Sunday, November 30, 2008

On Stapleton


QUOTE (Reformation @ Nov 27 2008, 05:02 PM)
It's interesting that comic shows Rosalyn Carter greeting Jim Jones. If you listen to what John Todd said about the occult he claimed Ruth Carter Stapleton was a high-level witch. So it's not surprising to see that family rubbing arms with Jones.

Carter's mother was also a piece of work and probably a occultist although I have yet to do that research.

Ruth Carter Stapleton is also mentioned in Dr. Cathy Burns' book "Billy Graham and His Friends." Stapleton was quoted as saying how she was "born again" in an art museum...completely clueless as to how to actually be saved.


Evidence suggests CIA funded experiments at state hospital

Cops Taser 54 Year Old Female Football Fan

Hillary Clinton's appointment

Evil forced abortions

Couple Claims CNN Endangered Their Lives During Mumbai Attacks

American Journalist with Translator Detained in Henan; Chinese Central Government Further Restricts Religious Freedom by Banning Chinese House Church


American Journalist with Translator Detained in Henan; Chinese Central Government Further Restricts Religious Freedom by Banning Chinese House Church Alliance

Contact: Katherine Cason, 267-210-8278,; Washington, D.C. contact: Jenny McCloy, 202-213-0506,;

NANYANG, HENAN, Nov. 30 /Christian Newswire/ -- China Aid Association has learned that at 7 a.m. on November 28, 2008, Pastor Zhang Mingxuan, head of the Chinese House Church Alliance, was forcibly taken by four plain-clothed officers from Henan Public Security Department and City of Nanyang to the building where Nanyang Municipal Union Hotel is located. Over 20 government officials who claimed they were from Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China, Henan Provincial Department of Civil Affairs, Department of Public Security Bureau and State Administration for Religious Affairs forcibly announced to him the decision statement to abolish the Chinese House Church Alliance coded Min Qu Zi (2008) No. 1 and signed on November 28 by Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China (please see the scanned document).

Photo: Decision statement of abolishment the Chinese House Church Alliance announced on November 28 by the Ministry of Civil Affairs.

The decision statement claims: It has been found out through investigations that the "Chinese House Church Alliance" is not registered and it engages in its activities in the name of a social organization without authorization. Pursuant to Article 35 of the "Regulation on Registration and Administration of Social Organizations," this agency has hereby made the decision to abolish the "Chinese House Church Alliance." ---Public Seal of Ministry of Civil Affairs. November 28, 2008. After that, the government officials wanted Pastor Zhang to sign the document, but Zhang refused. Zhang's cell phone, camera and camcorder were taken by force and were confiscated. During the interrogation, Zhang's wife was also taken by force from her home to that hotel. It was until 5 o'clock in the afternoon that Pastor Zhang's wife was released. The whole process was videotaped by people specially assigned for the task.

In the meantime, at 10 a.m., the 17 Christians who were holding a prayer meeting in the residence of Pastor Zhang, Peter Ford, reporter of Beijing Bureau of the Christian Science Monitor of the US (phone number: +86-10-6532-3127) and his Chinese translator, were all taken away and detained by the officers from the Bureau of State Security. Peter Ford and his translator were escorted to the plane in the afternoon flying from Nanyang to Beijing.

The 17 Christians who were holding a prayer meeting in the residence of Pastor Zhang were taken to the local police station and were illegally detained and intimidated. They were released at 1 p.m. Each of them was forcibly photographed and they were made to sign documents. Over 600 Bibles, computers, VCD players, Shengshan magazines and many cell phones were confiscated. CAA believes that announcing a decision of abolishment of the Chinese House Church Alliance in the name of the Ministry of Civil Affairs is a new tactic of the Chinese government in suppressing and encroaching upon the freedom of religion. What is thought provoking is that according to its own study, the Ministry of Civil Affairs believes the number of unregistered non-governmental organizations is 10 times that of the registered organizations. When the Ministry of Civil Affairs abolished the house church with the decision statement coded Min Qu Zi (2008) No. 1, it is obvious that it has got pressures from higher authorities.

According to the statistics by the Ministry of Civil Affairs itself, among the volunteers and organizations who went to disaster areas in Sichuan for relief efforts, 63% of them were Christians who spontaneously organized themselves, including the relief personnel organized by the Chinese House Church Alliance. Dr. Fan Yafeng, a prominent constitutional law scholar from China Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, believes that the Chinese House Church Alliance is legal and constitutional on two aspects and should not be regarded as an illegal organization. First of all, it is in conformity with the law of the Bible and God and the natural law in people's hearts; second, it is in conformity with Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution which states: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration."

The essence of the so-called "Regulation on Registration and Administration of Social Organizations" is actually to limit the basic rights of citizens with administrative regulations, which violates the principles in the constitutional jurisprudence that the basic rights of citizens can't be restricted unless the Constitution or the law dictates it. CAA calls on churches all over the world and people with conscience to make inquiries to the relevant agencies in China on the suppression of the Chinese House Church Alliance. The phone numbers and addresses of the agencies for your inquiries are:

The Ministry of Civil Affairs. Chen Chuanshu, Director of General Office. Yu Jianliang, Deputy Director of General Office. Tel: 010- 58123032

Address of the Ministry of Civil Affairs: 147, Beiheyan Blvd., Dongcheng District, Beijing. Postal code: 100721.Telephone exchange: (010) 58123114 State Administration for Religious Affairs. Guo Wei. Director of Foreign Affairs Department. Tel: 010-64095157 Ministry of Justice. Wang Lixian. Director of General Office. Tel: 010-65206706

Henan Province. Lu Wuwei. General Secretary of Provincial People's Government. To request permission to reproduce ChinaAid photos and/or information, please contact



International court to punish nations failing to prevent global warming


International court to punish nations failing to prevent global warming

Louise Gray
November 30, 2008

Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.

But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the “right to a healthy environment”.
The innovative idea is being presented to an audience of politicians, scientists and public figures for the first time at a symposium at the British Library.
Mr Hockman, a deputy High Court judge, said that the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.
The UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland this month is set to begin negotiations that will lead to a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next year. Developed countries are expected to commit to cutting emissions drastically, while developing countries agree to halt deforestation.
Read article

New Zealand Study on Mental Effects of Abortion

Meet the new boss ...

Chris Matthews To Run For Senate In PA?

More Police Brutality Exposed

The pictures of police brutality that will shock all of Britain. Three police officers beat up handcuffed Iraq war veteran.

These shameful and inexcusable scenes show a war hero who served his country in Iraq and Afghanistan fearing for his life amid a violent and unprovoked assault by police. Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall, highly praised by his commanding officer for bravery against the Taliban in Afghanistan, was set upon by three uniformed officers on his home town High Street.

The sickening attack, caught in forensic detail on CCTV, led a crown court judge to label it one of the worst examples of police aggression he had ever seen. Yet, in a travesty of justice, it was Mark who was at first convicted by magistrates of attacking the policemen.. despite the video footage clearly showing he was the victim.

Last night, Mark, 24, who had 14 head and face injuries, said: I was scared for my life. I was being battered and my head was being pushed into the ground. I remember thinking, Im going to die here. I cant believe Ive survived Afghanistan and Iraq and and now Im going to die on this main road in my home town at the hands of the police. Yet I was the one who ended up in the dock, not the officers.

Mark was convicted by magistrates of two counts of police assault and his ordeal only ended when Crown Court judge John Phipps watched the damning footage and quashed the verdict on appeal.

He said: I am shocked and appalled at the level of police violence shown here, adding that he had great concerns about the footage and effectively branding the policemen liars by saying: I would go as far as to say the statements (by the officers) contain untruths.

The 9-minute video shows PC Peter Lightfoot punching Mark eight times. Mark had been out for drinks with friends in Wigan, Lancs, and left the towns Walkabout bar at 2.40am on Sunday July 27. Police had been called to deal with a man said to be causing a nuisance to paramedics. Special constable Lightfoot, 39 a volunteer officer whose main job is as a van driver and his two colleagues wrongly believed Mark was their man. He explained he had done nothing wrong, but they chased him and threw him to the floor.

The footage opens with an unsteady Mark drunkenly standing in the street and calling out to the officers.

As can be clearly seen, he stands 10ft from them in the middle of the road as they stand on the pavement. Suddenly, the three officers move as one and start running across the road towards Mark. The vicious assault begins. Eventually, Mark was bundled into a police van in handcuffs, taken to Wigan police station and kept in custody for 20 hours.

He was charged with two counts of police assault and a public order offence swearing at the officers. On September 22, at Wigan magistrates court, the three officers read statements to the court that Mark had been behaving violently and issued challenges.

Three JPs found Mark guilty of the two assaults despite viewing the footage. In a final insult, he was ordered to pay PC Lightfoot £100 in compensation and one of the other officers £150.
He was also ordered to serve 200 hours community service and given a three-month suspended prison sentence. Mark, who returned from Afghanistan in February and was working his notice in the Army at the time of attack, said: I went in to the Army thinking this country was worth fighting for.

I put my life on the line every day in Afghanistan, so to come back and be treated like this for no reason was just so depressing. My plan was to join the fire service when I came out of the Army but I was rejected because of my conviction. It meant I was unemployable for anything I wanted to do.
Determined to clear his name, Mark lodged an appeal. And at Liverpool crown court on November 13, Judge Phipps saw the footage and asked incredulously: Where is this man of violence?

International court to punish nations failing to prevent global warming

DNA breaks in cells exposed to GSM radiation

Double Cross

Neocons Heart Obama


Neocons Heart Obama

Kurt Nimmo
November 29, 2008

Max Boot just adores Barack Obama’s proposed national security team, especially the retention of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense and General Jim Jones over at the NSC. “I have to admit that I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain,” Boot fawns.
Max Boot loves Obama and his CFR handpicked crew because they will pick up where the neocons and Republicans left off.

Max Boot makes well the argument that there is no difference between McCain and Obama, never mind millions of changelings who believe Obama stands for love, peace, and a new road not traveled by the Bushcons. Some of them actually believe Obama will bring the troops home, the poor deluded souls.
So, who is this Max Boot guy and why are his pronouncements on Obama and his nominations significant? Not only is Boot connected to the Project for the New American Century and its warmongering sister group, the American Enterprise Institute, he is also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Max Boot is the poster child for the neocon slash neolib crossover, thus demonstrating there is little difference between these two camps, same as there is little difference between McCain and Obama, never mind the convoluted efforts of the corporate media to convince us otherwise during the election.
Not only does Boot want to mass murder Iranians, he also wants to kill a whole lot of Saudis. After bunker-busting the place back to the Stone Age, the U.S. should grab “the Saudi’s oil fields and administer them as a trust for the people of the region,” declares Mr. Boot. Sort of like they are currently administering Iraq’s oil fields, never mind the million plus Iraqis who have died in the process.

It should be noteworthy that a guy of Boot’s psychotic caliber is all ga-ga over Barky. It means Obama, according to Boot, will continue the neocon agenda, which is of course the CFR and neolib agenda with a few minor differences. Can’t tell ‘em apart without a scorecard, a fact Boot admits.
Obama’s tentative appointments put “an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign. His appointments suggest that, if anything, his administration will have a Reapolitiker, rather than a liberal, bent, although Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for ‘neo-liberalism’ which is not so different in many respects from ‘neo-conservativism’. Both, for instance, support humanitarian interventions in places like Darfur and Bosnia.” (Emphasis mine.)
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Naturally, most Obama changelings will support hands down these “humanitarian interventions,” which are nothing more than criminal efforts to destroy Muslims and other “vassals” (as the neolib Brzezinski infamously called them) and render their cultures and societies impotent and unable to resist IMF and World Bank loan sharking operations and other bankster crimes against humanity.

Boot calls Susan Rice the “only outright leftist in the bunch,” which is hilarious. Rice is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and is like Boot a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She worked at the National Security Council under Clinton. The Brookings Institution is a Rockefeller outfit and receives money from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Boeing, AT&T, Exxon Mobil, the Bank of America Foundation, General Dynamics, and other such leftists.
Max Boot loves Obama and his CFR handpicked crew because they will pick up where the neocons and Republicans left off. It will be a near seamless transition and an uninterrupted continuation of mass murder. Iran may be the next target, but more than likely the next target will be Pakistan, as the latest false flag operation in India has prepared the groundwork for Obama’s promised invasion or at minimum a saturation bombing campaign of Pakistan’s tribal region where the ghost of the former CIA asset Osama bin Laden lives.
“Only churlish partisans of both the left and the right can be unhappy with the emerging tenor of our nation’s new leadership,” Boot writes for Commentary Magazine, the rag once edited by the neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz.

Partisans of the false left-right paradigm have nothing to do with it. Max Boot is simply attempting to deflect criticism of the incoming Obama clan. He really does not need to do this because in the months ahead all criticism of Obama will be strenuously denounced as racism, same as the neocons denounced any criticism of their murderous policies as antisemitism and antiamericanism (apparently the two are intimately connected). Obama may even have his own Civilian National Security Corps to deal with the churls.
Either way, Max Boot and the neocons couldn’t be happier with Obama than a pig wallowing in a certain malodorous substance… or maybe that should be the dead bodies of millions of Iraqis and Afghans.

The Study of the word Heretic

3 more First Amendment victories and more cases along with a pro-life victory in Texas for the unborn being defined as a person!!!

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Research on other Religions

U.S. To Send FBI To Investigate Mambai Attacks


U.S. To Send FBI To Investigate Mambai Attacks

WASHINGTON – The government ordered FBI agents Friday to fly to India to investigate the bloody Mumbai attacks that killed at least five Americans. U.S. citizens still in the city were warned their lives remain at risk.

Intelligence officials looked urgently for clues about the identity of the attackers, a crucial unknown as Indian officials charged, without giving details, that "elements in Pakistan" were involved. A tentative rapprochement between the two nuclear-armed rivals could hang in the balance, and a U.S. counterintelligence official cautioned against rushing to judgment on the origins of the militants.

President George W. Bush pledged cooperation with Indian authorities and mourned the deaths of more than 150 people at the hands of gunmen who attacked targets across India's financial capital starting Wednesday night.

"My administration has been working with the Indian government and the international community as Indian authorities work to ensure the safety of those still under threat," Bush said in a statement from the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland. "We will continue to cooperate against these extremists who offer nothing but violence and hopelessness."

Bush was receiving regular updates, White House press secretary Dana Perino said Friday night. Senior administration officials were focused on ensuring that Americans were being helped in every way possible, she said.

"The administration also has continued to work with the Indian government at all levels and has offered assistance and support," Perino said.

A U.S. counterterrorism official said it was premature to reach conclusions on who may be responsible for the attacks. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation, said some "signatures of the attack" were consistent with the work of militants who have fought against India in the disputed Kashmir region.

Officials were working out the final details with Indian diplomats Friday for the departure of an FBI team, said U.S. authorities, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the operation. A second group of investigators was on alert to join the first team if necessary.

"Americans are still at risk on the ground" in Mumbai on Friday, the State Department said, warning citizens not to travel to the stricken city at least through the weekend.

U.S. officials were checking with Indian authorities and hospitals to learn more about the extent of casualties.

Among the dead were:

_Rabbi Gavriel Noach Holtzberg, 29, and his wife, Rivkah, 28. They were killed in an attack on the ultra-Orthodox Chabad-Lubavitch movement's center in Mumbai, Rabbi Zalman Shmotkin said in New York. Officials could not confirm whether Rivkah Holtzberg was, like her husband, an American citizen.

_Bentzion Chroman, an Israeli with dual U.S. citizenship who was visiting the center.

_Rabbi Leibish Teitlebaum of Brooklyn, N.Y., who was visiting the center.

_Alan Scherr, 58, and daughter Naomi, 13, of Virginia, who died in a cafe Wednesday night. They lived at the Synchronicity Foundation sanctuary about 15 miles southwest of Charlottesville, Va., and were among 25 foundation participants in a spiritual program in Mumbai, said Bobbie Garvey, a spokeswoman for the foundation, which promotes a form of meditation.

The State Department confirmed that five Americans had died but offered no details. Spokesman Gordon Duguid said consular staff would continue to work with Indian police until all missing Americans were accounted for.

U.S. officials have activated a phone tree to contact American citizens who registered with the U.S. consulate in Mumbai, State Department spokesman Robert McInturff said.

Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, said in a statement that his country is "confronting the menace of terrorism with great vigor." Haqqani insisted "it is unfair to blame Pakistan or Pakistanis for these acts of terrorism even before an investigation is undertaken."

A U.S. counterterrorism official cautioned that it was premature "to reach any hard-and-fast conclusions on who may be responsible for the attacks." But the official, who spoke on intelligence matters on condition of anonymity, added that "some of what we're seeing is reminiscent of past terrorist operations undertaken by groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed."

The two groups mentioned by the official are Pakistani militants who have fought Indian troops in Kashmir and are reported to be linked to al-Qaida.

India and Pakistan have fought two of their three wars over Kashmir. U.S. officials are concerned about a flare-up in animosity similar to one that occurred after Pakistani militants attacked the Indian parliament in December 2001, officials said.

Underscoring those fears, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called the foreign minister of India twice, along with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, since the crisis began.

"There were very worrying tensions in the region," Duguid said. "She was calling the president of Pakistan to get his read on how those tensions might be affected."

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said that "as we continue to learn the details about the attacks and those responsible for them, we must not allow them to undermine the progress that has been made to foster better relations between India and its neighbor Pakistan, two critical partners in our global fight against terrorism."

President-elect Barack Obama has spoken by telephone with Rice about the attacks and received several intelligence briefings, State Department officials said. They said Rice spoke again Friday with Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee.

"These terrorists who targeted innocent civilians will not defeat India's great democracy, nor shake the will of a global coalition to defeat them," Obama said in a statement. "The United States must stand with India and all nations and people who are committed to destroying terrorist networks, and defeating their hate-filled ideology."

The State Department set up a call center for Americans concerned about family members who may be in Mumbai. The number is 1-888-407-4747.

Peter Goodgame's Research

Judge scolds San Diego County for closing church

Security Blanket: Western Democracy and the Strategy of Tension


Security Blanket: Western Democracy and the Strategy of Tension

Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque
Thursday, Nov 27, 2008

The idea that a democratic government would deliberately create fake “extremist groups” then send them out to foment violence and terrorism — in order to discredit legitimate opposition to elite rule and to “justify” authoritarian powers — has long been derided in “serious” circles as that worst of modern heresies: “conspiracy theory.” Anyone advancing such a preposterous notion is instantly relegated to the ranks of the “lunatic fringe,” and dismissed with varying degrees of contempt and condescension.

And the woeful fact that millions of the ruminants out there in the vast public herd swallow these wild tales and believe that their betters are up to no good is also widely deplored in the higher circles of public discourse. As any fully-accredited, perk-laden, sinecured think-tanker can tell you, democratic governments are led by men and women devoted to public service. Sure, there can be fierce disputes over policies and approaches and outcomes and ideologies and competence. Sure, some people may step over a line here and there in their pursuit of what they believe is the nation’s best interests. But just as western democracies do not torture, do not launch aggressive wars, do not spy upon their own people or imprison them by the millions, they most assuredly do not create and support extremist groups and instigate acts of terror and chaos to advance authoritarian agendas.

It is indeed unfortunate that the general public is prey to these disturbing theories, which breed such a widespread distrust of the noble intentions and essential (if occasionally misguided or incompentently executed) goodness of our leading men and women. However, there is a very reasonable explanation for the credence given to these fringe beliefs:

They happen to be true.


We’ve written often here of the Pentagon’s plan to foment terrorism where needed to achieve the goals of the “National Security State.” This is but one of a staggering array of examples of the use of “the strategy of tension” by the “advanced” Western democracies of the modern world. This week came yet another. As Robert Mancini reports in the Guardian, the former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, let a great many cats out of the bag when he gave some sage advice to Italy’s current interior minister, Robert Maroni, on how to deal with the ongoing protests by students and professors over funding cuts for higher education. As Mancini notes, Cossiga — who had once been interior minister himself, as well as prime minister — told the Quotidiano Nazionale:
“Maroni should do what I did when I was secretary of the interior. He should withdraw the police from the streets and the universities, infiltrate the movement with secret (provacateurs) agents, ready to do anything, and, for about 10 days, let the demonstrators devastate shops, set fire to cars and lay waste the cities. After which, strengthened by popular consent, the sound of ambulance sirens should be louder than the police cars. The security forces should massacre the demonstrators without pity, and send them all to hospital. They shouldn’t arrest them, because the magistrates would release them immediately, but they should beat them up. And they should also beat up those teachers who stir them up. Especially the teachers. Not the elderly lecturers, of course, but the young women teachers.”
Mancini notes that Cossiga’s advice tracks closely with his own experience at the head of Italy’s security organs in the 1970s:
For students of Italian political history, the interview is fascinating for the light it sheds on Cossiga’s political views and in particular his activities between 1976 and 1978 when he too was interior minister, presiding over the police. In 1977, a demonstration by the Radical Party (partito radicale) was attacked by armed individuals who opened fire causing the death Giorgiana Masi, a 20 year-old girl.

Cossiga could not, or would not, explain what took place that day. More specifically, he was unable to shed light on whether the attackers came from within the police force….

Hence the interest in the recent interview, which sheds light on one of the most secretive periods of Italian history - the so-called “strategy of tension” that began with the 1969 bombing of Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura in Milan (carried out by the far-right and blamed on anarchists) through to the events at the G8 summit in Genoa in July 2001 where the mysterious right-wing “black-blok” group created the mayhem and destruction which brought forth the police violence against thousands of anti-globalisation protestors.
Yes, the story of terrorist creation, chaos and murder by Western governments is an old one — especially in Italy, the epicenter of Operation Gladio, which I outlined in a Moscow Times column some years ago:

“You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force…the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

This was the essence of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West – against their own populations.
Hundreds of innocent people were killed or maimed in terrorist attacks – on train stations, supermarkets, cafes, offices – which were then blamed on “leftist subversives” or other political opponents. The purpose, as stated above in sworn testimony by Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra, was to demonize designated enemies and panic the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for government leaders – and their elitist cronies.

First revealed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in 1991, Gladio (from the Latin for “sword”) is still protected to this day by its founding patrons, the CIA and MI6. Yet parliamentary investigations in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have shaken out a few fragments of the truth over the years. These have been gathered in a new book, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, by Daniele Ganser, as Lila Rajiva reports on

Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated behind the lines in case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and manipulation, controlled and funded by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism, assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states like Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece, and aided Turkey’s ferocious repression of the Kurds. All of this in the name of “preserving democracy” and “defending civilization.”

Among the “smoking guns” unearthed by Ganser is a Pentagon document, Field Manual FM 30-31B, which detailed the methodology for launching terrorist attacks in nations that “do not react with sufficient effectiveness” against “communist subversion.” Ironically, the manual states that the most dangerous moment comes when leftist groups “renounce the use of force” and embrace the democratic process. It is then that “US army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger.” Naturally, these peace-throttling “special operations must remain strictly secret,” the document warns.

Indeed, it would not do for, say, the families of the 85 people ripped apart by the August 2, 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station to know that their loved ones had been murdered by “men inside Italian state institutions and…by men linked to the structures of United States intelligence,” as the Italian Senate concluded after its investigation in 2000.

The Bologna atrocity is an example of what Gladio’s masters called “the strategy of tension” – fomenting fear to keep populations in thrall to “strong leaders” who will protect the nation from the ever-present terrorist threat. And as Rajiva notes, this strategy wasn’t limited to Western Europe. It was applied – with gruesome effectiveness – in Central America by the Reagan-Bush administrations. During the 1980s, rightwing death squads, guerrilla armies and state security forces – armed, trained and supplied by the United States – murdered tens of thousands of people throughout the region, often acting with particular savagery at those times when peaceful solutions to the conflicts seemed about to take hold….

And as we have often noted here, similar operations — the “El Salvador option,” death squads, “High-Value Targeting,” etc. — have been an integral part of the Anglo-American subjegation of Iraq. Indeed, they are a pillar of the “counterinsurgency doctrine” proclaimed by the other president-in-waiting, David Petraeus, and now avidly embraced by the War Machine. As Tara McElvey reports in The American Prospect, the Pentagon is eager to apply “High-Value Targeting” and refinements of the “Phoenix Program” — in which U.S. forces and local proxies murdered more than 20,000 people — and the whole panoply of “psy-ops” to imperial imbroglios around the world, applying them “to Afghanistan, then Pakistan, the Philippines, Colombia, Somalia, and elsewhere.”

It’s true, of course, that the American people — and Europeans, as well — are showing signs of growing weariness and wariness of the heavy-handed security regimes their governments have imposed upon them. There also seems to be little enthusiasm for plowing ahead in the various killing fields opened up by their elites to reap the enormously profitable blood fruits of war. Public toleration for this extravagant adventurism will be even more diminished as the cratering of the global economy — caused by the greed and deceit of those same elites — continues to deepen.

But more war is exactly what we’ve been promised by our agents of change. More war, an even bigger War Machine, “tougher” security measures, national ID cards packed with personal data and tracking devices, more surveillance cameras, new “preventive detention” laws — and more unbounded authority to use public money to bail out the elite. Yet how to make this happen in the current atmosphere of exhaustion and anxiety? How to catalyze the public into continuing to support the Security State? How to discredit the rising chorus of opposition to neocolonialism, elite cronyism, rampant militarism and growing authoritarianism?

Elite elders like Francesco Cossiga know the answer: the strategy of tension. The Gladio way. Was this the kind of thing Joe Biden was talking about, when he said the “young president” would be tested by a crisis, and forced to take unpopular measures in response?

It seems our “interesting times” are going to continue unabated in this bold new era.


F.O.C.A. - The Tyrant's Will

The Marketing Of Abortion


The Marketing Of Abortion
By Stand For Life on November 29, 2008 7:56 AM 1 Comment
Marketing plays a tremendous role in our society concerning most issues and events. For example, Barack Obama's campaign, along with the mainstream media's cooperation, basically got him elected because of a slick style-over-substance marketing plan. His daily pounding of the ideas of hope and change, without being questioned about specifics or an examination of his past, created a nice little marketing package. We also have had many other marketing campaigns that have been quite effective, such as anti-smoking, anti-fatty foods and global warming.

The pro-abortion view has also been based mainly on the marketing of "choice." America's society was founded on freedom of choice. For example, one chooses which school to attend, what career path to take, where to live, who to marry, etc. It's a natural extension to make choice in abortion an acceptable idea. In fact, it's a brilliant marketing ploy. Consequently, when someone questions them and states that they are really pro-abortion, their comeback is that they aren't pro-abortion, but abortion should be a choice to be considered. Obviously, if they believe abortion is an option, then they are pro-abortion. Planned Parenthood masks their main function of abortion by often saying they are for women's health issues or birth control.

The pro-abortion crowd also uses another common term that is difficult to question. The use of "right" is another word and idea that is ingrained in our society. Of course, our founders said that we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Obviously, the right to life has been conveniently excluded when the pro-abortion group discusses abortion. The woman's right to choose and right to control her own body are examples of their marketing strategy. Also, if you are against a woman's right to choose, then you might be labeled anti-woman. By creating this marketing approach, they have made it very difficult to oppose their view without being labeled negatively.

The pro-life movement needs a strong marketing campaign of its own to counteract this. The terms "pro-life" and "sanctity of life" often are seen by the masses as terms to defend the position, just as the pro-abortion people use terms to justify their view. Thus, many view that there are just two opposite views without one being the absolute correct one.

We often have been sugar coating the truth of abortion, by avoiding showing or telling the truth of what happens during an abortion. The pro-life marketing approach should be one of distributing or showing as many videos as possible, such as the short video Harder Truth or others that show abortions. Currently, technology has advanced so far that it is fairly easy to disperse photos and videos that could greatly help promote the message. Hopefully, at some point there could be a documentary on a major television network really showing the truth about abortion. The pro-abortion movement would undoubtedly retort with the same old marketing campaign in rebuttal to this. But the images of abortions will assuredly never leave the collective memories of all who see them. We will move ahead in the marketing battle and one step closer to eliminating abortion.


Ceecee November 29, 2008 11:22 PM Reply
The biggest marketing ploy we can use is to tear down the pro-abort's marketing campaign. Show the "pro-choice" appeal for the lie that it is. Every time the pro-aborts try to stop legislation to prevent coerced or forced abortion, jump up and scream how they are campaigning against a woman's right to choose--to give birth.

When women are murdered for refusing to have an abortion, and the silence from the local pro-aborts is deafeningly loud, point this out equally loudly. Ask the abortion industry and the local feminists why they are not defending the right to choice for the woman who wants to give birth. Why are they not expressing outrage over her murder? After all, she was just exercising her right to choose. Don't they want people to make such choices in safety? Then compare their responses to such killings to the way they respond when a woman is inconvenienced with a 24 hour waiting period. Why are pro-abortion feminists silent about women killed by their baby's father for refusing abortion, but march in the streets in outrage over the inconvenience of the waiting period? Put that on the evening news, if you dare.

When the so-called defenders of women's rights claim that women must be allowed to control their own bodies, but these same people don't want any extra punishment for assaults on pregnant women that hurt or kill wanted fetuses, you have to wonder how concerned they are about letting women control their bodies. Do they really want to let women control their own bodies? Sure they do, yeah right. As long as she doesn't control it all the way to live childbirth.
Did you know that once a woman enters an abortion clinic to have an abortion, she has no right to change her mind about it? If she tries, there are many clinics that will have none of it. If she tries to leave before the abortion is done, some clinics will gather the clinic staff around to hold her down so that the abortion can continue. There have even been cases of clinic staff chasing a girl or woman out of the clinic and after catching her, dragging her back into the clinic, and holding her down, or injecting a drug into her, to stop her resistance so that the abortion can be done. Where is the right to choose for these women? And where is the feminist outrage about the violation of her right to choose.
In order for a woman to really have the right to choose, her right not to abort must be at least as strongly protected as her right to abort. Thus she must be protected against pressure to abort when she doesn't want to. She must be protected from being penalized for not aborting. Jobs, housing, and other services must never be dependent on her willingness to abort. Violence against pregnant women must be punished with the strictest severity, especially if the violence is to prevent the birth of the baby, or to punish the mother for refusing to abort.
Women who enter abortion clinics must not be forced to leave their right to choose at the clinic door. This means they have the right to change their minds, and walk out of the clinic still pregnant. The staff must not have the right to do anything about it. Any clinic staff who stops her from leaving should be charged with false imprisonment. If they chase her out the door and drag her back, that is kidnapping.
Injecting her with drugs or having a group of workers hold her down could be an assault charge. So could forcing her legs apart and sticking something up her vagina against her will. Wooaah, what did I just say? That sentence sounds suspiciously like rape, even though such forcing would be necessary to complete the abortion. Am I giving you ideas on how we could use the mantra of choice against the pro-aborts?

Anyway, you get the idea of how we could use some of the abortion industries more extreme practices to disprove their claim that they are for choice, or that they care about the rights of women.
Just an aside, in all other medical procedures, patients have the right to refuse. My doctors don't even have the right to weigh me if I don't want them to. So why should abortionists get special rights to force someone who has changed their minds?

Anti-Gun program

Poverty is spreading into the suburbs

A Controversial Issue

India ends Mumbai rampage after 60 hours, 195 dead

Saakashvili: we started the war


Saakashvili: we started the war

Russia Today
Nov 29, 2008

For the first time ever, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has admitted that his country started the military conflict in South Ossetia in August. But the Georgian leader is adamant the action was justified. He was testifying before a parliamentary commission investigating the five-day war.
According to Saakashvili, the attack on the South Ossetian capital, which involved night shelling of residential areas with multiple rocket launcher systems, was aimed at protecting Georgian citizens. He said it was a response to Russia’s “intervention” in the region.
“We did start military action to take control of Tskhinvali and other unruly areas. But we took this difficult decision to fend off our territory from intervention and save the people who were dying. It was inevitable,” Saakavili said.

The Georgian President claims Russia moved tanks into South Ossetian territory before Georgia launched its attack.
He said: “The issue is not about why Georgia started military action – we admit we started it. The issue is about whether there was another chance when our citizens were being killed? We tried to prevent the intervention and fought on our own territory.”
“I used to like Putin”
Mikhail Saakashvili said the deterioration of relations between Tbilisi and Moscow had nothing to do with his personal relations with Vladimir Putin. There was some speculation in the media that Putin bore a personal grudge against Saakashvili after he allegedly insulted Putin when he was president several years earlier.
The Georgian President said: “I never insulted him [Vladimir Putin] before anyone, that’s a lie.”
“All the gossip that the differences between our countries are based on personal hostility is an invented thing,” he said.
Ex-ambassador’s allegations ‘groundless’

Mikhail Saakashvili dismissed as nonsense the allegations voiced earlier this week by the former Georgian ambassador to Moscow, Erossi Kitsmarishvili. The diplomat said Tbilisi had been preparing the military campaign against South Ossetia for several years and put the blame for the bloodshed on Mikhail Saakashvili.

“Kitsmarishvili’s allegations are groundless; his status was not high enough to attend the Security Council meetings where the country’s foreign policy was decided. He could not know our plans, and those certainly have nothing to do with his version,” the Georgian leader said on Friday.
Opposition: EU should treat Saakashvili like Zimbabwe’s Mugabe
The opposition Labour Party in Georgia has called on the EU to freeze the bank accounts of Mikhail Saakashvili and several other top officials. According to party secretary, Georgi Gugava, such a move would stop them from fleeing the country.
“The Saakashvili administration have packed their suitcases and hope to flee and live a quiet and prosperous life abroad on what they’ve stolen and looted,” he said.
The proposed sanctions would be similar to those imposed against more then 100 Zimbabwe officials, who had their bank accounts frozen by the EU in June.

Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate widens

Italian Judge: Blogs are Illegal

South Korea Supreme Court OKs Feeding Tube Removal, Euthanasia Worries


South Korea Supreme Court OKs Feeding Tube Removal, Euthanasia Worries

by Steven Ertelt Editor
November 28, 2008
addthis_pub = 'sertelt';

Email RSS Printer
Seoul, South Korea ( -- The Supreme Court of South Korea has issued a ruling allowing the family members of a terminally ill woman to remove her feeding tube and take her off life support. The decision is opening up the Asian nation to concerns that the ruling could lead to assisted suicide or euthanasia.

The case apparently involved a family that did not have a dispute like the one that embroiled Terri Schiavo's family and her ex-husband.
The debate in the Asian nation is not so much over the case itself but the effects of it.
That's because lawmakers in the National Assembly have filed legislation that could take the decision further down the slippery slope.
Park Jung-woo, spokesman for the Life and Ethics Committee at the Archdiocese of Seoul, told the Korea Times newspaper that a patient choosing to withdraw his own treatment is one thing but removing treatment from someone else is different.

Choo Soo-ho, president of the Korean Medical Association, also spoke with the newspaper and said he doesn't want to see the courts or legislature allow euthanasia.
"Doctors have always felt we need to draw the line between euthanasia and death with dignity," he said.
"We do not seek to give up the treatment of difficult patients, leading to euthanasia. We are referring to those without any hope and just pain and dread left,'' he added.

Buzz up!

A Fetus is found at Detroit wastewater plant

Social Engineering by Henry Lamb

Scientists Clone Endangered Amami Rabbit

Thomas Heneghan

Gold prices rise, oil almost unchanged

Eugenics: Now Women Can Get Sterilized In 90 Seconds
Note by Me: I don't agree with Ron Paul on every issue.

By Timothy


Ron Paul Warns Of Secret Plans To Create International Central Bank
Steve Watson
Friday, Nov 28, 2008

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has warned that international forces are planning the creation of a global central bank that will see a new fiat monetary system come to dominate the world economy.
The 2008 presidential candidate also warned that Barack Obama’s administration will only represent a change in faces and not in policies.

Speaking about the recent G20 meeting Paul told Russia Today:
“I think something will come of it but you probably didn’t hear about it yet. There was some pomp and ceremony that the public knew about, but behind the scenes they were talking about the future and what they are going to do to try to internationalize all regulations, going in the opposite direction of free market and more towards international regulations. I’m sure they even talked about an international central bank.”
Paul also pointed out that global bankers have been holding their own talks on the same matter:
“At the same time the G20 was meeting, we also had the central banks meeting in Europe. Bernanke was over there, and they are doing the same type of planning, so real planning will not be out in the open, until they want us to know about it.” the Congressman said.
“The system that we have today where the fiat dollar is a reserve currency of the world, it’s losing that status and they have to replace it. Hopefully they’ll have enough sense to realise that another international agreement along the Bretton Woods will be no more successful than the last one.” Paul continued.

The Congressman argued that more regulations administered by central banks, rather than placed on to central banks, represents a dangerous move away from the free market.
“We could restructure by getting rid of all the central banks, then you would have honest money come up because nobody could commit fraud. Governments get away with committing fraud - that’s what fiat money is.” Paul commented.

The Congressman warned that an Obama presidency offers no alternative to the economic policies that have led the U.S. and the world to the brink of economic meltdown. Paul Described the kind of change Obama offers as:

“Just change in faces and change in party labels. Both parties represent the same special interests, they both have to represent big business. Obama’s supposed to be a man of the people, well he collected $750 million, more money than anybody else ever collected. Wall Street supported him, the media supported him, all the big money supported him, so his change is not going to be much change at all. He’s not talking about changing monetary policy, the Federal Reserve or getting rid of the income tax or bringing our troops home.”
Paul also commented that he does not believe Obama will withdraw troops from Iraq and pointed out that he has never said he will close down the military bases throughout the country and eliminate the huge embassy in Baghdad.

“Policy will remain interventionist,” the Congressman warned. “We will remain in the middle east and we will not be coming home, we’ll stay in Korea, we’ll stay in Europe, we’ll be in eastern Europe, we’ll be doing all these things. Even though Obama benefited tremendously from ‘change’, all we are changing is the face of our government.”
Paul also warned that the stage has been set for fresh terrorist attacks in the U.S. as a consequence of a sustained interventionist foreign policy.
Watch the entire interview here.

Friday, November 28, 2008

The Jesuits and the Kennedys

Don't Rush to Limbaugh (who is a fake conservative)

Newt Gingrich

Death Clouds Over a Lost Nation! by David J. Meyer

Obama appoints Trilateral Commission former North American Chairman Paul Volcker,


British Commission Hypes Bioterrorism Threat


British Commission Hypes Bioterrorism Threat

Kurt Nimmo
November 28, 2008

Making sure not to lose the propaganda momentum created by the terror attacks in Mumbai, a commission in the United Kingdom warns over two dozen nations may soon fall victim to a “bio-terrorism incident.” The Institute of Public Policy Research says a threat within the next 18 months from pandemic diseases such as SARS and Avian Flu “could tip the global economy from serious recession into a global depression,” according to the Telegraph.

If "weak states" located in a globalist defined "arc of instability" develop biological weapons, there is a good chance they will receive help from the major corporate players in the manufacture of biological and chemical warfare substances.

The IPPR commission is chaired by Lord Ashdown and Lord Robertson, the former Secretary General of NATO, and includes Lord Guthrie, the former Chief of the Defense Staff and Sir David Omand, the former security and intelligence coordinator in the Cabinet Office.
It is not simply al-Qaeda, the perennial bogeyman and propaganda tool, that will unleash this fantastic plague, but “lone individuals with relevant experience can now be more dangerous than before.” In addition, the existence of “weak states” located in an “arc of instability” stretching from the coast of west Africa, right across to the east coast of the continent and up through the Persian Gulf region and into central Asia, pose a threat. Other “pressure points” include Haiti, Burma, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe, in other words third world nations that need to be integrated into the globalist scheme for one world government.
The commission calls for NATO and the European Union to help the fledgling African Union, an integral part of the globalist integration scheme supported by the United Nations, the EU, and the United States. The African Union, according to the IPPR, is “likely to be tested the most in the next five to ten years.”
“Acts of bio-terrorism carried out not only by organized groups but by individuals with expertise and access to a laboratory, are a serious 21st century threat,” warns Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society and a member of the commission.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t

In fact, active players in bio-terrorism are not located in Africa or Sri Lanka, but the United States, Europe, and the former Soviet Union. After president Roosevelt ordered the establishment of the U.S. Biological Warfare program in 1941, the military and the CIA conducted numerous “tests” on the American people, including the release of dengue fever carrying mosquitoes in Georgia and Florida, biological warfare tests on the civilian population in Puerto Rico, the release of bacillus globigii from a submarine on the port of Oahu, Hawaii, and dozens of other incidents, most of them classified.
So important is the U.S. bioweapons program, on July 25, 2001, it blocked any consensus on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. As it was reported at the time, U.S. opposition to the convention was based on fears that inspections of U.S. facilities might harm the profits of U.S. biotech companies and impede the United States’ current “biodefense” program.
If “weak states” located in a globalist defined “arc of instability” develop biological weapons, there is a good chance they will receive help from the major corporate players in the manufacture of biological and chemical warfare substances.

It should be noted that the U.S. Department of Commerce licensed 70 biological exports to Iraq between 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. Corporations involved included Phillips Petroleum, Unilever, Alcolac, Allied Signal, the American Type Culture Collection, and Teledyne. (See my 2002 article, Bush Senior: Hating Saddam, Selling Him Weapons for more detail.)

The British IPPR commission is simply providing a pretext for intervention in Africa and elsewhere by the globalists, using the scary specter of biological terrorism to make such intervention palatable to the public. In 2002 and early 2003, the American neocons launched a similar campaign to demonize Saddam Hussein. It resulted in the invasion of that country, enfeebled by more than a decade of medieval sanctions, and ultimately resulted in the murder of more than two million Iraqis.

Terrorism and the Culture of Life

The news media from the world over is discussing about the Mumbai bombings in India. It was a crazy and tragic occurence. As usual, the CFR-influenced corporate mainstream media is having paranoia about Al Qaeda. Therefore, they want to assign any specific type of blame of these attacks on Al Qaeda. This is inspite of the fact that there is no conclusive or definitive evidence that al-Qaeda created these multiple attacks in India at all. Some dispulate that these attacks are trying to be exploited by the elite in order to further this contrived war on terror in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden as a lot of people realize are CIA aided boogeymen utilized in order to formet the war on terror. The war on terror is admittedly formented to promote the establishment of the new world order. Even Gordon Brown from the UK have called for the new world order as a result of our present economic crisis. Deccan Mujahideen had admitted responsibility to these evil acts. This isn't enough for some reporters of the BBC like Frank Gardner who wants an al-Qaeda tie off the bat. Witnesses show that the murderers were targeting people with AK-47s indiscriminately inside of the crowds (and even that some of the men shooting were fair skinned). That's why over 100 victims were murdered with only 6 foreigners being killed. Even Christine Fair from the RAND Corproation doubts that Al-Qaeda did it since Al-Qaeda doesn't usually use grenades, have hostage taking, etc. The timing of this event is around the exact time when Pakistan is being targeted for more Western attacks. Barack Obama have expressed the need for this even though this is immoral. The truth is that there is no conclusive evidence that Pakistan was involved in these attacks (although the Pakistani ISI has been readily funded by Western intelligence to spread terrorism from Afghanistan to Bosnia in the late 1990's). Some in the media want to blame the Islamic extremist group called Lashkar-e- Tayyiba (or Army of the Pure) for the attacks when they have denied responsibility for the bombings. Some view the prepetrators as independent Indian Muslims who have been oppressed by Hindu extremists (or another group). Ironically, this group of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba always claim responsibility for their own activities (but not this time). There is another CIA scandal. Rep. Pete Hoekstra from Michigan (he is a Republican) is accusing the CIA of violating its own rules, killing innocent Americans, and covering up what really occured. These are really explosive charges. This comes after the CIA's own inspector general found that the CIA ignored rules and regulations when they shoot down an aircraft in the drug war of Latin America. The report is entitled, "Procedures Used in the Narcotics Airbridge Denial Program in Peru, 1995-2001." This plane had 10 other civilians that died (including 2 Americans by the names of Veronica Bowers and her daughter Charity. They were missionaries in Peru). The CIA told the Peruvian Air Force jet to shoot down the plane. They thought the plane carried illegal drugs, which they weren't. Hoekstra accused the CIA of performing badly in the US/Peruvian anti-drug program. Hoekstra expressed his greivances to the present CIA Director Mike Hayden via a letter. He cited the failures of the CIA in giving false or misleading statements to Congress, and potential obstruction of justice by CIA officials when the Department of Justice conducted a criminal investigation. A former senior CIA official disputed much of the charges advanced by Hoekstra. He believed that the Airbridge Denial Program was successful for years. That's ironic since the Drug War hasn't radical reduced the amount of illegal drugs coming into America at all. The CIA has been caught on plenty of occasions shipping cocaine and other drugs into America. Gary Webb and other researchers have recorded proof to back up that assertion. The CIA has performed election fraud, terrorism, drug running, assassinations, and other evils for decades. Hoekstra said that he won't give up this fight. He shouldn't. Frankily, the federal Drug War have been exploited by the government to infringe on individual liberty, jail citizens who aren't even violent, and won't radically address the causes of massive addiction in the first place. The CIA was invented by the Knights of Malta and the Skulls and Bones in a great degree. That's why many CIA Directors historically have been members of the Knights of Malta.

Miracles occur all of the time. One such miracle involves the case of Haleigh Poutre. She was nearly beaten to death by a sick, barbaric stepfather. She was hooked to a ventilator in a comastose state. The Massachusetts medical experts wanted her to die basically. Terri Schiavo was in a similar state, but Terri was unfortunately murdered by the Florida government, which was a violation of many Florida Statues (including other laws plus the Geneva Convention). The welfare bureaucracy outline her as in a hopeless vegetative state. These evil people wanted the state to pull the plug on her life. Later, she was nursed by to health by great and caring therapists. Her life reflect on the end of life issues that is still taboo among many media pundits of the establishment. The stepfather is standing trial now for child abuse. That's good news. Haleigh Poutre is now writing her name, brushing her own hair, and feeding herself. This is proof that miracles can occur, life is real, and the state isn't always right to condemn innocent people to death despite their circumstances. The culture of life is still strong in the world. There are those who don't wish to promote the value of the right to life. Barack Obama selects Melody Barnes as his new Director of the Domestic Policy Council. Not only is Barnes once was on the board of directors of Emily's List. She was on the board of directors of Planned Parnethood. PP got over 1 billion dollars in income from the last fiscal year. Planned Parenthood was founded by racist eugenicists (including the deciver Margaret Sanger) and its goal is to promote the eugenic murder of abortion. Melody tries to equate killing unborn human beings as apart of liberty, yet that's false. Killing the unborn is the epitome of being anti-liberty. Tom Daschle, Rahm Emanuel, Dawn Johnson (who worked for NARAL), and other pro-abortion radicals have been appointed into the Barack Obama team as well. The legitimate protections of the unborn, the right of consciences for doctors plus hospitals so they don't have to do abortions, and the right of not forcing taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research are under threat now. Some believe that abortion is justify since it's apart of choice or it represents privacy rights. Let it be know, that no where in the Constitution equates privacy or choice for that matter with the literal ripping apart of the unborn baby's body parts at all. Abortion is about murder and destruction plainly not choice. Abortion eliminates real choices babies have a right to acquire indeed. The culture of death is a real danger in our world indeed.

There are powerful Secret Societies like high level Freemasonry, political groups, religious elites, and knighthoods that have the most political power in the world. Yet, God alone has all of the real good power in the Universe. So, I want to make that clear. There are even the Knights of Malta, the Order of St. Michael, the Order of Saint George (whom Jesuit-trained Shimon Peres is a member), Opus Dei, and the Duke of Castro's Franco-Neapolitan Constantinian Order with great international power. Even media kingpin Rupert Murdoch is a member of the Papal Order of St. Gregory. These groups were rarely talked about by members of the mainstream "alternative media" movement (These include shills and disinformationists like Ongir, Mike "pro-think" Delaney, Daryl Bradford Smith, Curt Maynard, Roman Catholic Benjamin Freedman, and many others. Benjamin Freedman is a traitor to his own people by collectively bashing his own people. Most of these bigots make no distinction between patriotic faithful Jewish people and the wicked, more secular, pro-Labor Zionist or pro-Sabbatean Jewish people). Now these high level groups like the Jesuits and Freemasonry have infilitrated many groups like some Protestants (in order to attempt to destroy Protestants and Baptists), universities, etc. These groups also want to destroy Islam (that's why many leaders of Yemen, Morocco, Syria, etc. are member of the Order of Constantine, etc.) and Judaism. That's why you see a war on terror, the Holocaust, and an increase of anti-Semitism in the world today. The Governor of Mecca Prince Khalid al Faisal and Prince Bandar bin Khalid are member of the Papal Order of Francis I. French President Sarkozy met with the Knight of the Order of Francis I member Syrian President Al-Basshad recently as well. Therefore, the Vatican/Jesuit elite still have very powerful strength in the world with over 1 billion converts worldwide. The Jesuits were key in supporting the Inquisition, advancing the Council of Trent, and supporting the Ecumencial Movement. They were banished from many European nations, because of their corruption in the late 1700's. So, these organizations ought to be exposed. Now, we should never promote fear mongering. Yet, we should have strength to promote the culture of life and be against terrorism completely.

By Timothy


First credit crunch traced back to Roman republic

Shariah Law

Pro-Life Manna




Abortion Survivor Sunday Project Calls on Youth to Hit Pro-Life Themes in Church

by Steven Ertelt Editor
November 28
, 2008

Add to My Yahoo!
Email RSS Printer

Washington, DC ( -- A leading pro-life group for youth is launching a new national project to bring the pro-life messages to churches across the country. Stand True Ministries, which sponsors the day of silence for the unborn featuring red tape and armbands, is behind the Abortion Survivor Sunday event.

A large percentage of churches nationwide have one or two Sundays a year where teenagers are allowed to lead the service or a Sunday School class.

The idea behind the event is to infuse pro-life themes into those services or classes.

"We think the Sunday before the anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion would be a great time for your people to share a pro-life message with their church," Stand True director Bryan Kemper tells

"We believe it is the youth of America who will ultimately turn the hearts of this generation and usher in the end of the abortion holocaust," he explains.

Stand True is calling on pro-life youth groups and teenagers to make Sunday, January 18 their day to lead a service or Sunday School class.

Kemper says youth can ask their pastor, priest, or Sunday School teacher if he can present a pro-life message during church or to ask for a pro-life sermon or lesson if that's not possible.

"This generation has lost over 1/3 of their brothers and sisters to surgical abortion," Kemper says. "This generation is losing almost 4,000 members a day. This generation needs to stand up and cry out for their brothers and sisters and be a voice for those who will never have one."

The event is already drawing support from the pro-life community.

Blogger Jill Stanek, a pro-life nurse, says she is "very happy" that Stand True is championing the idea.

"Ever since the election, I've been convicted to call on pastors and priests around the country to acknowledge the January 22nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade by preaching on the sanctity of life," she said. "I just haven't had the time to organize an effort."

"But it's much better for the generation directly impacted by abortion to implore their pastors and priests to speak against abortion," she added. "I think they'll get a lot farther."

Related web sites:
Stand True Ministries -
Abortion Survivor Sunday -

Buzz up!





_____________________ (New Study Shows Direct Link Between Abortion and Mental Health Problems)





Obama, Media, Abortion Advocates Wrong to Oppose Conscience Protections

by Matt Bowman
November 28
, 2008 Note: Matt is an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a leading pro-life legal alliance. ADF has been involved in numerous legal cases on pro-life issues ranging from defending pro-life legislation to uphold free speech rights to protecting vulnerable patients from euthanasia.

Add to My Yahoo!
Email RSS Printer

Is President Bush vastly expanding conscience protections for pro-life doctors, or is he merely enforcing the law as passed by Congress multiple times since Roe v. Wade, but which has not been enforced? And, if President-elect Obama revokes those protections, will he be restoring a reasonable status quo, or clearing the way to force pro-life people out of the health care industry?

The mainstream media’s uniform slant on protecting pro-life doctors is that the regulations are novel and unprecedented. The New York Times’ article last week typifies this propaganda, saying that the proposed HHS regulations are “sweeping new protections.”

Breathless pro-abortion attorneys likewise declare that the regulations would eviscerate 40 years of precedent and “throw this entire body of law into question.”

On the Slate web site, self-described pro-life Obama supporter Melinda Henneberger echoes this assumption.

She actually writes a reasonable analysis showing that the proposed Freedom of Choice Act will not merely codify the Supreme Court’s abortion guidelines, but will eliminate all restrictions on abortion and force states and doctors to participate in it.

Yet, Slate is hesitant to publicize any unequivocal pro-life voice, so Ms. Henneberger concedes that the conscience-protecting HHS regulation overreaches in the same way that FOCA does. “The president’s supporters say it merely implements existing legal protections for conscientious objectors (much like abortion-rights supporters say FOCA only codifies Roe).”

But are these commenters right? Do the proposed HHS regulations radically change the law like FOCA would, or are they truly a mere enforcement of existing law?

Shortly after Roe, and after a lower court ruled that a Christian hospital had to participate in sterilization, a bipartisan Congress passed the first “Church Amendment,” (named after Senator Frank Church), 42 U.S.C.A. § 300a-7(c)(1). The law says:

No entity which receives a grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under [various federal funding acts] may–

(A) discriminate in the employment, promotion, or termination of employment of any physician or other health care personnel, or

(B) discriminate in the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel . . . because he refused to perform or assist in the performance of [sterilization] or abortion on the grounds that his performance or assistance in the performance of the procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Congress recognized in 1973 what the abortion movement is implementing in state laws today: once abortion is a “right,” access to it becomes a right, and participating in it becomes an enforceable duty. Congress later passed many similarly worded laws, and these statutes remain on the books today. A non-pro-life summary of these laws is available here.

But these laws don’t say how they will be enforced, and apparently there is no record of them ever being enforced. The new HHS regulations do one simple thing: they take these existing laws–the exact wording from those laws–and they require that federal funding recipients promise not to violate consciences as specified in those laws. Read it for yourself here.

The regulations say, as simply as possible in regulatory language, that “law x requires conscience protection—so, fund recipients must promise they won’t violate that precise conscience protection.” The regulations in no way expand the content of those laws. They simply enforce them as written.

Commenters are therefore unjustified in suggesting that the HHS regulations would expand conscience protection law. Ms. Henneberger is especially incorrect in suggesting that the HHS regulations are analogous to FOCA. FOCA revolutionizes the law and strikes down thousands of restrictions on abortion, while the HHS regulations do not change the law in any way, though they do enforce against violations of the law that are ongoing.

The difference is that the conscience violations HHS will prevent are illegal, whereas the abortion restrictions FOCA will strike down have already been upheld by the courts. You will not find this simple fact in media reports about the conscience regulations.

Why would the media, and even self-identified pro-lifers, characterize the conscience regulations as a sweeping expansion? Perhaps they seek to have a storyline when the regulations are revoked. President-elect Obama seems poised to eliminate these conscience-protecting regulations once in office, or perhaps not to enforce them. He has placed pro-abortion former Senator Tom Daschle as the head of HHS.

This past election season, a lot of George-Soros-funded Christians not only campaigned for Obama but inexcusably told other Christians that he was the true pro-life candidate. It remains to be seen whether these people will vigorously oppose Obama on the many actions he will take to massively expand abortion, or whether they will come to his defense.

The President-elect’s opposition to conscience protection will help strip pro-life doctors and pharmacists of their careers and livelihoods and ban pro-life people from all health fields. If and when he takes such actions, some of the aforementioned Obama supporters might find it convenient to argue that the conscience-protecting HHS regulations were an unreasonable overreach in the first place.

By such warped reasoning, however, not only could this country have abortion on demand without the slightest restriction, but pro-lifers will be called unreasonable simply for asking not to be forced to help kill babies. Perhaps even worse, the situation might be defined as the positively good, Christian, pro-life position to take. Though shocking, this should not be completely surprising.

Describing a much more extreme circumstance, our Lord predicted that “a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.”

Buzz up!

N.Y. rabbi, wife killed at Mumbai Jewish center