Tuesday, July 01, 2008

RE: Who R the mysterious THEY we call Illuminati? See them here!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pan Man
Date: Jun 23, 2008 1:36 PM

This whole "Illuminati" thing goes back to before the Pharaohs and may actually have "off world" origins. If that sounds crazy to you, I guess you would prefer to believe something more logical...like the Garden of Eden and Creationism by those who made is in their image out of clay and an extra rib!
I know as well as anyone how difficult it is to overcome 5000 years of brainwashing and programming. Some of you will never be able to do it in your lifetime. Many of you will innocently pass along these control myths to your children and grand children because you believe they have value.

Those who secretly rule the world from their occult shadows salute you!


Meditation & MaAt


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: beau
Date: Jun 23, 2008 9:34 AM

Thanks: Ancient Wisdom

Vibrating Towards The TRUTH, Put on your 4D Spectacles.

Step Forward Or Fall Back

Know thy SELF, Know thy HIStory, & then you'll Know thy Future.

Labels: ,


RE: Evidence of Bombs in World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) REPOST

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Brian (R.I.P. Grandpa)
Date: Jun 23, 2008 8:07 AM

Emergency Official Witnessed Dead Bodies In WTC 7

In exclusive video, Barry Jennings discusses explosions in Building 7 before collapse of twin towers

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Monday, June 23, 2008

Exclusive video of emergency official Barry Jennings discussing explosions inside WTC 7 before either of the twin towers had collapsed and having to step over dead bodies of victims as he attempted to vacate the building has been released for the first time.

The clip, which was originally intended to feature in Loose Change Final Cut but had to be withdrawn according to Jennings' wishes after he had received threats, has now been made public in anticipation of a BBC documentary about Building 7 which is expected to skew Jennings' account in an attempt to reinforce the official story.

In reality, what Jennings witnessed completely contradicts the official story of what happened to Building 7.

On the morning of 9/11 in his capacity as Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority, Jennings and Michael Hess, who is a founding Partner and Senior Managing Director of Giuliani Partners LLC, visited the Office of Emergency Management inside Building 7 only to find it had been abandoned.

"Upon arriving into the OEM EOC, we noticed that everybody was gone," said Jennings. "I saw coffee that was on the desk, the smoke was still coming off the coffee, I saw half-eaten sandwiches," he stated, adding that he and Hess were told to leave the building right away.

Jennings and Hess found a stairwell and descended the stairs.

"When we reached the 6th floor the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and walk back up to the 8th floor," said Jennings.

"The explosion was beneath me....so when the explosion happened it blew us back....both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing," he added.

"I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down - all this time I'm hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I'm hearing explosions, said Jennings, adding that when firefighters took them down to the lobby it was in "total ruins".

"For me to see what I saw was unbelievable," said Jennings.

Barry Jennings.

The firefighters kept saying to Jennings "do not look down" because, according to Jennings, "we were stepping over people and you can tell when you're stepping over people.


A police officer then told Jennings, "you will have to run because we have reports of more explosions.


"I'm just confused about one thing....why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place - I'm very confused about that - I know what I heard I heard explosions," said Jennings, adding that the explanation that the explosions were as a result of fuel oil tanks in the building did not add up.

"I'm an old boiler guy, if it was a fuel oil tank it would have been one side of the building," he stated.

Footage inside the Millennium Hilton building lobby, which was closer to the WTC twin towers than Building 7, shows minimal damage after both towers had collapsed in comparison with devastating damage in the lobby of WTC 7, as reported by Jennings, before either tower had even collapsed.

Jennings' eyewitness report of explosions inside WTC 7 before the towers had collapsed as well as dead bodies inside the building completely contradicts the official story, which maintains that there were no fatalities inside Building 7.

If WTC 7 collapsed as a result of damage it sustained from the fall of the twin towers, as the official version claims, then why were explosions taking place inside the building before either tower had collapsed?

The BBC hit piece documentary, which airs on July 6th, features an interview with Jennings but according to Loose Change's Jason Bermas, the program will distort Jennings' comments in an attempt to sideline the shocking nature of what he witnessed and the blatant manner in which his experiences contradict the official story.

According to Bermas, during their interview with members of Loose Change, the BBC denied that Jennings had stepped over dead bodies when he left the building, a claim disproved by Jennings' own statements in the video below.

http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

Labels: , , , , , ,



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: gwap
Date: Jun 23, 2008 2:54 AM



I’d like to talk a little bit about the secret societies which have become a fan of this whole topic–this conspiracy theory which is pushed out there by the top to make it almost like a sideline hobby, which discredits the truth because history is in fact full of one conspiracy after another done by one or other groups all down through the ages.

Oliver Stone shows you in the movie JFK the group that killed the President and it’s when they meet in the park by the Washington Memorial and when they ask, “who could have had the power to do all of this,” and it pans back and the two men become minute dots on the little park bench and from the top to the bottom of the screen on the left hand side you see the whole monument, the symbol, the obelisk of the real secret society above all the little freemasonic institutions' outer portico at the bottom. The real boys. The real boys that are the establishment you see. That’s who killed him.

This will be followed by a speech given by JFK at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York on April 27, 1961. He gave this speech to the National News Publishers Association. It lasts about 19 minutes or so.

This audio clip which will be played and in the speech you’ll hear JFK talk about the need to have no secret societies in government because he was well aware that that’s what you have. You’ve always had it. They’re still here today and that speech was the one that sealed his fate.

That was the real reason – the REAL REASON THAT HE WAS KILLED PUBLICLY.

Publicly executed with craftiness as the High Masons say. It was done craftily out in the open as he drove into the sun and his head was right there.

So here’s a clip from Oliver Stone first of all.

Oliver Stone: “It’s a real question isn’t it? Why. The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, the Mafia keeps them guessing like some kind of parlor game prevents them from asking the most important question.

Why? Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?”

Alan: So there you are. There’s the actual tongue-in-cheek proof in front of your face, you see, what you do get in movies shown to you right in the open and people cannot come to a conclusion unless it’s told to them basically as Mr. Brzezinski said. So following right now is the actual speech by JFK April 27, 1961 at the National News Publishers Association in the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York where he sealed his fate by being the first president really to come out publicly and talk about the need to get rid of secret societies, not only in government, but right through the whole society which rules us basically.



The President and the Press: American Newspaper Publishers Association

Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York


Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.


But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In times of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share and that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Alan: So there you are. Telling the truth can be extremely hazardous to your health. Not just in this age but in all ages. It’s interesting to note that in Dallas near Dealey Plaza where all this took place with the three intersections of the bypass forming a form of a triad – the trident, a pyramid you might say. Right near there the local freemasons have erected a monument to Kennedy’s death really and it’s up to you to decide if that was in memory of him or a boast to the high capstone boys you see to their total dominance because they built an obelisk inside a Rotunda and on top of the obelisk they have a stone form of the fire coming out of the end of the obelisk the fire and down below it there’s a pool, just like at Washington’s Memorial, there’s always the fire symbol–the phallic symbol. You see it’s fire, spirit, energy, the driving force and it’s reflected in the water, the female, the feminine and so they put the pool there too at Dallas to commemorate their victory, I suppose, showing their total domination of heaven and earth. That’s quite a boast for them to make but that is the meaning behind the phallic symbol towering over its reflection in the water. The spirit and the earth, you see, heaven and earth.

It’s up to you to decide whether you can continue pretending to live under an elected government that’s supposed to serve you, or if you demand total openness as Kennedy was stating there from the news publishers association; because if you cannot have openness you’ll be run by secrecy and secrecy never changes its direction. It never changes it grasp for power. It’s totalitarian instinct. We cannot live under secrecy any longer. If we think we can go along to get along, we’re goners.

We’ve got to come out now and demand to know all those officials who belong to "societies with secrets" as they will phrase it themselves and to know what they’ve sworn oaths to and we’ve got to find out whose being tapped out of those lower associations brought into the side lodges and brought up to the higher groups, because those that join the club to run the whole world for their own offspring forever as far as they’re concerned, they have to be exposed.

We have no choice in this matter. You can see how the world is going. We’re going into a scientific dictatorship and the science departments. All these huge international organizations are part of the control system. They’re not separate. They’re all one and we don’t have long to do this. We have to get it all out and demand openness now.



Secrecy by its very nature bodes ill to those who are out of the know

Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt

Labels: , , , , ,


RE: thoughtcrime USA 2008

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: The War Of Terror
Date: Jun 22, 2008 9:07 PM

this is the danger of an 18 month process which obssessively focuses upon the next election. it allows the incumbent to get away with anything. keep your eyes on the ball amerikkka ... obamasama hasn't won yet.


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
thanks: Irish American Patriot
Date: 22 Jun 2008, 06:00 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Date: Jun 22, 2008 5:58 PM


Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America
Mike Adams

Mike Adams at Newstarget. com says, “The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent.

All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News. com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews. com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet. com.

Here is the Senate Bill 1959 link.

And here are some of the probable candidates for a long visit to Concentration Camps: Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Al Gore, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Ted Kennedy and all the rest of those who protest Evil in its rankest form, the Satanic Bushites, and here are some of the minor offenses which are now not even misdemeanors which could land you forever ina prison cell or worse. Good-Bye America, Hello Thomas Jefferson.

As I stated weeks ago I will lift no finger to help one single office-seeking politician. That is correct, I will help politicans, no more forever, no donations, no letters, no phone calls, no errands, no cheer leading. The vote in the Democratic controlled House to pass the bill was 405 to 6. To say we have been betrayed is an understatement. If you give any money, time or help to anyone running for office you are a fool and an enemy of Freedom. Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country, by neither supporting OT giving money or aid and comfort to the men and women who have betrayed us all.

Read the article, it describes what I wrote about and spoke about since 1974, which is a bill that makes anyone who raises a voice in protest a criminal.

See what I wrote 6 years ago and republished several times since which is my custom even here on OpEdNews. com.

Read the letters back and forth, to and from to Tom Engelhardt of TOMDISPATCH, in summer of 2005.

To Tom in August of 2005
Published here from my newsletter of that date on Thursday, June 08, 2006
What is more, Blackwater is seeking Land in Northeastern Illinois and several other places in the USA, which fulfills my prophecy of Blackwater coming here to do to use what they did to the innocent 1.5 million dead and the 4.5 million wounded, Iraqi’s citizens.

Professor Bagnolo is a Renaissance man: Cultural Anthropologist, Architectural designer, painter, writer, novelist, theologian. As a child prodigy, abed with polio for almost two years, with an off the charts IQ, reading at the graduate level by 5th grade, offered an opportunity to skip three grades at age 8.

Later He was a recipient of an Art Institute scholarship at age 11, a Ford Foundation Fellowship in Anthropology and in Painting and a merit scholarship in art, and was appointed a Graduate Research Assistant position in college. He holds a triple bachelor's degree in Painting and Drawing, Anthropology, Architectural Design Advertising. MA's in Cultural Anthro, Painting and more.

After being tenured he taught; architecture, anthropology, Theology, advertising, painting and drawing, entrepreneuring and Creative Profit Making. He produced a star-studded Music festival, had a radio talk show in Chicago, and cable TV show. Now, retired from Teaching, he paints, writes, and pursues other ventures.

http://www. opednews. com/maxwrite/diarypage. php?did=5058

Create your own banner at mybannermaker.com!

Labels: , , ,


RE: The Illuminati And Satanism

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: The watchman on the wall ministry
Date: Jun 22, 2008 10:03 PM

http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=MtInYqiHL1o



RE: Vitamin C About to be made Illegal!!!!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Leo K.-Immortal Technique's 3rd World Out Now!
Date: Jun 22, 2008 6:52 AM

Vitamin C About to be made Illegal!!!!
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Bill
Date: Jun 22, 2008 5:32 AM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Date: Jun 22, 2008 3:09 AM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Chris
Date: Jun 21, 2008 8:06 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Thanks to Little Sister Katy
Date: Jun 21, 2008 12:43 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: The Book of Light
Date: Jun 21, 2008 9:04 AM

Vitamin C About to be Made Illegal

..'Vitamin C About to be Made Illegal in Canada'

So you want to take Vitamin C, how about if it was illegal to take that vitamin C, what if it was so illegal that you could be thrown in jail for up to 2 years and fined up to $5,000,000! Sounds like fiction doesn't it?

Well it's about to become reality unless people become aware of what is going on. The Canadian Government is trying to pass a bill known as Bill C51. This bill has already passed its second reading and it is flying under the radar, it is very close to becoming law and some powers that be DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW! This bill would give entire control of supplements over to drug companies by only allowing MDs to "Prescribe" them as they see fit. Of course we know here in this country the government controls the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies tell the government what laws they want inorder to make more profit. What this means is that if you want to take a multivitamin or some Omega-3, you have to book an appointment with your doctor, go in and try to convince your doctor that you are in need of these supplements. If you doctor doesn't approve or better yet decides a certain drug would be better off for you then you unfortunately won't have access to your supplements anymore.

On top of this the entire natural supplement industry will collapse on itself, thousands of jobs will be lost and even more stress will be placed on our already crumbing over-stressed medical system. Imagine waiting over a month to get in to see your MD just to request if you can take some oregano oil for a cold that has now come and past, only to have your request denied anyway.

The irony of all this is that MDs who are NOT trained in the use of herbs and supplements for the most part will have full control over what you can and CANNOT TAKE.

To summarize:

- No More Supplement Stores!

- Supplements are made illegal unless obtained through a prescription and 70% of all current supplements on the market will be removed!

- Prices for obtainable supplements will be higher than they are currently due to the monopolization, and being made into prescriptions!

- Restrict research and development of safe natural alternatives in favor of high risk drugs!

- Punish Canadians with little or no opportunity for protection or recourse for simply speaking about or giving a natural product without the approval of government!

- Fines of up to $5,000,000.00 and/or seek 2 years in jail per incident of being caught breaking any of these newly implemented laws.



No More Vitamin C, No More Omega-3, No More Oregano Oil, No More Natural Multivitamins, No more natural sleep aids, NO MORE HERBS, VITAMINS, MINERALS.

No more choice in what YOU want to do for YOUR HEALTH!

It has been said that these kinds of actions were the first things to happen before the NAZIs gained power. Even if you aren't interested in taking supplements yourself, you should realize that these kinds of actions are leading our society away from democracy and into some kind of dictatorship run government where people are losing their personal power and allowing the government to do anything they want.

Some rumors surrounding bill C-51 is that it is being pushed ahead by pharmaceutical company funding that want complete control of the supplement market by making them prescription only. It's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! They're VERY interested in you taking supplements, because if you do odds are less likely you'll need THEIR DRUGS. On top of this rumor has it that the Canadian minister of health himself has very large investments in pharmaceutical companies, further backing Bill C-51 so he himself can profit from it! The worst part is he is going out and telling the ill informed that it is in their best interests.

People out there need to know the truth!

What can you do?
Let people know, the best thing you can do is spread the word about this issue. When major media begin to take this seriously and cover the story more, then we can prevent these very negative changes. Start a petition or sign one of the current ones going around. This is really happening people and if we don't try to stop it now we'll be paying for it in the years to come.

Help STOP BILL C-51 before it passes. ITS NOT TOO LATE! This is a very scary reality that would allow pharmaceutical drug companies complete control over the Canadian Health System.

It will be the end of the entire natural health industry, and the end of peoples choice in how they want to take care of their own health!


Visit http://stopc51. com and http://nhppa. org to find out how you can stop this bill before it's too late!

Preserve your rights to use natural medicine!


Article Source: http://EzineArticles. com/?expert=John_Freeman_Sr


....RE: Vitamin C About to be made Illegal!!!!

Labels: , ,


RE: We R Public Servants! We dont needno stinking probable cause

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pan Man
Date: Jun 22, 2008 1:23 AM

Take a look at the kind of arrogance the Constitutions of the various states and this country were written to protect us from.

When the President
wantonly disrespects, violates and abuses the Constitution, can you really hope for it to be honored by even the lowliest of public servants? No probable cause...no warrant....no real constitutional authority...no crime...no protection from unlawful trespass!!!!!!

Now, here's a toughy for you: What do you do in a situation like this?

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Chris
Date: Jun 21, 2008 10:04 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Thanks to ♥ ♥ Kelly ♥ ♥
Date: Jun 21, 2008 10:41 PM

Thank You, scarlettletter

This was listed under "more info" on youtube next to the video:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



wikipedia. org/wiki/Fourth_A...

lp. findlaw. com/data/co...

Some dumb Indiana Sheriff sits back and does absolutely nothing while an even dumber health inspector trespasses on private property without a warrant. I hope both these people got fired because this guy couldnt be more correct about his constitutional rights to privacy. Smart of him to get it all on film.

Laporte County Health Dept
Julie Wolfe
809 State St.

Suite 401A Laporte, In 46350
(219)326-6808 ext 200.

Fax (219)325-8628

Address: 809 State Street Suite 202A
LaPorte, Indiana 46350
Phone LaPorte Office Number: 219-326-7700



RE: Make yourself invisible to the cameras

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pamela's Protest
Date: Jun 21, 2008 6:55 PM

Make yourself invisible to the cameras
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: randomlight
Date: Jun 21, 2008 8:47 AM



How To Make An Invisible Mask
How to modify any hat so that your face will not show up on any camera.



RE: Government Sued Over Seizure Of Liberty Dollars

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Lori
Date: Jun 21, 2008 3:23 PM

From: RC
Date: Jun 21, 2008 2:14 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: -[NannaIsSin]- Campaign for Liberty with Ron Paul
Date: Jun 21, 2008 2:11 PM

this bulletin made me yell "YEAAAH" lol...

RE: Government Sued Over Seizure Of Liberty Dollars
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Debbie
Date: Jun 21, 2008 12:08 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Date: Jun 21, 2008 3:03 PM

http://www. roguegovernment. com/news. php?id=10153

Government Sued Over Seizure Of Liberty Dollars
NY Sun

A dozen people around the country filed suit in U.

S District Court in Idaho this week demanding the return of all the copper, silver, gold, and platinum coins — more than seven tons of metal in all — that the FBI and Secret Service seized in November during raids of a mint in Idaho and a strip mall storefront in Indiana

The Justice Department had decided that the coins, many of which bear the familiar symbol of Lady Liberty and the phrase "TRUST IN GOD," were being illegally marketed as government-sanctioned currency, according to the sworn affidavit of an FBI agent

The creator of the coins, Bernard von NotHaus, who lives in Miami, claims that the federal government is trying to shut down production of his liberty dollars, as the coins are called, because of the competition they pose to the greenback

In recent years, his precious metal coins have outperformed the dollar, whose value has plunged in relation to gold
The raids in November were the result of a two-year undercover investigation of Mr. Von NotHaus and how he sold liberty dollars.

The Justice Department has not followed up with any criminal charges against Mr Von NotHaus or the regional distributors of his coinsIn the suit filed in Idaho, the various plaintiffs say the federal government has no right to continue holding onto their coins any longer

While it is common for agents to warehouse property seized during criminal investigations, such as firearms or surveillance equipment, the plaintiffs say coins of precious metal should be off-limits

The coins "do not constitute contraband or other property subject to seizure," the legal papers state, adding that the seizures violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs

For the most part, the plaintiffs had possessed bearer certificates for the silver liberty dollars that were being warehoused in Couer d'Alene, Idaho, at a mint

The mint, Sunshine Minting, is one of the sites that federal agents raided

In an unusual request, the plaintiffs ask for an order, at the very least, forbidding federal agents from touching or moving the coins so that they are not dirtied in any way

"Mishandling numismatic material can negatively impact value," the legal papers say
A spokesman for the Justice Department, Charles Miller, said that the agency had not yet seen the legal papers and could not comment
E-mail messages circulating among Liberty Dollar enthusiasts have expressed fears that the federal government intends to publicly auction off the coins. There has been no public announcement indicating that to be the case. The U.S. attorney's office in Asheville, N.

C, which led the investigation that prompted the raids last November, did not return several calls for comment over the last few weeks


Von NotHaus markets his coins via the Internet as an inflation-proof currency and claims that between 100,000 and 250,000 Americans own them

They have attracted the interest of coin enthusiasts, as well as critics of the Federal Reserve

A 1999 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center said that many of the stores that accepted liberty dollars "are run by men and women connected to the radical right." The coins have caught on particularly well in Asheville, N.

C, and Austin, Texas, and are accepted by some merchants there

More than 50,000 of the coins seized last year bear the likeness of Rep. Ron Paul, whose monetary policies Mr Von NotHaus supports "About a quarter of a million people holding liberty dollars are almost up-in arms — not up in arms yet, but almost — about having their property seized, and rightly so," Mr.

Von NotHaus told The New York Sun yesterday

Labels: , ,


Congress is guilty of insider trading

RE: Report Shows Lawmakers Heavily Invested in War

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: My Hate Speech3
Date: Jun 30, 2008 11:52 PM

By Pat Shannan

A new study by a nonpartisan research group shows that lawmakers’ stock holdings in various companies doing business with the Defense Department totals more than $196 million, earning the congress critters millions in profits individually since the start of the war in Iraq.

The Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics says that 2006 financial disclosure statements suggest that members’ holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending. Several members who earned the most from defense contractors have plum committee or leadership assignments, including Democratic Sen. John Kerry, independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake. In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million in military-related investments, compared to Republican investments of $577,500.

Overall, 151 members hold investments worth $78.7 million to $195.5 million in companies that receive defense contracts that are worth at least $5 million. These investments earned them anywhere between $15.8 million and $62 million between 2004 and 2006, the center concluded.

It is unclear how many members still hold these investments and exactly how much money has been made. Disclosure reports for 2007 are still being vetted. Also, members are required to report only a general range of their holdings.

According to the report, presidential hopefuls Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain did not report any defense-related holdings on their filing.

Not all the companies invested in by lawmakers are typical defense contractors. Corporations such as PepsiCo, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson have at one point received defense-related contracts, the report notes.

“So common are these companies, both as personal investments and as defense contractors, it would appear difficult to build a diverse blue-chip stock portfolio without at least some of them,” wrote the center’s Lindsay Renick Mayer.

Still, earning dividends from companies tied to the military “could be problematic” for members that oversee defense policy and budgeting, Mayer adds.

Democrat Kerry, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is identified as earning the most—at least $2.6 million between 2004 and 2006 from investments worth up to $38.2 million.

Spokesman David Wade said Kerry, who opposes the war in Iraq, is one of many beneficiaries of family trusts which he doesn’t control. Wade also noted that Kerry does not sit on the Appropriations Committee, which has direct control of the defense budget.

“He has a 24-year Senate record of working and voting in the best interests of our men and women in the military, not of any defense contractors,” Wade said.

Lieberman, an independent and chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and a member of the Armed Services Committee, held a considerably smaller share at $51,000.

A spokesman for Blunt, a senior member of House Republican leadership who held at least $15,000 in Lockheed Martin stock in 2006, said the insinuation that lawmakers’ votes might be affected by their portfolios is “offensive.

“I don’t pretend to speak for other offices, but I am fairly certain that no member would consider their personal finances when voting on issues as important as sending our men and women in uniform into harm’s way,” said Blunt spokesman Nick Simpson.

Reporters were expecting then to hear an offer of ocean front property for sale in Missouri, but none was forthcoming from Simpson at this time.

Both Lieberman and Blunt support continued operations in Iraq.



RE: I'm sorry I didn't mean to wake you up!!!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: National 9/11 Hero William Rodriguez Support Page
Date: Jul 1, 2008 12:22 AM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Uncle Sam
Date: Jun 30, 2008 11:20 PM

REPOST THIS for me to get the message out there because it’s been DELETED BY MYSPACE TWICE!!

From Wikipedia:

"The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006), enacting Chapter 47A of title 10 of the United States Code, is an Act of Congress (Senate Bill 3930) signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v.

Rumsfeld, the Act's stated purpose is to "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes." The bill limits captives' access to habeas corpus and has been suggested to be unconstitutional.

Senator Patrick Leahy on the MCA:

"Passing laws that remove the few checks against mistreatment of prisoners will not help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of the generation of young people around the world being recruited by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates, without any proceeding and without any recourse -- is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions and our rule of law would have us do. This is not just a bad bill, this is a dangerous bill.


Senator John McCain on the MCA:

"Simply put, this legislation ensures that we respect our obligations under Geneva, recognizes the President’s constitutional authority to interpret treaties, and brings accountability and transparency to the process of interpretation by ensuring that the executive’s interpretation is made public. I would note that there has been opposition to this legislation from some quarters, including the New York Times editorial page. Without getting into a point-by-point rebuttal here on the floor, I would simply say that I have been reading the Congressional Record trying to find the bill that page so vociferously denounced. The hyperbolic attack is aimed not at any bill this body is today debating, nor even at the Administration’s original position. I can only presume that some would prefer that Congress simply ignore the Hamdan decision, and pass no legislation at all. That, I suggest to my colleagues, would be a travesty.


John McCain's actions and decisions are in opposition to the Constitution!

President G.W.

Bush's Lies about the MCA:

Keith Olberman on the MCA:

Speaking at a VFW meeting in South Carolina, McCain asked when the U.S. would "send an air mail message to Tehran.

" McCain replied: "You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, anyway..."

Link to story.

Ha! Ha! Ha!
War is flippin awesome!

Let's kill a bunch more Americans and innocent civilians!


Subscribe to Uncle Sam’s Blog!

Click below to add Uncle Sam as a friend!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Mivo
Date: Jun 30, 2008 11:07 PM

Thanx: Iconoclasm

Ron Paul on Iran



Webster Tarpley - Consequences of a U.S.

attack on Iran



RE: Ireland squares off with the NWO & punches them in the nose!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pan Man
Date: Jul 1, 2008 7:57 AM

The Irish have a strong nose for bullshit. The EU is like the NAU....it's a move to consolidate monarchical corporate control over the people in a way that will end the concept of democracy forever.

Hooray for the Irish! We wish you and all of Europe luck!

GL Shamrock

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Date: Jul 1, 2008 6:33 AM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Rich
Date: Jul 1, 2008 3:02 AM

I Don't Want To Invade Ireland Because I Don't Want To Have To Fight The Irish~ Adolf Hitler

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: SafetyJoe [Ron Paul 2008]
Date: Jul 1, 2008 2:30 AM

Respect the Irish Vote: Aftershock in European Parliament


eXTReMe Tracker