of the new political administration). My response:

"On a day set aside to appreciate what we have, a gentle reminder that that includes an ideal opportunity to release old forms and enter into a new compact within the human family; one based on the proposition that the universe has purpose, and that purpose is Good. Accepting such a proposition gives individuals all the motivation they need to give of their best, in a mutual exchange of goods and services; and thus we can release the training wheels of a system based on interest-bearing money, wherein 'money' has become an end in itself, not the means to an end that it was intended to be. We have all the 'wealth' we need, in the provision to us of the Creation, by the I Am; and thus the basis for the highest incentive: giving in gratitude for life, and its opportunities to grow in stature.

"The Pilgrims were right; human nature was weak. We now have ourselves in a situation where the one humanity on this lovely planet can move up on the scale of human consciousness, and reflect more fully, and abundantly, its potential, individually and collectively. It's time to release the old battles, waged on the level of the problem, and listen to those who are speaking of a new order of things. Just not the one that those corrupted by Power would impose on the people.

"It's time for the truly new. Something, indeed, to be thankful for."

Fortunately, this vision of a better order of things is landing with and through many people. I think, in this regard, of the likes of David C. Korten, referenced in his books, 'When Corporations Rule the World', 'The Great Turning: The Post-Corporate World', and 'Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth'; of Thomas H. Greco, Jr., as referenced in his book 'The End of Money And the Future of Civilization'; of the insights of Peter Joseph ( and Jacque Fresco & Roxanne Meadows (; of Yes! Magazine, and of innumerable groups working for positive change. One of the latter that I particularly appreciate is the group behind The World Peace Treaty, with its manifesto:

"We, The Inheritors of a new era, see Peace as essential to our Being, giving honor and respect to all life. Therefore, we take our stand for World Peace. We choose Peace for ourselves, for our children and for our children's children. We invite everyone to join us in our dedication to Peace!' (

Ant there are more and more of these sorts of initiatives coming on line...

There is something new under the sun. It's called globalization: the infrastructure for the literal landing of a sense of One Planet, One Humanity, One Destiny.

May the Force be with you.

Thursday, 19 November 2009

The U.S. Constitution & True Form of Government

As the EU draws nearer to moving into 'a federalist agenda' - read, really, its desired endgame and goal: a superstate structure; enthroning corporatism, ie, Insiders' power, over democracy* - and as I feel my time in the current paradigm drawing to a close, I would like to revisit a major area of interest of mine; to wit: the American constitution, and form of government. In order to set the record straight, both as to it and my attitude towards it.

A little background. (I think I have shared some of this earlier on, but this is for the sake of bringing everything on the matter - it, and my take on it - up to date.)

For whatever reason(s), I have been a passionate supporter of the American form of government ever since I became aware of such questions. And thus, eg, was I deeply concerned upon reading, in late high school/early university, Whittaker Chambers's 'Witness' - his autobiography, particularly highlighting his role, when still a dedicated communist, in being a courier of federal government secret documents to his Soviet contact from Alger Hiss, in the State Department, and a major player in the development of the UN. The communists seemed to believe in an admirable quality in 'equality', but, as a number of commentators had pointed out (among them Orwell, in his 'Animal Farm'), in reality it amounted to some being more equal than others; plus such a cynical circumstance 'coexisting' with the heavy hand of the state, controlling every aspect of the people's lives, and not allowing for a legitimate exercise of free will. I resolved to keep an eye on the world scene as I continued on my personal path, as a pre-med.

Fast forward to 1969 (through the 50s - when I chose to become a conscientious objector, with the draft still in place from the Korean 'Conflict', and served there for 2 years in non-combat positions - and the 60s, when I worked at various jobs for a living, and continued my reading in various subject areas of interest),** when I was living in Oakland, CA briefly, and came across a right-wing bookstore with an interesting cross-section of materials, including some monthly newsletters of an organization, headquartered in southern California, called The National Health Federation. That was where I first came across information about a move by the federal government to control access to a range of & the strength of food supplements. I continued to keep an eye on that particular move of the federal government over the next few years, until things came to a head for me.

It was occasioned by two moves of 'the feds': the food supplement issue heating up, and the creation of a federal health & safety authority called OSHA. (Actually, there were 3 moves by 'the feds' that got me activated, the third being a suppressing by them of information about the efficacy of a natural, to say non-patentable substance called Laetrile in the treatment of cancer; but that's a subject in its own right.) By then I was asst. managing a small furniture factory, and we started receiving directives from OSHA about h&s measures we needed to implement. I rebelled, inwardly and ultimately outwardly. I couldn't figure out why the federal government thought it had jurisdiction over our small business. We did receive some of our product from a branch in Arizona, but we sold our product only within the state; why would OSHA be involved? That subject area should by rights have been a matter of state h&s regulations or agreements between our company and the union some of our workers were members of; period. We were not engaged in 'interstate commerce'; and even if we were, what right did the feds have to dictate all manner of conditions in the workplace itself? The Constitution granted the federal government jurisdiction over 'interstate commerce'. To a normal mind, as far as I was concerned, that meant, say, the safety of the product - NOT, say, the safety features in the workplace. But it was a part of a larger move, I felt, to take over more and more control, and leave less and less to the states, in the American federal form of government. I saw the danger in that move, to centralization, and thus less and less power to 'the people', to get on with their lives as freely as possible from state intervention. And when there was then a report in the papers that the federal government was going to limit the strength of vitamin E that the public could buy over the counter, (1) I saw red, (2) I quit my job, (3) I wrote a letter to the main local paper saying what I was going to do & why, and (4) I did it. Which was to throw a brick through a window of the IRS office in Oakland, in protest at my taxes being used for nefarious purposes.

When the little dust that was kicked up by my gesture settled (I was refused my day in court, but I had made a statement, and like Thoreau, had spent a night in jail for it), and I had ended up moving back to my home turf of the Los Angeles area, I decided I needed to know better where the country had gotten off track in its understanding of its form of government. To that end, for example I spent some time in the evenings in the UCLA Law library, looking up decisions starting in the 1930s, with the FDR New Deal bringing some new factors into play; which event I suspected was responsible for the change in constitutional fundamentals. I found a decision dating to the late 30s that proved that things were still on track at that time - the Supreme Court (which had escaped being 'packed' by FDR in his try to bring about change that way) holding the line with an 'interstate commerce' decision still true to its roots, in the 'intention' of the Constitution. It was when I was reading an article in a publication by the John Birch Society (The Review of the News; a precursor to its present publication, a monthly called The New American) that I came across a clue to the origin of the change.

It turns out that in the very early 40s the Supreme Court made a decision that turned the First Amendment on its head, from being a prohibition on the federal government (ie, Congress, as the legislative branch) to being a prohibition on the states. The issue was about the desecration of the American flag. Apparently a citizen took his state to the federal Supreme Court complaining that it had found him guilty of what he claimed was a form of free speech. The result, in effect?: 'The States [ie, no longer merely Congress] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

At this point, let me clarify the matter. The Constitution of the U.S. is a contract between the (newly envisioned) federal government and the several states. It details what the duties of the federal government are, and what they are not. The federal government is a government of limited and delegated powers - "few and defined", in the words of 'the Father of the Constitution', James Madison, in the pages of The Federalist Papers. All the rest remain with the States; as even doubly clarified in the 9th and 10th Amendments, when the state legislatures in ratifying the new contract (from the Articles of Confederation form it was in up to that point) wouldn't sign off on it until it was made crystal clear, with no room for future equivocation, what they were assenting to, and what they were not assenting to. The 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Thus very clearly, the U.S.'s form of government is a federal form of government, with clearly delineated powers between the entities. But the clarity began to change; with this decision about the desecration of the American flag, and apparently with its precedent set in a bit of legerdemainist legalese called 'incorporation'. Bear with me a moment more.

I got a further handle on this matter, of the/a change having taken place in the American form of government by sleight of hand, by reading a book by former federal Judge Robert H. Bork titled 'The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law'. It's a convoluted story, but the essence of it is that (1) there are those who side with the concept of 'original intent' and those who believe in the Constitution as 'a living document', subject to change by judicial 'interpretation' as socio-political circumstances change, rather than always by the amending process allowed for; and (2) the change being talked about here happened with a liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment's 'due process' clause, whereby that amendment triggered, by a liberal attitude called 'incorporation', the turning of the Constitution upside down, and making it the aforesaid prohibition by the federal government on the states, rather than the other way around, as it was from its inception.

The relevant clause:

Section 1. "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 14th Amendment was occasioned by the aftermath of the Civil War, when the federal government began to rein in the Southern states. The purpose of this clause was twofold: (1) to make sure that the Negroes (in this particular case; but more broadly, all citizens of the United States) were not subject to repressions outwith the law; and (2) that law had to be color blind, ie, no respecter of persons. All citizens of the U.S. were to be treated/protected equally by the law, were equal before the law.

What has happened is that liberals have driven a coach and horses through this wording and its intent, and made of it a wholesale turning upside down of the Constitution, as I've indicated herein. The only way this upturning could have been effected legally would have been to have an amendment that said something like:

"The powers formerly reserved to the States, or to the people, shall now reside in the federal government."

That has never happened. Legally. But it has, effectively. And it has been a usurpation. And a dangerous usurpation at that.

So many Americans think it has always been this way: that they get their rights from the Constitution. Wheareas the truth is that they get their basic rights secured by their state's constitution (closer to home, as it were, and thus more fitting to them, & more easily dealt with); and the federal Constitution is primarily a limitation on the powers of the federal government: to be reined in thereby when it gets too powerful - tries, to get too powerful.

As in our day and age.

Judge Bork felt that it was too late (a judicially-minded take on 'settled law') to do anything about the mess of our federal form of government that the 'principle' or 'concept', or, more accurately, 'gimmick' of 'incorporation' had made, in making the federal government and its Supreme Court the guarantor of various domestic issues. But what it has done is to make it impossible to be clear about who has what power.

For example, in the true, federal form of government that the U.S. is supposed to be, the question of, say, abortion has nothing to do with the federal government. The Supreme Court has no business ruling on it. That is one of those powers that "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" - that is, in their several states. (As laboratories, to try things out in, and maybe be picked up by other states as well. Or not.)

None of the federal government's business.

And constitutionalists - and true conservatives - need to bring that clarity back into being.

I say "true conservatives" because there are some 'conservatives' that would like to have the power of the federal government forcing everybody in the country to toe THEIR particular line, through a Supreme Court ruling about some aspect of our social life together. But that is to play into the hands of their political enemies, the liberals, who prefer to use the power of the Supreme Court to enforce their particular socio-political proclivities onto everybody in the whole country in one fell swoop, not have to bring about such change state by state (ie, they are statists in inherent mentality; aka collectivists).

But that's precisely the value of a federal form of government: that nobody can take over command of the whole country by a centralized form of control.

Bush was leading in that direction. (Potential result: fascism.)

Obama is leaning in that direction. (Potential result: socialism.)

It's time for change, all right.

Fundamental change.

That is to say as well: getting back to fundamentals, and the grand experiment in self-rule called the American Republic.

In sum.

The Constitution of the United States, if it is to be amended, needs to be amended by due process of law - not cynical shifting of the goal posts, by declaring it 'a living document', subject to the personal socio-political proclivities of a majority of The Supremes at any given time in history. That way is to make of the Supreme Court a political football. That is not rule of law. That is tyrant's rule. Is subject to such rule.

And I may have to be called out of retirement, and don my shield, and mount my steed, and go tilting at it once again. Because I will not live under tyrannical rule.

I will live free.

And so should you.

If you knew - really - what was best for you.

And us.

As spiritual beings having a human experience.

To learn lessons therefrom.

And give of our best, to transformation.

For the better. Not the worse.

As we are in the process of doing at this time.

On this lovely planet, crying out for us to give it our best.


Before the brutes take over.

The brute in us.

The brute part in us all.

To be overcome.

For a purpose.

Seeing's as how the universe has purpose, and that purpose is Good.

But we need training wheels to help get us there.

Like the rule of law.


* the strength and range of food supplements drastically curtailed EU-wide, because of the power of the pharmaceutical industry to eliminate that part of its competition that it couldn't buy out; etc. etc.

** I'm leaving out a major piece of my story, to do with trying during this period of time to let the president know of the value of our doing away with money, and moving into a new order of things on planet Earth; but that telling is for another time. And which doing, in fact, happens to be now. But back to this particular blog, and its subject.

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

9/11 Revisited - cont'd

Part 2

So where are we in this matter, to date.

We have seen the serious and multiple questions regarding the official take on the matter. And there are others in that particular vein. For example, the fact that Pres. Bush had family links with the security company in charge at the WTC towers AND at at least one of the airports involved (Logan, in Boston). This is extremely important; mainly, regarding the questions about pre-planted explosives in the towers. It's clear, to all but true believers in the official conspiracy theory, that such a scenario was involved (the eyewitness reports of explosions; the way the buildings came down; the extreme heat at the site even weeks later). So: who would have had access to the buildings to plant them, and how would they have done it without being spotted?

Just quickly to deal with this point: Such a window of opportunity came into being the weekend or so before 9/11, when various occupants reported that the buildings were 'down' - closed while 'electrical upgrading' or some such given reason took place. Which included the security cameras being off during those 'upgrades'. And fine concrete dust found on some window sills the next Mondays. Who could these people have been? The question has never been followed up properly.

So this is another piece of information that makes the link with the Bush administration, and its desired neocon foreign policy pending precisely such an event, look even stronger. But looks can be deceiving.

For example. The materials from that crime scene were taken away by members of unions with a connection to mobsters, in league with the Canadian players in this caper. (See below.) Who could also have planted explosives in the elevator shafts etc of the WTC towers ahead of time.

For example. Another curious fact is that of the 'lucky', 'money' video shot of the first airplane going into its tower (the North). The Naudet brothers, French Canadians (there's a Francophile connection in this scenario; read on), were at a nearby location filming some firemen looking down at a manhole (don't ask; it's a very weak story), when the people in the shot look up at the sound of an airplane very nearby, and the cameraman pans his camera past one building and holds directly on the WTC tower about to be smashed into. Bingo.

How did the cameraman know to focus in on precisely that building?

Just a lucky shot?

Well; maybe. But: Who are the Naudet brothers?

They don't have a link with the Bush administration.

But they do with some shadowy characters in particular out of Canada. Which links into this story some mobbed-up unions (who moved to Canada to avoid RICO statutes in the U.S.); and one Maurice Strong, a man connected with the UN (and Food for Oil monies with the Saddam Hussein regime) who wants a collapse of capitalism and the takeover of a socialistic New World Order; and other interesting players, both in Canada and the U.S.; the latter like Bill and Hillary, and Al Gore, and Noam Chomsky, and former head of the CIA John Deutsch, and Mrs. Barack Obama nee Robinson, and her former law firm Sidley Austin, and Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers of Weathermen fame, and...yes indeed: Barack Hussein Obama himself. And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. And...

And access to passenger jets fitted up with remote control devices and explosives.*

And access to the electronic systems that were in use on the morning of 9/11, when there were a number of war-game exercises going on on the East Coast; which confused the air traffic controllers for a time, leaving them wondering what was real and what was exercise.

Air traffic controllers, some of whom told their stories on tape, which was then confiscated by their superior and destroyed.

Things just get curiouser and curiouser. You need a scorecard to tell the players.

Like: Who was behind the baseball-hatted character interviewed by some TV crew who told his supposed eyewitness story like he was reciting a 'Law and Order' script? (As one 9/11-truther commented, on putting this replay up on YouTube: 'Who TALKS like that?') And speaking of TV: What about the curiosities of different camera crews that morning showing differing shots of 'the action'? So that observant members of the public have good reason to wonder if some of them were faked?? As well, with the BBC female reporter announcing the fall of WTC7 20 minutes before it actually came down - with the building still standing in the shot behind her???

And there's more, that jumbles the whole thing up, so that it's difficult to identify what anomaly may have come from what camp.

Former FBI head John Deutsch is mixed in with the Canadian camp. (He moved to a thinktank at MIT - with associations with Chomsky, an 'anarchic syndicalist' - after being relieved of his duties at the CIA under a cloud. He was accused of downloading material illegally to his home computer, thus compromising its security. The material? At least one report is that it involved 'the base' - the data base of names of CIA assets in the Arab world. Interestingly enough, that's the meaning of al Qaeda: The Base.) But some CIA players in this caper may also have had links with the neocon camp. One main questionable example: the ex-CIA man who was sitting at the key FBI desk controlling information from the field - information warning about the subsequent hijackers - and sitting on it. Another: the official or officials in charge of not acting on Sibel Edmonds' warnings about a couple of her office mates in the FBI translating section. And who paid the Pakistani ISI intelligence service military honcho a huge amount of money to be given to accused hijacker Mohammed Atta? And for what? And why hasn't former CIA Executive Director A.B. 'Buzzy' Krongard been called to account for his role in the CIA front making money off the drop in stock price of the airliners in play that day?

And as for those airliners: Whatever happened to the wreckage from the plane that allegedly went down in the field in Pennsylvania? I say 'allegedly', because there wasn't enough material left to identify it. (Or a hole big enough to contain it.)

And as for wreckage: Whatever happened to the identification of the wreckage from the airliner that allegedly ploughed into the Pentagon? I say 'allegedly', because that matter hasn't been dealt with sufficiently either. (A wrong wheel base was found there, as I recall. Similar M.O. to a wrong wreckage piece found at the WTC towers site.) And as for 'it': Why are there a few frames missing from the security camera sequence that showed that hit? The film shown to the public jumps, conveniently, at the crucial moment, from showing whatever it was that approached to the explosion itself.

Which matter could be clarified by the release of other security camera shots from that area. But oh, that's right. The FBI confiscated them. And has never released them.

Why not?

Whose side is the FBI on? Or which members of it? And the same for the CIA...

It's clear as mud. And yet one thing is clear, in this whole thing.

There needs to be a new investigation.

An independent investigation.

As independent as the people can get, out of this whole sorry state of affairs; showing - so far - that nobody can be trusted, totally.

But we can try.

Because we must.

Because we must get to the truth of things.

All things.

Including ourselves.

For that's what the life experience is all about.


* The technology existed then to take over control of an airliner - presumably from hijackers - and pilot it wherever the controller wants it to go. To a particular airport. Or into a particular building...
N.B. Another intriguing factoid in this story is that the day before 9/11, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld held a press conference wherein he announced that over a trillion dollars was missing from the Pentagon's budget, and nobody knew where it had gone. Gone with the wind of 9/11 went that story. But an interesting piece of it is that the Controller in charge of that budget was one Dov Zackheim, a rabbi - and with an Israeli passport as well; and known as a 'rabid Zionist' - who was involved in a company that was developing...remote control devices for airliners.
And what WAS it with those five Mossad agents who were spotted dancing on top of their furniture removal van across the water from the WTC action; who subsequently were quietly deported to Israel? Or with those hundred or so Israeli 'art students' who were casing various government buildings? Or with those Israelis who were keeping an eye on some of the Arabs subsequently charged with being among the hijackers? Or with the electronic messaging, through a company owned by Israelis, to some Israelis & Jews in the WTC towers to either get out of there or not go to work that morning?
What did they know, and when did they know it...

See a Fox News multi-parter on the whole matter of communications in the U.S. being controlled by an Israeli company. (Carl Cameron, correspondent; Converse Infosystems.)

9/11 Revisited: A Thumbnail Sketch

For whatever reason, I have been drawn today - 11/11, I notice - to revisit the subject of one of my truthseeker areas of interest in particular. '9/11' has continued to be a thorn in the side of humanity, that has not yet been drawn.

Where are we at with it.

From all that I have read of the matter, and continue to read, we are closer to an answer - a true, definitive answer - than we were years ago; whereby, in point of fact, we continue to have new information come out about it that emphasizes the view that the official theory - that Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda cronies, from their cave headquarters in the mountains of Afghanistan, planned and caused execution of the whole thing - does not hold up. Nor does the main alternative theory, in total.

A quick review of the main questions, for those of you who have not had the time or inclination to follow the story, or just to set the scene.

* Three highrise steel-frame buildings - one not even hit by an airplane - come down neatly in their footprints at or near freefall speed, merely from the damage of fires initially caused by jet fuel. Regardless of the initiating source of the fire, this is something that no highrise steel-frame building had ever done before or has done since. (When asked about WTC7, the building not hit by an airplane, only on fire from collateral damage, the official investigative authority - NIST - had no explanation, merely stuck doggedly to their 'pancake theory' about WTC1 & 2.)

* Molten steel was still burning extremely hot for weeks afterwards in the basement pits. Jet fuel alone cannot account for this.

* Many eyewitnesses - firefighters and building occupants, plus being captured on various videos - have said that there were multiple explosions in the buildings before they fell. This was also indicated by puffs of smoke seen coming from floors below the levels of the collapsing buildings.

* Residues of the explosive material thermite have been found on material from the buildings.

* The concrete was pulverized into dust, not just rubble. And even vaporization was going on: one video shot in particular exists showing standing material just disappearing into fine, even invisible smoke; plus the amount of rubble at the sites is far too little to account for the total that should have been there from such tall buildings (I refer in particular to WTC1&2.)

Beyond the buildings themselves; questions:

* Who made huge amounts of money that day. (1) On the insurance itself (both buildings and occupants). (2) On put options on the airlines involved. (I.e., bets that their stock would go down, from some days ahead of Der Tag. Hint: One such company was found to be a front outfit run by an ex-CIA high official.) (3) On the Chicago Futures Market Exchange.

* Who else benefited.

Now it gets really interesting.

For this angle, let me first turn to the curious issue of an apparent 'stand-down' order that day, that kept the Air Force from doing its job. To put the matter in its context, I can't do better than quote from a paper by one Steve Bhaerman titled 'Unquestioned Answers: Nonconspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin takes aim at the official 9-11 story', dated June 14-20, 2006. Steve went to a lecture by Prof Griffin the year previously, and in his paper summarized the contents. I herewith summarize his summary, as it deals with the matter specifically in question. The first section is headed 'False Flags':

"While Griffin professes no formulated alternative theory of what did happen, he offers a clue in the title of his first book. 'A New Pearl Harbor' refers to a passage in a document called Project for the New American Century - the neocons' blueprint for what they call 'pax Americana' - which says that for the American people to accept the overt military mission of creating security through world domination, a 'new Pearl Harbor' would be needed. Griffin believes that the 9-11 attacks were just that.

"This is a pretty serious - and horrific - assertion to make: that the leaders of our country would see fit to sacrifice some 3,000 civilians so that we could launch a preemptive attack on a perceived enemy. And yet, Griffin is quick to point out, our history is rife with just such incidents, from the 'remember the Maine' boosterism preceding the Spanish-American war to the Gulf of Tonkin lie that launched U.S. involvement in Vietnam to the Pearl Harbor attacks themselves. Indeed, recent scholarship on Perl Harbor suggests that President Roosevelt knew of the attack plan in advance and even purposely provoked the Japanese, because he knew it was the only way we could join the war against Germany...

"During the Cold War, two more chilling examples of so-called false flag operations have come to light. (False flag operations are covert situations conducted by governments or other organizations that are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.) In his recent book, 'NATO'S Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe', Dr. Daniele Ganser, a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies, Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, reports that NATO, guided by the CIA, supported terrorist attacks on civilians in various European countries to discredit the left and create fear on the part of the populace.

"In Italy, right-wing terrorists, supplied by a secret army (named 'Gladio', Latin for 'sword'), carried out bomb attacks in public places, blamed them on the Italian left and were thereafter protected from prosecution by the military secret service. As right-wing terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra explains in Ganser's book, 'The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security.'

"In our own country during the early '60s, the Joint Chiefs of Staff...came up with a similar plan to provoke an attack on Cuba." There follows an account of that episode in American history, which President Kennedy nixed - "But it did have the approval of top military brass, and with the right president - or the wrong one - it could very well have come about.

"In the aftermath of 9-11, Griffin initially dismissed any speculation that the attacks could have been an inside job. 'I subscribed to the "blow-back theory," Griffin says. 'After generations of exploitation and interference by Western powers, these people had such fury that they had to lash out any way they could.'

"At the time, Griffin...was working on a book on global democracy. In the wake of 9-11, he decided that he needed a special chapeter on U.S. imperialism. He worked on that chapter for over a year before he came to the view that 9-11 was an inside job. 'As much as I knew about prior false flag operations, as much as I knew or thought I knew about the nefariousness of the current regime, my fIrst take was not even the Bush administration could or would do such a thing.'

"It wasn't until a colleague sent Griffin an e-mail with Paul Thompson's timeline - an exact, minute-by-minute accounting of the events of Sept. 11 based entirely on mainstream media accounts - that he changed his mind. 'The most glaring anomaly,' Griffin now says, 'was that none of the hijacked planes were intercepted, even though all of them would have been, had standard procedure been followed...'

"So what happened on that morning?

"The government has given three conflicting answers to this question.

"Since a full 32 minutes elapsed between the time the first hijacked airliner was detected and the time it crashed into the World Trade Center, it initially appeared that 'stand down' orders must have been issued to suspend standard procedures. Indeed, the first reports from both NORAD and Gen. Richard Myers, the acting chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that no jets were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit at 9:38am.

"By Sept. 13, however, the original story had morphed into an explanation that 'the planes were scrambled but arrived too late'. The delays were blamed on the FAA, said to have been slow in notifying NORAD. If that were the case, Griffin points out, it was strange indeed that no FAA personnel were fired or even cited for the breakdown in procedures and the resulting disaster. Griffin notes, moreover, that the FAA flawlessly handled - on the same day - the unprecedented task of grounding thousands of domestic flights." [NB: And to mention here that at the time, the FAA person in charge that day vehemently denied that she & they had not done their job properly.]

And now we get to a key piece of this story:

"Meanwhile, Griffin reports, transportation secretary Norman Mineta testified [to the 9/11 Commission - Ed.] that at 9:20am - about 18 minutes before the Pentagon was hit, allegedly by Flight 77 - he went down to the shelter conference room under the White House. According to Mineta, a young man walked in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out' and later, 'The plane is 30 miles out.' When the young man reported, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' he also asked the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?'

"'Of course the orders still stand,' Cheney is alleged to have replied. 'Have you heard anything to the contrary?'

"When Mineta was asked by the 9-ll Commission how long after he arrived the conversation occurred, Mineta said, 'Probably about five or six minutes,' which would have placed it around 9:25 or 9:26am. However, in the final version of the story, 'The 9/11 Commission Report' maintained that no one in our government knew about the approaching aircraft until 9:36am, too late to shoot it down. How did the Commission deal with this apparent contradiction? Like just about every other piece of testimony that conflicted with the official story, Griffin avers, they ignored it.

"With regard to the question, 'Do the orders still stand?' Griffin says, 'Mineta seemed to assume those orders were to shoot the plane down. But really, the young man's question makes sense only if the orders were to do something unexpected - that is,not to shoot the plane down.'

"So what did happen? Whodunnit?"


Let's look at this particular testimony further. Why wasn't this curious and most important piece of information - or at least, testimony - picked up and properly followed up on during the 9/11 hearings? Either by the commission members themselves, or the overall director of the hearings? It is still hanging, like a chad that could have great bearing on the final outcome of this whole matter.

And now we come to a key question:

Who was Philip Zelikow? Besides the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, responsible overall for the organizing of the details of the hearings?

To answer that, we need to go back a bit in time. It's an interesting story in its detail, and is well-covered in Chapter 6 of Prof. Griffin's book 'Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11'. But the short of it is that Philip Zelikow was the primary drafter of a document called NSS 2002, which subsequent to 9/11 - and before the hearings themselves - set out the neocon doctrine of preemptive-preventive war, become policy because OF 9/11.

And this fox was then put in charge of the chicken coop?...

It's too important a story not to go a little more into its detail. Quoting Prof. Griffin:

"We can assume that in drafting this document, [Zelikow] was expressing ideas with which he agreed, since Condoleeza Rice brought him in to do the writing because she wanted 'something bolder' than had been provided in a first draft...Given the content and tone of the document, one might assume that Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz had been involved in the process of creating it. But, according to James Mann in 'Rise of the Vulcans', 'The hawks in the Pentagon and in Vice President Cheney's office hadn't been closely involved, even though the document incorporated many of their key ideas. They had left the details and the drafting in the hands of Rice and Zelikow.' This hands-off behavior by those neocons suggests that they had full confidence that Zelikow shared their views.'"

Background to this confidence?

"Some insight into Zelikow's views before coming to this task might be garnered from an essay he coauthored in 1998 on 'catastrophic terrorism.' In this essay, which suggests that he had been thinking about the World Trade Center and a new Pearl Harbor several years prior to 9/11, Zelikow and his coauthors say:

"'lf the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force.'

"In any case [Griffin goes on], in light of Zelikow's authorship of NSS 2002, it is certainly no surprise that, as I reported in 'The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions', one of the omissions is any mention of imperial interests that might have served as motives for the Bush-Cheney administration to have orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. The Zelikow-led Commission did not, for example, mention that PNAC's 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' had suggested that the transformation of the military, through which unipolarity could be enforced more effectively, could occur quickly if there were to be 'a new Pearl Harbor'; it did not mention that the administration had had attack both Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11; and it did not mention that 9/11 had been described as representing 'opportunities' by Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, and yes - NSS 2002.

"Moreover, once it is realized that Zelikow, who was in charge of the preparation of 'The 9/11 Commission Report', was also the primary author of NSS 202, in which the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Bush-Cheney administration is officially stated, it is no surprise to see that 'The 9/11 Commission Report' contains a chapter - 'What to Do? A Global Strategy' - that provides propaganda for the Bush-Cheney administration's post-9/11 foreign policy."

His summary:

"The claim in the preface of the '9/11 Commission Report' that the Commission sought to be 'independent, impartial, thorough, and nonpartisan' is absurd. The fact that the Commission was directed by Zelikow, combined with the fact that it was composed of people willing to be led by him, guaranteed that it would be none of those things."

So: Open and shut?

Not quite.

There's the little matter - as discussed on 9/11 truther sites - of the possibility of two scenarios here, besides the official 'conspiracy theory': that of MIHOP - that is, Make It Happen On Purpose, whereby the theory is that the Bush administration indeed was the instigator behind the scenes of the event; and of LIHOP - that is, Let It Happen On Purpose, whereby the theory is that the Bush administration knew about what was going down, and let it happen, to further their very clear agenda and desire for 'a new Pearl Harbor', to allow them to install a Pax Americana in the world, courtesy of a spooked American citizenry.

And I happen to be a believer in the LIHOP angle, rather than the MIHOP angle, because of the additional information about this caper dug out by some 'forensic economists' on a site called hawkscafe. Whereby the case is that some left-wing folk dun it. With the Vulcans happy to let them, in furtherance of their own ends...

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive...

to be continued

Sunday, 8 November 2009

Straight Talk About Autism

Ah, that crazy world again, out there...

Sitting up here in the north of Scotland, I keep an eye on what is going on in the world on my computer screen as best I can. And I am, i have to say, often not impressed, to put it as euphemistically as I can.

Especially disheartening and aggravating at this time is the foot-dragging going on in the troubled bowels of the executive branch of the American federal government regarding the issue of autism (aka ASD, for autism spectrum disorder). The federal bodies designated to explore the matter continue to stonewall, as if there is no real urgency about the matter; even though the reports of its occurrence continue to climb - from 1 in 10,000 in the '70s to recently, 1 in 150 (more in boys than girls), and even more recently, 1 in 91 or so - I mean, what difference does it make, precisely? It continues to grow in occurrence, at an alarming and unacceptable rate. (It's just due to 'better diagnosing'? Tell that to the long-term teachers in grade schools all over the country.) And the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) with its "strategic plan for autism research" continues predictably to drag its feet. Meeting on October 23rd, it waited for some input from another body, called the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC), which for some reason or other was not forthcoming, so they put off their next deliberations until November 18th, and could someone please pass the milk? Actually, don't bother: my coffee has gone cold. Oh well. Next meeting...

And then I read, on a thread of a blog on an ASD parents' forum called Age of Autism, the likes of a mother reporting how her son's pediatrician said that his rock-hard stools complete with bleeding anus after months of chronic diarrhea following on from his 4-month shots was "totally normal".

In that pediatrician's practice, I wouldn't be surprised.

The blog was quite an intriguing, and eye-opening, one. By one of the keepers of the AoA flame, father of a daughter on the spectrum, it was entitled 'Rat On a Hot Tin Plate: New Evidence Shows Ethyl Mercury from Vaccines Causes Abnormal Brain Development in Infants'. It was a report about a new animal study from the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Warsaw. One of the methods they used to test for neurological damage was a heat sensitivity assessment called the 'hot plate test', whereby the researchers put the two sets of rats on a hot plate and check with a stopwatch their response to the heat. It turns out that in animal studies, mercury poisoning can result in a lack of normal pain registering. And lo and behold, many kids on the spectrum have the same abnormality as well. This father - one Mark Blaxill - reported in the article on a strange experience his young daughter had with a very hot reading-lamp light bulb; which was one of the symptoms she expressed just a week before they received an official diagnosis of her: autism.

The comments on the blog thread were heart-rending. Case after case after case of parents reporting on their own kids, with the same sorts of conditions (the profile includes abnormal sweating also). I finally was moved to contribute a comment to the dialogue today, even though most of them had already taken place earlier in the week; but hey, better late than never...:

"Sensory Integration Dysfunction [which is what one parent's ped diagnosed his child with]...sounds like a lot of peds, and other medical authorities, these days...

"'These days': I recall reading, in 1955-6, in an upmarket monthly (I think it was The Atlantic), a mother's report of her then-teenaged son who had been diagnosed with a strange new condition starting to appear called autism. Besides the usual symptoms (even then) - of being in a world of his own, etc. - he displayed two in-particular peculiar features. One was that he would put his face right up into reading lamps, as if fascinated where the light was coming from. (It never seemed to hurt his eyes, as I recall his mother reporting to the interviewer.) The other particular peculiarity about him was that if he saw a bottle of cooking or salad oil he would grab it and guzzle the whole thing down, if not stopped.

"I had been a pre-med up until then, and though I chose not to continue on in to medical school, I still had a pre-med's scientific bent of mind; and I remember wondering, What is this all about? What could be causing this obvious brain damage? That conclusion was obvious to me, because of the symptoms in general; and as for the obsession about the cooking/salad oil, that had to be because of the ingredients; and even I knew that the brain was largely made up of fats/oils...

"...even I knew...

"...and all these years later, the medical authorities are still scratching their heads, and wondering... -

"No. I don't buy that. They're not wondering, any longer.

"They know.

"John Stone mused, a ways back in this thread:

"'What has come over so much of the scientific community that they will countenance this great evil and connive at it?'

"I used to think, 'They just don't have a chance to read the alternative literature on this subject; they just don't know.' Or as a last resort: 'They're still convinced that the benefits of vaccines so "far outweigh" the risks that they are just true believers.'

"But no. I can't give them - my just-about peers in life - the benefit of the doubt any longer.

"They know. And John Stone's question is the correct one to ask.

"And my answer?

"That it's more than just venality, John.

"It's power. And the power to corrupt absolutely thereof.

"They are the priests of our day.,

"No. Far more. They are the gods of our day.

"And they are riddled with moral corruption.

"Because without a vision - a vision of something more than Man - the people perish.

"And their keepers go first."


How many studies do we need to clarify 'the role of toxic chemicals in autism'?

They've been done. Enough of them.

How many kids do there have to be who show recovery, or alleviation, after biomeds, before the authorities admit to all of this?

Apparently the answer is: more. And more. And more...

Because this whole thing jeopardizes the whole vaccine programme.

Whereby we're not just talking about a comparatively few cases of autism.

We're talking about case after case after case of the likes of: allergies/asthma/anaphylaxis. (How could it be otherwise, when they put food proteins into vaccines? And glutamate; which appears in many foodstuffs??) Arthritis/arthralgia. ADD/ADHD & dyslexia & dyspraxia and ASD and the whole range of PDDs? CFS/ME? Convulsions/seizures/epilepsy? Type 1 diabetes (the Hib vaccine in particular, that one)? Lupus? MS? and other autoimmune conditions, like ALS......

What am I really saying here.

I'm saying that all the ingredients in vaccines HAVE to have caught their attention, and concern. (Including animal cells, inevitably carrying viruses. And aborted fetal cells; inevitably causing the potential of cancers and autoimmunity. And the adjuvant squalene, which is a substance found naturally in the body; so as part of an inflammation-inducing vaccine, those vaccines are inevitably going to run the risk of causing yet another autoimmune assault on the modern child. Plus, as shark oil, squalene is sourced from one of the highest mercury-containing creatures in the ocean...) So they're staying quiet.


Various reasons.

Some of them sincerely believe that 'the benefits far outweigh the risks' of vaccines. (After all, that's what they were taught; and if they start questioning that, what else might they have to start questioning??)

Some of them are on the payrolls, in various ways, of the pharmaceutical industry; their partners in the (incredibly remunerative) plying of their craft.

Some of them have bought the corrupted philosophy of allopathic-based medicine, whereby they know that their bread is buttered on the side of more and more illness and disease.

And some of them have bought into the prevailing mindset of the power structure on the planet, whereby our keepers want to keep us sick and docile, and even want to kill us off - in our excessive numbers - through this wonderful and wonderfully ubiquitous modality, of pumping all manner of agents into our mind-controlled bodies.

(Including anti-fertility agents, I will just briefly note here.)

And so anyone who jeopardizes this tool of the trade needs to be sorted out.


Before the sheeple gain a critical mass, and it is harder to deal with them.

So: Round them up. Take their civil rights away from them. Make them susceptible to the control of the Powers That Be.

That is to say: Show them who's boss.




For a partial listing of vaccine ingredients: informed

As for giving The Atlantic Monthly credit for keeping an independent eye on things in America; these recent articles:

'Does the Vaccine Matter?', article by Shannon Brownlee & Jeanne Lenzer in the November 2009 issue of The Atlantic (

'How American Health Care Killed My Father', article by David Goldhill in the September 2009 issue of The Atlantic (

Books (Partial listing):

Coulter, Harris L., Ph.D. - 'Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality: the Medical Assault on the American Brain'

Horowitz, Leonard, DMD, MA, MPH - 'Emerging Viruses - AIDs and Ebola'

P.S. Some naysayers will naysay that 'thimerosal has been taken out of almost all vaccines so what are you people on about? And hey - the incidences of ASD haven't gone down since, so what about that, huh? Huh?'
What about that is an interesting subject, since you ask. 'What about that' includes the fact that the mostly thimerosal-containing flu vaccine was added to the schedule about the same time as thimerosal was being phased out of many vaccines (which took some years to accomplish; and what sort of toxic preservative did they replace it with, anyway? Huh? Huh?). And not only added to the schedule, but including being recommended to pregnant women. Not a good idea, since mercury can cross the placenta. (They're not supposed to get the multi-dose vials with the mercury in the U.S.; but who's keeping track??) So the figures have been neatly confounded. On purpose? I couldn't possibly say. And anyway, thimerosal isn't the only cause of autism. Nor are vaccines themselves. But THEY ARE IMPLICATED. And this matter should have been addressed long ago.
If the PTB had actually wanted to know the answer.
Being all scientific-minded, as they are.

P.P.S. Hint: The vaccine schedule has been multiplied enormously since those early autism-incidence years. Go figure.

P.P.P.S. 'Correlation is not causation'? No. But when the point of a procedure is to produce an inflammatory reaction in the body...
No. I don't want to embarrass anybody, by pointing out such an obvious factor, as regards the incidences of vaccines as compared, say, to people changing their method of tooth brushing, or bicycling more to work in the same time period, get the drift. So no. I couldn't possibly comment on such thinking. Which, not so incidentally, has been used - seriously - on many of these autism-article threads.
As I say: Go figure.
(And why are the vaccine & vaccine-schedule defenders so willing not to listen to parents' feedback in this matter? Or the healthcare providers themselves? What legitimate medical professional would NOT listen to their stories?? The most favorable presumption must be that these authorities and their defenders feel that parents can be mistaken, in their take on the correlation/causation issue. And that is a possibility. But the possibility is also there that they are not mistaken; that their child, ultimately diagnosed with autism, started down that terrible hill in the wake of AND DUE TO their shots. And it is this basic medical-history stuff that their peds should have been listening to, and looking at.
If they had wanted to.
As for the story of one such clear-eyed, and in addition scientifically-trained, parent, see the blog of Ginger Taylor:

P.P.P.P.S. Also, just to note in passing: that the day of that IACC meeting, where the foot-dragging continued to take place - October 23 - was also the day that President Obama announced his National Declaration of Emergency regarding the swine flu, er, pandemic. Which could have caused the 'emergency' authorization of adding squalene to the H1N1 vaccines in the U.S.; besides other emergency procedures, including mandating the vaccine.
Again: Go figure.
And don't expect much help from the authorities for you and your families in this matter. This matter, of autism in particular, and the downsides of vaccines in general. Because 'the authorities' are fatally compromised by the system that they are authorities in.

Saturday, 31 October 2009

Health Care vs. Health Maintenance

For some time, and like many people, I have been signing online petitions, for various worthy causes. It's a reasonable way for letting one's thoughts and feelings be registered. They don't always reflect with total accuracy one's personal preferences; yet they at least draw attention to important issues. One of those for me is the health care reform battle currently going on in the U.S.

I am a staunch supporter of what is called 'a public option', ie, a role for the government in the providing and paying for health care. Does that mean a blanket endorsement of the proposal? No, indeed. I am fully aware of the dangers involved in such a scenario. There is the potential faceless-bureaucracy nature of it. There is the controlling of options for health care. There is the opportunity for major financial ripoff of the system. -

And in that regard, I cite a chilling internet video of a CBS '60 Minutes' segment where the presenter went with a member of the FBI to investigate false-front operations in the south of Florida, whereby out-and-out criminals were milking the Medicare system for all it was worth, or at least, for all they could get their hands on of all it was worth. A sordid story. However, how much different is it from the story of those who are raking in all they can get their hands on from within the system, of health care in America?

Which is really the subject I want to get at in this blog. Because the system itself is corrupted, in its fundamentals. Which is what we REALLY need to look at.

And which is helped considerably by another video on the internet, a one-hour documentary titled 'Money Driven Medicine'. It highlights the inherent moral 'contradictions' in a system built on the premise of making money on illness; and the more illness, the more money to be made.

Hospitals competing with each other for customers, in a major duplication of equipment. (The latter of which of course is good for the economy. Like more and more drugs, for more and more conditions.) The focus of attention moved from care to treatment, in the business - the big business - of medicine. The creation of massive industrial health complexes, where businessmen manage the businesses; responsible for higher quarterly earnings, and the general generating of revenue as the bottom line. So that illness is good for the overall economy, not just the income of the medical practitioners as individuals. Health care as a growth industry, to invest in for savvy stockholders -

Average Joe and Jill: Didn't it ever occur to you that there had to be something intrinsically 'off' when a huge amount of your GDP is due to people being sick? That the sicker people are, the better, economically speaking? Needing more and more expensive drugs, and treatments, and so forth, to drive the process? having taken on a life of its own, so to speak?

This is the inevitable result of having a healthcare system with a profit motivation driving it.

I don't know about you, but I really don't like the idea of people profiting from illness and grief and despair, and the more the merrier.

It would be worse if there WEREN"T this sector of society?

That's the argument the allopathic medical profession would like the public to believe: that there is, really, no option to their approach to medicine.

Well: Not so.

And that option is growing, as more and more medical practitioners realize the inherent flaw in their profession, and begin looking at such alternatives/complements to allopathic medicine as naturopathy, and homeopathy, and herbalism, and Chinese/other Traditional medicine, and Energetic/holistic medicine, and so forth and so on. That is, alternatives that are more committed to prevention than treatment, for trying to get at the root of the condition, not just concentrating on symptom relief.

Health 'Maintenance' organizations. Where the 'maintenance' has MEANT: Come back for more...

'Managed care: Let US be your health care Manager for life. See what all WE can provide you with..."

We need to change this equation. And the only way that that is going to happen is a change in the fundamental equation; whereby people are motivated by service in life. Not 'money'. Not a device to keep people hooked perpetually in debt to a machine run by selfish, arrogant people who need YOU to keep quiet, and in your place, or they will fire you, or worse.

Am I talking communism here?

No. That's just another form of the statism that has been running the show on Earth for far too long now. And is the sort of thing that would kick in under an Obama-administration form of health care, where the people in power have a political inclination to want to control people - in all areas of society. And thus, a major part of the fear and uneasiness in people over a health care reform plan from that source: because it appears to be merely a part of a larger, unwanted agenda.

And I wouldn't support that sort of 'public option' either.

But I support a new look at the whole system. The system, of health care. And of the social order in general.

And to that extent, a 'public option' is the way to go.

Into the future.

Where we're going for health. Not care. As a first line of defence. And only then, should 'care' kick in.

Just not with a big Money sign attached to it.

All of which we were warned about centuries ago; effectively, when the Chinese sage known to us as Lao-Tzu observed: The more rules and laws, the more thieves and robbers.

And which observation I have adapted to our time, in this particular 'reading'/subject area of its inherent truth, as: The more hospitals and doctors, the more illness and disease.

And boy, do we have a lot of all that, in our day and - modern? - age.

Think about it. And join the (r)evolution.


The Health Sciences Institute

The newsletters of Drs Jonathan V. Wright, William C. Douglas II, Russell L. Blaylock, Michael Cutler, Mike Adams, Joseph Mercola, etc.

'Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth' by David C. Korten
'The End of Money And the Future of Civilization' by Thomas H. Greco, Jr.

Yes! Magazine, hard copy & online