Thanksgiving Eve

A BART cop pushes a suspect's arm and make his head go through the window. A Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer is facing accusations of bruality. A video shows him pushing an unruly man via a plate-glass window. The video went viral now. So, police in Oakland, CA instead came to charge MIchael Joseph Gibson with felony battery of a police officer, obstructing and resisting an officer, disorderly conduct and public intoxication after a BART officer pulled him off a train at a stop and pushed him into a plate glass window. Both the BART officer and Gibson was injured in the incident. Gibson's sister is named Lisa Gibson. Lisa told CNN that her brother suffers from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. He has recently been released from the hospital. She told CNN that she doesn't believe that her brother was intoxicated at the time of the incident. CNN quoted her as saying that the officer in question “shouldn’t have a job” because he has “no integrity” and a “combative mindset.” Amateur video of the incident shows Gibson standing and shouting in a train car. This is before a police officer grabs him and drags him out of the train. This causes Gibson to move to the wall of windows and the officer appear to push Gibson's head through a glass plate. Train riders applauded the incident until Gibson is seen being pushed through the glass. One person said that the cop was doing his job. That's ironic since I wonder if that person would want his relative to get his head beaten up by a rogue cop. The same people call the incident awesome, which is sick. The BART San Francisco Bay Area's commuter rail system have controversy with police brutality before. One example was then a cop murdered Oscar Grant (in the back while he was lying down on the ground after having been pulled off a BART train on New Yer's Day 2009). An officer in that case has been charged with murder. BART in this new incident is quick to respond. They issued a statement that Gibson's arm not his arm was pushed through the blass. They believe that blood comes form the officer not Gibson (the officer is on leave due to his injuries). The truth will come out regardless if it's hidden or shown for the world to see.


Another man in a supposeed 23 year long coma speaks. He says that he was always conscious. His name is Rom Houben. He was a victim of an automobile accident when he was 23 years old. He was unable to communicate with other people while he was in comatose state. Houben was paralyzed after the crash, but advances to medical technology made his thoughts come alive via a computer. "I screamed, but there was nothing to hear," he told the London Daily Mail newspaper. "I dreamed myself away," he said of how he coped with the situation. "All that time I just literally dreamed of a better life. Frustration is too small a word to describe what I felt." Tests at the time claimed that he was extinct. Newer tests just 3 years ago proved that Houben's brain was functioning normally. His renwed ability to communicate is something he calls a "second birth." "I shall never forget the day when they discovered what was truly wrong with me - it was my second birth," he told the paper. "I want to read, talk with my friends via the computer and enjoy my life now that people know I am not dead." The British nuerologist expert Dr. Steven Laureys has described Houben's case in a new paper as "Medical advances caught up with him." The paper shows that doctors used the internationally Glasgow Coma Scale to assess his eye, verbal, and motor responses. Yet, the results were incorrect. Laureys believes that doctors shouldn't be so apt to label patients as being in a vegetative state, because such a diagnosis can be incorrect. He said that anyone can be called unconscious now. The American bioethicist Wesley J. Smith commented on the case and the implication it has for euthanasia including assisted suicide. Smith said that we heard about PVS when some patients are not in a PVS. He wants many ways to treat people with profound cogniitive disabilities as fully human beings. The brain can restore itself in some instances. There is always hop and Smith concludes that Houben is here today because he wasn't dehydrated to death. "There is no doubt he went through a horrendous experience, but thanks to treating him as a fully equal human being by caring for him all those years and giving him tests late into his disability–explicitly refused to Terri Schiavo–he is here today to tell tale and live the rest of his life," he said. "And for goodness sake, whatever you believe about these issues, don't talk in the presence of PVS or other apparently unconscious patients as if they aren't there. Rather, always treat such people as if they can hear you, because sometimes they can," Smith said. This is good news in that Houben wasn't murder in dehydration like Terri Schiavo was.


Climategate is here. This is the sea change and might be the beginning of the end of the man-made global warming myth. It's great news, but we have a long way to go of course. Climategate is about how man-made climate scientists have been outed as trying to exclude contrary viewpoints from important scientific publications. People hacked thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University last week. It's wrong to hack someone's private work, but these email show many references to an agenda to shut down scientific debate on global warming via stopping counter evidence from being presented to the public. These emails date back from 1996 among U.S. and U.K. based scientists. These scientists want alternative viewpoints out of the public domain as classified as "disinformation" and "misinformation." They wanted dissenting view gone from the reports in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” That's interesting since Jones and Mann are climate scientists. They have authority to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals. Mann even discussed how to destroy a journal that had published papers with contrary views, telling his colleagues that he believed it had been “hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board” who had “staged a coup." “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote. In another email, Tom Wigley says that the journal in question (or "Climate Research") encourages false science to stimulate debate. Wigley is the climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (or in the UCAR). These scientists have influence in the IPCC, which have a role in Kyoto and Copenhagen meetings. Wigley wrote of these things. He also wrote that a group of 50+ scientists could be gotten together to put their names to a letter to add weight to the claim and hopefully help to remove the editorial board of the journal. Other emails have these scientists refusing to send dissenting data to independent scientists. This is against the concept of engaging in scientific debate. Climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball calls this news as contrarary to scientific inquiry and it exposing the myth of the hockey stick graph. It's wrong to control the peer reviewing process in a journal where you ignore data or reject it without real debate publicly. These small scientists doing this evil are influencing the Hadley Centre (which controls the data on global temperature via the Hadley Climate Research Unit. They influence the IPCC by manipulation). The consensus on global warming is a myth, because thousands of scientists have different points of view on climate change. In 2 year, there are over 500 peer reviewed sicentific research papers on climate change. These were written between 2004 and 2007. Less than 1/2 of these reports endorsed the "consensus view" of humans mostly contributing to global climate change. So, evidence is abundant that IPCC connected climate scientists to block dissenting opinion on climate change, regardless of its scientific merit. “This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is directly threatened with physical violence in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.” John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, “It’s disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested.” So, the truth is coming out that climate change is more related to natural forces plus the sun beyond human intervention.



Chuck Norris wrote about issues pertaining to freedom again. Abraham Lincoln said that those who deny freedom to others don't deserve it themselves. Norris believes that certain people in charge of America are trying to restrict our freedoms. He cites examples of this. One is dealing with the more debt like we borrowing $787 billion from CHina to try to stimulate the economy. Unemployment has climbed the economy to 10.2 percent. It isn't decreasing. Now, Ron Paul and others made a House panel to audit the Federal Reserve. This can lead into accountability to the FED giving billions of dollars to whomeever it wants. The dollar value has declined by more than 15 percent. This makes U.S. stocks cheaper for foreign investors. Norris believes that Washington is mandating a government option on people that can reduce our medical choices or freedoms. There is a debate to whether people should be forced to pay abortions in the health care bill as well. The health care plan is expected to cost about $1 trillion dollars. H.R. 615, expresses that all members of the House who vote in favor of the establishment of a federal government health-insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and agree to enroll under that public option as well. There are 97 co-sponsors thus far. Some people promote this since Congressional members aren't required to submit to the public option. Norris disagrees with the hate crimes bill that threaten First Amendment free speech rights (which has been added to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act). Our 2nd Amendment rights are in trouble with the HR 45 bill that wants to mircomanage gun ownership. The anti-gun extremists exploit the shootings in Fort Hood as a justification to carry forward that bill. The 2nd Amendment is a fundamental and individual right that ought to be preserved. I disagree with Norris that we need more troops in Afghanistan as the war on terror is wicked and wrong. You don't kill people or start conflicts in regions of the world that have no threat to us. War is always about destruction and nihilism. I don't need to study war anymore. So, Chuck Norris is right that all of us should do all we can to respect and promote legitimate freedoms to exist in American society.



The Anti-Defamation is doing another smear campaign. This time they are targeting our core view. They hate the Second Amendment and they are mostly not pro-life, so this is expected by these extremists. I criticized the ADL for more than 4 years and I will continue to criticize them unless they change their radical agenda. Now, the ADL produced a 27 page special report “Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies.” This report demonizing many conspiracies existing in the world, even though some of these conspiracies are real. It tries to demonize conservative and libertarians as radicals and equivalent to terrorists againt. The ADL promote the lie that independent people like us want to incite millions of Americans to harm President Barack Obama. The ADL alleges that people who recieve such information about the new world order (like tea party and town hall protesters) are wrong as well. The ADL says that people embrace anti-government hostility since Obama was elected President. The truth is that legitimate criticism of government policy is not only pro-American, but it's legal. Barack Obama has passed policies against our liberties like revoking the Mexico City policy, supporting the Patriot Act, sending more troops into Afghanistan, etc. The ADL criticize neo-cons like Glenn Beck as an excuse to demonize all people who disagree legitimate with the policies of Barack Obama. They even criticize WND leader Joseph Farah when he's pro-Israel and isn't anti-Semitic at all. They claim that Farah promotes the birther view when he only gives audience to that point of view (which people are free to disagree with). ADL says that Farah took part in the strongly anti-Obama “How to Take Back America” conference in St. Louis, September 25-26. It was heavily promoted by WND and regular columnist and anti-Obama syndicated talk show host Janet Porter. That meeting isn't extremist or equivalent to a terrorist act at all. It's apart of the First Amendment. They demonize Lou Dobbs, Alex Jones (which I don't agree with on every issue), and Ron Paul(which I don't agree with on every issue). ADL asserts Jones fulfills exactly what it predicts right-wing, anti-Obama hysteria will ultimately lead to: ADL says the April murder in Pittsburgh of three policeman by young Richard Poplawski was under the influence of “Jones and other conspiracy theorists.” That's a lie and I don't even subscribe to all of Jones' views. The ADL makes no distinction between conspiracy theories and conspiracy facts that are real (like Operation Gladio, the North American integration agenda, the EU President calling for global governance, many leaders wanting a new world order, etc.). The Anti-Defamation League's lies about the town hall meetings comparing the health care plan of Obama to Obama is easily refuted by tons of town hall meeting protesters using cogent arguments disagreeing with some parts of the plan. The ADL also lie and claim that disagreeing with illegal immigration is the same as opposing legal immigration plus being xenophobic. The ADL ignore that real globalists have called for global government and Malthusian measure to scale down the human population. the EU-chapter of the Club of Rome titled ‘ The Crisis, Global Governance and the Road to Copenhagen’ (click to find out whether this issue is a conspiracy theory or no). In this recent newsletter put out under auspices of His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Belgium (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha), the statement reads: “We should not let any longer “laissez-faire” economic philosophy spill over and contain ambitious global policies. The survival of a great part of mankind is at stake. Do we need to wait for the date when the maximum number of human that the planet can bear will be reached?” professor Saul Mendlovitz, Co-Director of World Order Models Project (WOMP) and ask him if the scribe got it right when he recorded him saying in his acceptance speech at the award ceremony of the 1990 UNESCO ‘Prize for Peace Education’ (page 36): “It is my personal belief (not shared by all members of WOMP) that there is an overwhelming surge in the direction of global polity and that a world state is emerging. Indeed, some of the policy élite are beginning to discuss a single world central bank and a single currency.” former president of the European Commission Jacques Delors who on September 7, 1992, gave a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs titled ‘The European Community and the New World Order’ in which he speaks of supporting “world government”, The Anti-Defamation League doesn't report on such issues since it destroys their lies about there being no plans among the elite to have a global government. The Anti-Defamation League is obviously one of the most anti-Christian, pro-abortion, anti-gun, and anti-conservative groups in America just like the sister group SPLC. So, the solution to this issue to legitimately criticize the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL isn't serious about exposing the new world order agenda since they promote globalist ideology themselves.

By Timothy