World’s Biggest Oil Reserves In S Dakota, E Montana

 

Author Unknown
7-7-9

 

The U.S. Geological Service issued a report in April (‘08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since ‘95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota; western South Dakota; and extreme eastern Montana ….. check THIS out:   The Bake is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ’s Purdah Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels.. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable… at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.   ‘When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..’ says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst.   ‘This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years.’ reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bake.’ And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U.S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves…. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!   1. That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.   2. And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should – because it’s from TWO YEARS AGO!   U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006   Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?   They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.   Here are the official estimates:   - 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia   - 18-times as much oil as Iraq   - 21-times as much oil as Kuwait   - 22-times as much oil as Iran   - 500-times as much oil as Yemen   - and it’s all right here in the Western United States.   HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy…..WHY?   James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East - more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.   Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price – even with this find? Think again! It’s all about the competitive marketplace – it has to.. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?   Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so!   Now, while you’re thinking about it …. and hopefully P.O’d, do this:   3. Pass this along. If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices .. because by doing NOTHING, you’ve forfeited your right to complain.   Now, I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.   This is all true. Check it out at the link below. GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind.   http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

The Zionist Elephant In The Room

 

The David Icke Newsletter
6-14-9

 

The Elephant In The Room…

 

… BUT SEE IT AND YOU’RE ‘RACIST’

 

Hello all …   The political creed of Zionism has big ears and a long trunk and I think it’s time that was pointed out. It also stampedes through our lives at every level and that needs to be said, too.   It has created a pincer-movement on the human mind by hijacking staggering amounts of political, corporate, banking and media power on one side and by using the fear of being called ‘anti-Semitic’ if you dare to state the bloody obvious.   They have been able to do this by equating in public perception that Zionism = Jewish people. It does not. Zionism is a political creed introduced by the House of Rothschild to advance the goals of the Illuminati families that are largely controlled by the Rothschilds.   When people think of Zionism they think of Jewish people. When they think of Israel they think of Jewish people. That’s understandable given the propaganda, but it is seriously misleading and those instant connections need to be broken if we are going to understand what’s going on here.   Zionism means Rothschild just as Israel means Rothschild. When we see the extraordinary number of Zionists in key positions around the world we are looking not at ‘manipulating Jews’, but manipulating Zionists representing the interests and demands of the Rothschilds.         Significant numbers of Jewish people are not Zionists and oppose that appalling creed while many Zionists are not Jewish. These include the Christian Zionists and Obama’s vice-president, Joe Biden, who told Israeli television ‘I’m a Zionist’. Here’s the clip if you can stand it … If, as Biden rightly says, you don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, how can it be a racial rather than a political movement? It can’t. It’s just made to appear like that to manipulate public perception because opposing Zionism then becomes opposing Jewish people as a whole and the ‘you’re a racist’ card can be played over and over.   Far from protecting and advancing the interests of the mass of Jewish people it has often been devastating for them and caused millions to be labelled unfairly by the actions of the Zionist elite. On the Jews Against Zionism website one feature highlights how Rothschild Zionism targeted Jews who had lived for generations in Palestine side-by-side with Arabs in peace and harmony:   ‘The religious Jews who by virtue of their faith, clearly contradicted Zionist nationalism, and who had lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors for generations, became unwillingly identified with the Zionist cause and their struggle with the Arabs.   They requested the United Nations that Jerusalem be designated as a defacto international city. They appealed to the diplomatic corps assigned to Jerusalem — but to no avail. They were hence confronted with the choice of either becoming a part of the Zionist State, which diametrically opposed the interests of Jews as a religion, or abandoning the land of which their forefathers were the first Jewish settlers.   Let’s get this straight. Zionism doesn’t give a damn about Jewish people. To the Rothschilds and their Zionist gofers and thugs the Jewish people as a whole are merely cattle to be used and abused as necessary – just like the rest of the human population.   The networks of the House of Rothschild were behind Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party in the Rothschild heartland of Germany where they had changed their name from Bauer in 18th century Frankfurt and launched the dynasty that was to control global finance.   After the war the Rothschilds used public sympathy for Jewish people targeted by the Nazis to press for a homeland in Palestine. This was the alleged reason for the founding of Zionism, but that is only part of it.       Rothschild ______________________________________________     As I show in my books, the campaign to impose a Rothschild fiefdom in Palestine goes back at least to the earlier part of the 19th century and probably long before. It was given a massive boost with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 when the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour declared in a letter his government’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.   This letter was sent by Balfour, an inner-circle member of an elite secret society called the Round Table, to Baron (Walter) Rothschild who funded the Round Table.   Today, Rothschild Illuminati fronts like the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Royal Institute of International Affairs, and others, still answer to the Round Table which string-pulls and coordinates from the shadows. This is why Zionists in government are invariably connected with these Rothschild-controlled organisations.   The Rothschilds funded the early settlers from Europe to relocate in post-war Palestine and they also funded and armed the terrorist groups, like Irgun, which bombed and terrorised Israel into existence in 1948, a campaign which forced 800,000 Palestinians to leave the land of their birth.   Israel is simply the State of Rothschild and how appropriate that they paid for the construction of the Israeli parliament building, the Knesset, and the Israel Supreme Court. The name Rothschild means Red-shield and it originates with the red shield ‘Star of David’ symbol (not a Jewish symbol before the Rothschilds) which they displayed on their house in Frankfurt …        … Seen it somewhere before …?   The very flag of Israel tells you who owns it. There are many reasons why the Rothschilds and their allies wanted to hijack Palestine and one was to keep the Middle East in a state of disruption and turmoil from which a global war can eventually be triggered to usher in the New World Order of world government dictatorship.   The creation of Israel is a means not an end and the Rothschilds will be quite happy to leave the Jewish population to their fate if it suits them. After all, they’ve done it before.   The world’s second biggest Zionist population is in the United States and given that both America and Israel are controlled by the Rothschild networks it is not hard to fathom why that slither of land in the Middle East receives around a third of all US overseas aid.   An average $3 billion a year is handed to the State of Rothschild as a result of decisions made by American administrations that are always, ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’, controlled by the Rothschilds. One hand of the network hands over the cash to another.   This explains why the United States never talks about the arsenal of nuclear weapons stockpiled by one of the world’s most trigger-happy states. Israel refuses to discuss them and the American policy, recently reconfirmed by Obama, is never to ask or bring up the subject.   The last two US administrations are testament to the extent of Zionist (Rothschild) control of America and thus its foreign policy, not least with regard to Iraq, the former land of Sumer and Babylon, which according to some just happens to be part of the ‘Greater Israel’ that the Zionists seek to secure.   The ‘Bush’ government was the glove-puppet of the so-called neo-cons, or neoconservatives, whose only political philosophy in truth was the interests of Zionism. At the heart of the Rothschild-controlled neocon cabal were Richard Perle (Zionist), Paul Wolfowitz (Zionist), Dov Zakheim (Zionist), Douglas Feith (Zionist), John Bolton (Zionist), Lewis Libby (Zionist), the list goes on and on. These were the people who orchestrated the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on behalf of the Rothschilds.         Economic policy was dictated through the years of Reagan-Bush, Father Bush, Clinton and most of Boy Bush by Alan Greenspan (Zionist), chairman of the privately-owned US ‘central bank’, the Federal Reserve. Privately owned, that is, by the Rothschilds through a network of front people and organisations.   Greenspan introduced the policies of deregulation that culminated, as designed, in the free-for-all frenzy of greed by banks and financial markets in general that led to the crash in the last weeks of the Bush presidency. Greenspan resigned from the Fed before the consequences of his long-term game-plan exploded in lost homes, jobs and savings. He was replaced by Bernard Bernanke (Zionist).   Greenspan was enthusiastically supported in his deregulation through successive administrations by Treasury Secretaries in the Clinton years, Robert E. Rubin (Zionist) and Larry Summers (Zionist), and also by the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most powerful in the Fed cabal, Timothy Geithner (Zionist).   When Mr. Fake Change won the presidency amid the gathering financial crisis, caused by all of the above, and others, he appointed Geithner as his Treasury Secretary and Summers as head of the White House Economic Council. Both are protégés of Robert Rubin who resigned from Citigroup earlier this year for his role in ‘advising’ it to the brink of collapse.   Obama’s Budget Director is Peter Orszag (Zionist) who headed the company that advised the Icelandic Central Bank in the prelude to the crash of Iceland’s financial system. This has led to Iceland being fast-tracked into the Rothschild-created European Union to ’save’ its economy. Orszag also advised the Russian Treasury when state-owned assets and resources were handed to Zionist oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich who is famous in the UK as the owner of Chelsea Football Club.   Add to all this the fact that the World Bank is headed by Robert Zoellick (Zionist), who replaced Paul Wolfowitz (Zionist), and that the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, is run by Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Zionist).   Anyone still doubt that the Rothschild network controls global finance and therefore the lives and choices of virtually every man, woman and child on the planet?   The Rothschilds are at the heart of the Obama White House in the form of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (Zionist) and Chief White House Advisor David Axelrod (Zionist). Emanuel has served in the Israeli army and his father was an operative with the Rothschild terrorist group, Irgun, as it bombed Israel into being. This included the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 that killed 91 people.         Rahm Emanuel also worked closely Robert E. Rubin (Zionist) during the Clinton years to impose NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was designed from the start to be a stepping-stone to a North American, and eventually an American Union, along the lines of the EU. The Zionist world is very small indeed.   David Axelrod ran Obama’s election campaigns and now oversees his every word slavishly read from his teleprompter screens. There is little that Obama says that his Zionist handlers don’t tell him or give him to say.   They have also ensured that US policy for Iran and the Persian Gulf is headed by Dennis Ross (Zionist) who has served Israeli interests in successive American administrations. There will not be a cigarette paper behind the scenes between him and that trio of tyranny, Netanyahu, Lieberman, Barak, the prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister of Israel. Rothschild stooges, in other words.   Zionist Mandelson works for the pyramid   The most influential figure by far in the current British government is Peter Mandelson (Zionist) who continues to amass more titles and powers from the beleaguered Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Mandelson is an insider operative for the Rothschilds and has frequently accepted hospitality from his close friend and associate, Nathaniel Rothschild. This week Mandelson called for the UK to join the (Rothschild) single European currency.   Meanwhile, the hapless and hopeless Gordon Brown did as he was told and appointed Ivan Lewis (Zionist) to be minister of state with responsibility for, wait for it … British policy on the Middle East. Lewis, vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel, was an outspoken supporter of Israel’s slaughter of the innocent in Gaza this year. Lewis said of his new job:   ‘My responsibility for the Middle East peace process is particularly poignant. I have never hidden my pride at being Jewish or my support for the State of Israel.’   What chance do the Palestinians have of fairness and justice? None.   In France, as I mentioned last week, President Sarkozy (Zionist) is a long-time asset of Mossad, the Rothschild enforcement agency masquerading as the intelligence agency of Israel. Mossad has been implicated in terror attacks and other horrors all over the world because it represents the Rothschild global agenda and not the people of Israel.         French President Sarkozy (Zionist Jew) _______________________________________     Look also at the Zionist (Rothschild) control of the entertainment and media industry in the form of people like Fox News President Peter Chernin (Zionist); Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Zionist); Walt Disney CEO Robert Igor (Zionist); Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (Zionist); Warner Brothers Chairman Barry Meyer (Zionist); CBS CEO Leslie Moonves (Zionist); MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Zionist); and NBC/Universal Studios CEO Jeff Zucker (Zionist).         The Rothschilds control America   The Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein (Zionist) wrote an article proclaiming that Americans who don’t think Jews (Zionists) control Hollywood are just plain ‘dumb’. Stein went on:   ‘The Jews are so dominant. I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. But lo and behold, even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew! … As a proud Jew, I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood.’   And not only Hollywood. Shahar Ilan, a daily features editor with the leading Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, wrote: ‘The Jews do control the American media. This is very clear, and claiming otherwise is an insult to common knowledge’. Zionists have truly massive influence over the news media with the likes of Rupert Murdoch (Zionist) with his vast television and newspaper empire, and the Sulzberger family (Zionists) who own the New York Times. The list is enormous across television, radio, newspapers and the Internet.   When you look at the number of Zionists in key positions of power and control in politics, banking, corporations, news media, Hollywood and so on, it is sobering to think that Jewish people are just 1.7% of the American population and many of those won’t be Zionists.   What if the same situation happened with Arab people or Chinese, Irish or even black Americans? There would be an outcry and questions asked about how one group can have so much influence over the lives of a whole nation, indeed many nations. And I stress again that, in the end, this control system leads to the Rothschilds and the spider they represent at the centre of the web.         B’nai Brith Front Man Harry Abrams ____________________________     The Rothschilds established B’nai B’rith in 1843 to prevent exposure of the global Zionist networks. The ‘ BB’ is an offshoot of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and operates worldwide to brand as ‘anti-Semitic’ anyone who exposes the Rothschild operation.   In 1913, B’nai B’rith launched an organisation specifically to target and defame researchers, in fact anyone, who questions, criticises or exposes Israel and the ever-gathering Zionist influence across the world. With typical irony they called it the Anti-Defamation League, better known as the ADL, and claimed it was there to protect Jewish people. As Plato said: ‘This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector’.   The ADL is, in fact, a sub-agency of the Israeli (Rothschild) centre for covert operations, the Mossad, which, according to a former agent, has the motto: ‘By way of deception, thou shalt do war’. If that isn’t the motto, it should be. The ADL is behind the introduction of ‘hate laws’ which are aimed at silencing dissent against Zionism or Israel. The Jewish academic, Noam Chomsky, said this of the ADL in his book, Necessary Illusions:   ‘The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming “one of the main pillars” of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on.   These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel’s refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement.’   The American rabbi, Michael Lerner, agrees:   ‘The ADL lost most of it credibility in my eyes as a civil rights organization when it began to identify criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism, still more when it failed to defend me when I was receiving threats to my life from right-wing Jewish groups because of my critique of Israeli policy toward Palestinians (it said that these were not threats that came from my being Jewish, so therefore they were not within their area of concern).’   Firstly, the ADL has never been a civil rights organisation. Its very purpose has been to take them away. Secondly, it is not there to defend anyone, Jewish or otherwise. It’s there to represent the sadistic interests of the House of Rothschild and the wider Illuminati.         It is so important that people are aware of this background to Zionism because at the moment it is basically speeding along unchallenged through lack of awareness and fear of being dubbed ‘racist’.   Well, I couldn’t care less what people say about me with regard to this or anything else. I want to uncover the truth, not win a popularity contest.   Please, let’s circulate this information as effectively as we can and bring it from the shadows to public attention. We must refuse to be intimidated into silence over this.   Martin Luther King said: ‘… we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can’t ride you unless your back is bent.’   It is time to stand up, in every sense.

Mexican government decrees special powers in flu crisis

Reuters
April 25, 2009

Mexican President Felipe Calderon issued an emergency decree on Saturday giving the government special powers to run tests on sick people and order them isolated to fight the deadly flu crisis.

Mexico City has already shut schools and museums and canceled sporting and cultural events as an outbreak of a new type of swine flu killed up to 68 people in the country and spread north to infect some people in the United States.

Saturday’s decree, published in Mexico’s official journal, gives the government power to isolate sick people, enter homes or workplaces and regulate air, sea and land transportation to try to stop further infection.

The flu has rattled residents of Mexico’s overcrowded capital of some 20 million people.

Calderon tried to calm Mexicans earlier on Saturday, saying the flue was curable. He said health authorities easily had enough antiviral medicine for the 1,000 or so people suspected to be infected with the swine flu and that his government was monitoring the situation “minute by minute.”

Read entire article

Is Swine Flu A Biological Weapon?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, April 27, 2009

There are some factors that suggest the swine flu killing people in Mexico may be a biological weapon, but obviously no such conclusion can be drawn at this time. The World Health Organization and the U.S. government have been quick to deny such claims.

The swine flu virus is described as a completely new strain, an intercontinental mixture of human, avian and swine viruses. Tellingly, there have been no reported A-H1N1 infections of pigs.

According to a source known to former NSA official Wayne Madsen, “A top scientist for the United Nations, who has examined the outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa, as well as HIV/AIDS victims, concluded that H1N1 possesses certain transmission “vectors” that suggest that the new flu strain has been genetically-manufactured as a military biological warfare weapon.

Madsen claims that his source, and another in Indonesia, “Are convinced that the current outbreak of a new strain of swine flu in Mexico and some parts of the United States is the result of the introduction of a human-engineered pathogen that could result in a widespread global pandemic, with potentially catastrophic consequences for domestic and international travel and commerce.”

However, it’s important to stress that it is far too early to make this assumption. We have to bear in mind that the number of victims has been comparatively low when one considers the fact that hundreds of thousands in Mexico contract infectious diseases every year related to poverty like tuberculosis and malaria.

Fort Detrick, the U.S. Army Medical Command installation that was the source of the 2001 anthrax attacks, is again attracting suspicion in light of the swine flu panic after it was revealed that criminal investigators are probing whether virus samples recently went missing from its biolabs.

“Chad Jones, spokesman for Fort Meade, said CID is investigating the possibility of missing virus samples from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases,” reports The Frederick News.

In February, USAMRIID halted their work when virus samples were discovered that were not listed in its inventory. Criminal investigators from the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division unit at Fort Meade are now probing whether virus samples are missing from the Army’s top biolab, which also studies pathogens including ebola, anthrax and plague.

Obviously, in light of the current swine flu scare, and the new strain’s possible synthetic origin, the fact that virus samples may have gone missing from the same Army research lab from which the 2001 anthrax strain was released is extremely disturbing.

A 2008 FBI and DOJ investigation concluded that Bruce Edwards Irvins, a microbiologist, vaccinologist, and senior biodefense researcher at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick, Maryland, was responsible for mailing anthrax to members of Congress and the media in September and October 2001.

The fact that Irvins apparently committed suicide shortly before the announcement led many to suspect that he was a patsy in a wider plot. Despite the suspicious circumstances, no autopsy was carried out on Irvins’ body. His attorney was certain that Irvins, who had cooperated with the 6-year investigation, was innocent of the five anthrax deaths.

The Department of Justice initially considered Dr. Steven Jay Hatfill to be a strong suspect in the anthrax attacks, but he later sued the government and won $5.8 million in damages. A New York Times piece on Irvins’ suicide asked the hypothetical question: “What if Dr. Hatfill had committed suicide in 2002, as friends feared he might? Would the investigators have released their evidence and announced that the perpetrator was dead?”

Fears that a mass pandemic was being readied as a biological attack have rumbled on in the conspiracy community ever since 9/11. Investigators point to the highly unusual number of deaths of top microbiologists to suggest that people with knowledge of the program are being eliminated.

Inbreeding caused demise of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty, new study reveals

One of Europe’s most powerful royal dynasties was so obsessed with securing its blue-blooded inheritance through family marriages that it brought about its own extinction through inbreeding, scientists have found.

 By Fiona Govan in Madrid
Last Updated: 1:37PM BST 15 Apr 2009

The Hapsburgs ruled Spain from 1516 to 1700, presiding over the first global empire, but died out after generations of intermarriage, according to the first genetic analysis of the family.

The royal fashion of marrying relatives to preserve the dynastic heritage culminated in a monarch who was so genetically inbred that he was unable to provide an heir and power passed to the French Bourbons.

The dynasty was one of the most important and influential royal families in Europe – branches of the family ruled Austria, Hungary, Belgium, the Netherlands, the German empire and Spain.

Scientists have examined the family tree of the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, King Charles II, who died in 1700 at the age of 39, and discovered that, as a result of repeated marriages between close relatives, he was almost as inbred as the offspring of an incestuous relationship between a brother and sister or father and daughter.

The study found that nine out of 11 marriages over the 200 years were between first cousins or uncles and nieces, producing a small gene pool that made rare recessive genetic illnesses more prevalent.

Only half of the babies born to the dynasty during the period studied lived to see their first birthday, compared with about 80 per cent of children in Spanish villages at the time.

The study, published this week in the journal Public Library of Science One, indicated that Charles II suffered from two separate rare genetic conditions, which were almost certainly the result of his ancestors’ marriage patterns and which effectively assured that the dynasty died out with him.

Nicknamed El Hechizado (“the hexed”) because of his deformities, Charles II was not only inflicted with an extreme version of the Hapsburg chin, as immortalised in portraits by Titian and Velazquez, but his tongue was said to be so big for his mouth that he had difficulty speaking and drooled.

Historical accounts record that he also suffered from an oversized head, intestinal upsets, convulsions and, according to his first wife, premature ejaculation and his second wife, impotence.

“He was unable to speak until the age of four, and could not walk until the age of eight. He was short, weak and quite lean and thin,” said Gonzalo Alvarez, of the University of Santiago de Compostela, who led the study.

“He looked like an old person when he was 30 years old, suffering edemas [swellings] on his feet, legs, abdomen and face. During the last years of his life he could barely stand up and suffered from hallucinations and convulsive episodes,” he said.

The scientists concluded that medical problems of Charles II were not random but could be symptoms of two genetic disorders; an inherited thyroid deficiency, and renal tubular acidosis, a type of kidney failure that can cause metabolic problems.

Weekly Online Radio Usage Jumps To 42 Million

4-17-9

 

17% of Americans ages 12 or over listened to online radio in the past week, or about 42 million people, according to the latest in a series of studies conducted by Arbitron and Edison Research. The size of the weekly online radio audience has more than doubled since 2005, when the weekly online radio audience was estimated to be 20 million.   On a weekly basis, online radio reaches 20% of 25-to-54 year-olds; up from 15% in 2008. Monthly online listeners are up to 69 million, or roughly 27% of the U.S. population. However, nearly half of the population, or 125 million, have never listened to online radio.   The survey, conducted between January 16 and February 15, also found that AM/FM radio continues to have a big impact on people’s lives. The study asked consumers to rate the impact different digital audio platforms has on their lives. More than one in five radio listeners (21%) say it has a big impact on their lives; ranking second only to owners of the Apple iPhone in particular (23%) and cell phone owners in general (47%) as the audio platform/device that has a big impact on people’s lives.   Online radio listeners are more likely to be upscale, well-educated and employed full time; 54% of weekly online radio listeners are employed fulltime (compared to 43% among persons 12 and older); 16% of weekly online radio listeners live in homes with an annual income greater than $100,000 (vs. 10% among persons 12 and older); 37% of weekly online radio listeners have a college degree or higher education level (vs. 29% among persons 12 and older).   One-third (34%) of persons age 12 and older report having a profile on Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, or any other social networking web site, up from 24% in 2008; This figure is substantially greater among young adults. Nearly two-thirds of teens age 12-to-17 (63%) and 18-to-24 year-olds (64%) report having a profile on these social networking sites.   iPod/portable MP3 player ownership continues to grow dramatically. More than four in ten (42%) persons age 12 and older own an iPod or other brand of portable MP3 player; up from 37% in 2008 and three times the number in 2005 (14%). Nearly two-thirds (64%) of 18-to-24 year-olds own a digital audio player.   While only 14% of persons age 12 and older say they are spending less time with over-the-air radio specifically due to time spent with iPods and other portable MP3 players, digital audio players have greater impact on radio among 12-to-24 year-olds. 32% of teens age 12-to-17 and persons 18-to-24 say they are spending less time with over-the-air radio specifically due to time spent with iPod/other portable MP3 players; this is nearly twice as many 18-to-24 year-olds who reported spending less time with over-the-air radio as 2008.    http://news.radio-online.com/cgi-bin/rol.exe/headline_id=b11524

A Rainbow Warrior Shows His True Colours

By Philip Jones

4-19-9

 

 

Jonathon Porritt.

 

In a recent article in the London Daily Mail, Jonathon Porritt, the British Government’s ‘Green’ adviser, was reported as having said that couples who have more than two children were being ‘irresponsible’ by creating an intolerable burden on the environment. Mr Porritt’s short statement underlines the `Greens` deep seated phobia of the human race, and shows that Britain’s top environmental `Tsar` turns out to be not so much a friend of the earth as an enemy of humanity.   Mr Porritt believes that restricting population growth via contraception and abortion must be at the very heart of government policy in it’s crusade against `man-made` climate change. The reasoning behind this according to Porritt, is that people must now accept some form of State imposed responsibility for their total `carbon and environmental footprint’.   Even though scientifically unproven and much discredited, the ruse of `Global Warming` is being used by the Illuminists, the New Age, and their puppet `Greens` to psychologically terrify and bludgeon the world’s population into accepting ever more infringements on their personal rights and liberties, all in the name of saving the planet.   The God given blessings of a large family and the contribution that it makes to posterity, prosperity and progress don’t count at all in Porritts warped `New Age` mind. Rather, the importance of families and the number of children they have, is to be now measured solely by what he sees as their burdensome impact on the planet.   This sinister and dehumanised mindset should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed Porritts career thus far. It is no coincidence that he is on record as saying that the country which comes nearest to his ideal society is Communist China, which imposes a harsh and cruel policy of restricting families to one child apiece.   When a member of a sitting government openly expresses an opinion with the full and complete backing of that government, that it is a burden on society and the environment to have more than two children, then it is time the alarm bells started ringing. We are talking about a `depopulation agenda` here`. Nothing less. The UK reproduction rate at present, according to a 2008 United Nations study stands at 1.80, and the native population needs 2.4 children per woman of childbearing age in order to replace itself, and Comrade Porritt knows it, and so does the Labour Government.   Reproduction is humanity’s strongest instinct. To even consider interfering with this most God given and inalienable of our freedoms and desires is nothing less than Totalitarianism. Jonathon Porritt, like most of the demagogues in the upper echelons of the New Age Movement is undoubtedly aware of the agenda behind his words. He will have us believe that he possesses some kind of `inspired` and unique insight into the needs of our world which is denied to us lesser mortals. This is just another example of the monumental arrogance and contempt with which humanity is being treated by these `green` coloured propagators of Lucifer as they seek to eradicate vast swathes of humanity via the legislating of our natural reproductive rights and by yet more menacing means, in order to usher in their `Dark Age Of Aquarius`- it is also akin to the grandiose delusions of totalitarian tyrants from the Babylonian Nimrod, to the likes of Attila The Hun, Stalin, Hitler and Mao.   But then the Satanic New Age Movement, often dressed in it’s office clothes of secular liberal humanism (code words for Luciferianism), is thoroughly Totalitarian in outlook, and the `popular front` that is the Green Lobby mirrors this in it’s intolerant authoritarian global view, which it seeks to impose upon the whole world . It sees people as a nuisance in need of constant management and control. And now, it intends to put the final nail in the coffin of western civilisation by making official the restricting of human births.   Having implemented a multitude of furtive means of preventing and discouraging people from reproducing themselves sufficiently, including feminism (career first, men are bad, small family, more money), contraception, readily available abortion, together with a `kaleidoscope` of vaccines which are proven to lower the fertility rate, they appear ready to execute the next phase in this war against people.   Intentionally or otherwise, in his comments about what he calls the population `ghost at the table`, Porritt has revealed environmentalism’s true colours and they are not green, but bloody red. This was not some `loose cannon`, or some maverick sounding off. Porritt was expressing views which are mainstream within the Green Movement, endorsed entirely by the British Government, and those views are most definitively reproducing themselves at an alarming rate, even if people are not.   Recently, an international campaign was launched called, ‘Global Population Speak Out’ to publicise the supposed link between the size and growth of the human population and environmental degradation. The whole bases of it’s message was scientifically erroneous and without any validity whatsoever. Yet it attracted massive media coverage, schools were involved, the usual celebrity `muppets` grabbed their chance at some cheap publicity, and once again, the whole `Green Circus` proved to be entertainingly effective in co opting the masses into believing the lie and accepting the `guilt trip` laid on them by Porritt and his ilk.   A `Green` MD, Dr Pippa Hayes, says she will actually refuse to offer fertility treatment to women who want to have more than four children, because she believes that this places an ‘insupportable burden’ on the earth’s resources. Where is her proof? On what science does she base her conclusions?   This writer finds it highly disturbing that a medical doctor should not only have such anti-human views, but then seek to impose them upon her patients, refusing to act in their best interests, which she subordinates to an abhorrent and spurious ideology, which if one cares to play the detective can be traced back to such notables as Madame Blavatsky, Alistair Crowley and Alice Bailey, the late founder of the Lucis (Lucifer)Trust and major mover and shaker in the advancement of all things New Age and Satanic including the United Nations Organisation.   Surely, we should be able to expect our doctors to support, sustain and propagate the renewal of human life. Isn’t this their duty? Isn’t it why many conscientious doctors refuse absolutely to perform abortions. When a doctor, as in the case of Pippa Hayes, regards herself as some latter day ‘conscientious objector’ for wanting to reduce human life, she turns not just medical ethics but also the foundation of our common humanity on it’s head.   It’s not so far from that point, to where we reach the stage of regarding human beings as some kind of disease. In fact, the “We humans are like some cancer on this planet` catchphrase is becoming increasingly popular as dinner conversation here in Denmark where I live, and more so amongst what would be considered the intelligentsia. I hazard a guess it’s not much different elsewhere either.   To emphasise my point here, another prominent establishment `Green`, the former diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell – who has said we should be pursuing policies that would reduce the UK population to 20 million, or one-third of its current level – remarked recently: “Someone has said that constantly increasing growth is the doctrine of the cancer cell. You just get out of control.” From this contemptuous attitude, it is but a short step to seeing people as mere objects to be disposed of. Then when coupled with the unspoken but often implied view that the populations most in need of control, are those from the developing nations, it becomes outright racism, and can result in a not so unconscious blind spot occurring with regard to genocide. When mass slaughter took place in Rwanda in 1994 and the world stood by and did nothing, there was much talk about how this was inevitable because of the high population density that was causing land shortages and poverty.   One can see a direct correlation between the modern environmental movement and the anti-human mindset of population control. It is a fundamental tenet of `Green` ideology that human consumption is not just irresponsible and destructive, but a form of evil. Human life itself is viewed as a cancer or pollutant, and not only in relation to that `Holy Cow` of the New Age, `Man Made Climate Change`, but by the nonsensical idea that we are generally consuming and producing too much and thus eating up the planet like locusts.   The roots of this thinking go back to the 18th century British Scholar, Thomas Malthus. Malthus came to prominence for drawing attention to the potential dangers of population and stated that population growth would outstrip the earth’s resources and would lead to famine, starvation and death on a monumental scale.   Despite the fact that between Malthus’ time and the mid twentieth century, the world population increased massively and resources expanded accordingly to sustain it, Malthusian beliefs persisted in progressive circles and led to eugenics and thence to fascism. Such beliefs persist to this day and can be found alive and well in the `New Age Movement` and it’s respectable face; the Green Movement, along with the UN, EU and most if not all of the national governments of the west.   It is undeniable that there are places in the world today where people are starving. But it has little or nothing to do with any lack of natural resources. It is the callous and inhumane tyranny of the Illuminati, the UN and the World Bank and all those `sub agencies`, working for and on behalf of this nefarious cabal of conspirators which keeps the peoples of Africa, much of Latin America and vast expanses of Asia subdued and impoverished.   Actually, Comrade Porritt’s proposed two-child limit is almost surplus to requirements as far as the UK is concerned, where few families are having more than one or two children anyway, with the result that the birth rate amongst the indigenous population is now well below replacement level. In fact, last years much publicised rise in Britain’s population can be attributed in the main to the large immigrant contingent now domiciled in the UK.   The New Age’s `Green Movement` has been utilsed to great effect by the Illuminists, and has provided a cover of respectability for their `depopulation agenda` and the population control movement as a whole. Few today are aware that organisations such as `Planned Parenthood` are simply a continuation of the Eugenics program which was widespread throughout the US during the years between WWI and WWII, and many of the ideas put into practice by the Nazis had their origins in London and New York, not Berlin.   Returning our attention to Comrade Porritt, we discover that he is a patron of the UK’s `Optimum Population Trust`, which bemoans the erroneously held fact that every baby born in Britain will burn a carbon equivalent in quantity to an area of woodland the size of Trafalgar Square. Another of the Trust’s patrons, the environmental `guru` Paul R. Ehrlich, predicted in his 1968 book `The Population Bomb` that during the Seventies and Eighties hundreds of millions of people would starve to death – about 65 million of them in the U.S. – and that by the year 2000 ‘England will not exist’.   But then the whole man-made global warming theory has turned out to be just as absurd. As Britain and the rest of North West Europe shivered in one of the coldest winters in years, atmospheric data shows that the earth is getting colder, not hotter, the ice caps are becoming thicker not thinning and sea levels are more or less normal.   Yet despite the patent absurdity of these predictions of environmental catastrophe, this thinking has become internalised and now dominates political and public life totally. The reason for this is that those who operate behind the scenes, moving in and out of the shadows, whose vice like grip upon politics, the media, education and all the other channels of influence and information, are manipulating events to further their own ends and controlling our lives in order to reshape society in their `Master’s image.   In all corners of everyday life, from state interference in parenting, to telling people what they should or should not eat and drink, from local government `snoopers`, to idiotic health and safety rules, the aim is to control and change the way we behave, by micromanaging our lives. They get us with the insignificant and the petty first, and then when we acquiesce and accept their little diktats, they turn the screw just a little tighter, one turn at a time until they have us. Does anybody recognise the theme ?   The `Green Movement` cloaks this sinister tendency under the cover of what they lead us to believe is an urgent necessity to save the planet. But with people like Jonathon Porritt apparently believing that the only thing wrong with our world is the human race itself, the question begs to be asked who it is he is actually trying to save it for?   Replies to true_brit58@hotmail.co.uk

Obama And The Real Pirates/Hostage Story?

From Various Sources

4-20-9

 

The Real Story Of Obama’s ‘Decision-Making’ With The Pirates And Hostage   Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:   1. Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) wouldn’t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.   2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn’t do anything unless the hostage’s life was in “imminent” danger   3. The first time the hostage jumped into the sea, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction   4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.   5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams.   6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies.   7. BHO immediately claims credit for his “daring and decisive” behaviour. As usual with him, it’s BS.   Read the following accurate account.   Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors and none was taken.   The guidance from National Command Authority, the president of the United States , Barack Obama had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.   The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel, thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a peaceful solution would be acceptable.   After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the onscenecommander decided he’d had enough.   Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life, and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer, unnamed in all media reports to date, decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.   Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.   There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.   Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.   Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort. What should have been a standoff lasting only hours, as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location, became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

Constitution Free Zone: Suspicionless Checkpoint in New Mexico

Highlights:

(5:35) Agent whips out his nun chucks in anger
(7:45-8:00) The agent tells me in less than perfect English, “In the Border Patrol Checkpoint, the person’s rights doesn’t matter here.”
(16:50-17:10) I’m told that the police will arrive in less than 10 minutes to arrest me
(19:00-19:40) I’m accused of being a terrorist
(26:20) I’m told that I’m free to go without being searched

Obama’s First 100 Days: Worse Than Even We Predicted

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, April 20, 2009

As President Barack Obama approaches his first 100 days in office, the corporate media prepares a new round of fawning idolatry about the Obama administration’s “achievements,” yet a summary glance at what Obama has actually done in that short time with regard to expanding the Bush police state and the Neo-Con empire is worse than even we predicted.

The day after Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States in November last year, we challenged Obama supporters and the administration itself to follow through on the rhetoric of “change” by starting to dismantle the architecture of the Bush police state and beginning to roll back the unwieldy morass of the American empire. Obama has done neither, and in fact his every action has been about ensuring the Bush police state remains in place, that the people who put it in place are protected from prosecution, and that the empire continues to expand.

We presented Obama and his supporters with a series of issues on which to make progress. While we did not expect Obama to accomplish much in his first few months in office, we at least challenged the new President to take the first steps in reversing eight years of what was a de facto dictatorship and plotting the course for the “change” that was so consistently promised.

We asked the following questions of an Obama presidency;

Will Obama support Dennis Kucinich’s efforts to bring war crimes charges against Bush, Cheney and others for deceiving the country into a war or will he protect them against such charges like Nancy Pelosi has done?

In April 2008, Obama promised that as President he would ask his Attorney General to “immediately review” potential war crimes that occurred under the Bush White House. Obama or his Attorney General have done no such thing, and every noise they have made suggests that top Neo-Cons will be protected from deceiving America into a war.

Similarly we asked;

- Will Obama bring war crimes charges against Bush, Cheney and others for authorizing torture and will the torture of suspects under U.S. detention, a complete violation of both the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, cease under an Obama administration?

As we found out last week, the answer was a resounding NO. Upon the release of the torture memos, Obama’s right-hand man, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, told ABC News that top Bush administration officials “should not be prosecuted either and that’s not the place that we go.” In addition, Obama’s statement that accompanied the release of the torture memos stated, “In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.”

So no retribution for the people who ordered the torture, and no retribution to the people who carried it out, thus setting the precedent that future administrations are free to order torture – safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences whatsoever.

- Will Obama withdraw American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan without sending them away again to bomb another broken-backed third world country?

The answer again is a resounding NO. Upon taking office, Obama announced that he would be sending another 17,000, and eventually perhaps as many as 30,000, extra troops to Afghanistan.

Regarding Iraq, after the “withdrawal” of U.S. troops in 19 months, a timescale that has since been put back again, “Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a “residual force” of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down foreign terrorist cells and guard American institutions,” reported the New York Times.

In terms of bombing another broken-backed third world country, Obama has beefed the U.S. military role in Pakistan beyond that pursued by the Bush administration and “expanded the covert war run by the Central Intelligence Agency inside Pakistan,” according to the New York TImes, with an increase in missile attacks by drone aircraft.

Meanwhile, Obama’s war chest demands came to a total of around $800 billion in war funds and subsidiary costs just to cover the rest of 2009.

Does any of this sound like a move towards bringing the troops home and rolling back the American empire, as Obama promised before he was elected?

- Will Obama end the warrantless secret surveillance and phone-taps of American citizens?

You’ll be shocked the learn that the answer was a resounding NO. Earlier this month, “The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration’s position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) warrantless wiretapping program,” reported the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. “But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration’s cover-up of the National Security Agency’s dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a ’secret’ that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.”

- Will Obama cease his support for the Bush-administration backed banker bailouts, hated by the majority of Americans, and target the real cause of the problem – the Federal Reserve – or will he continue to give taxpayers’ money to banks who are merely hoarding it all for themselves?

Obama’s zealous push for more bailouts, along with increased power for the Federal Reserve and the implementation of global regulations that will effectively end any notion of a free market was perhaps the defining issue of his first 100 days as President. Obama has vigorously promoted the same financial policies that were introduced by the Bush administration in its final few months.

- Will Obama repeal Patriot Acts I and II as well as reversing Bush’s signing statement and acknowledging the repeal of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act? Will Obama seek to continue the militarization of America and preparations for martial law through Northcom and the secret government or will he dismantle the police state that has been constructed over the last eight years by the Bush administration?

Despite initial rhetoric about reversing Bush’s infamous signing statements, Obama himself stated that he will continue to use signing statements. The Patriot Act and its additions as well as the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, both core planks of the Bush police state, remain firmly in place, with no sign of any reversal.

Regarding militarization through Northcom, weeks after Obama’s election victory it was announced that, “The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.” Militarization of law enforcement and troops being used domestically in preparation for martial law is continuing apace under the Obama administration.

- Will Obama follow through on his rhetorical support for the second amendment or will he seek to ban guns as he did in Illinois?

Despite Obama promising that he was not interested in going after the second amendment before his election, one of his first actions was to appoint the rabidly anti-gun Eric Holder as his Attorney General. Obama has also falsely blamed the drug war crisis in Mexico on American gun shops. The leaked Obama gun ban list would make millions of Americans criminals for owning weapons such certain types of rifles or pistols. Anti-gun legislation has found its way into stimulus and other unrelated bills as pork barrel. The first steps of the Obama administration with regard to gun control have resulted in record firearm and ammunition purchases across the country.

Upon Obama’s election we made a cynical but unfortunately accurate prediction of how the much vaunted promise of “change” would actually manifest itself. The fact is that the “change” began and ended on the day Obama won the election.

- Illegal warrantless surveillance and wiretapping of American citizens will continue under Obama.

- Top Bush administration officials who ordered torture and those that carried it out will be protected from prosecution under Obama.

- Top Bush administration officials who deceived America into a war will be protected from prosecution under Obama.

- The expansion of the military empire through continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and further military incursions into Pakistan will continue and expand under Obama.

- Banker bailouts, reckless spending, inflation of currency through overprinting and global regulations stifling the free market, all of which were initiated under Bush, will continue under Obama.

- The militarization of the United States and the architecture of the police state that was set up under Bush will be preserved and expanded under Obama.

- The attack on the second amendment right to bear arms will continue under Obama.

“The egregious spending will continue, government will balloon in size, American soldiers will be used as cannon fodder for more interventionist wars of the military-industrial complex, U.S. citizens will continue to have their phone calls tapped and their rights curtailed,” we forecast last year, “and the Federal Reserve will continue to rule the financial system with an iron fist while the middle class is squeezed out of existence.”

Who can deny that all those things have only intensified under the Obama administration?

The honeymoon is over – Barack Obama has proven himself to be nothing more than we predicted all along – another stooge for the global banking syndicate that has controlled every U.S. president since JFK, and nothing more than a black face on the new world order – sworn to continue and intensify the same agenda that the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasty advanced before him.