A legislative plan to "eliminate attitudes" opposing homosexuality is moving forward in Oregon, even though opponents claim it threatens churches and establishes pagan morality as a benchmark for their operations.
"This is still an intrusion of the state into religious liberty, and makes [Christian organizations] subject to state control," David Crowe, of Restore America, told WND. "It favors the homosexual community and puts the church in a defensive posture, having to defend itself and its beliefs, policies, doctrines and employment," he said. "This is very objectionable. It reveals that this is an agenda. They couldn't care less about what the people of Oregon think," said Crowe.
He said the attitude on the part of lawmakers was typified by a comment from state Rep. Peter Buckley, from Ashland, who didn't want to provide "more exemptions," likening the situation to "past racist employment motives." It used to be signs that said "No Irish need apply," he suggested. "Only now it's like, 'No gays or lesbians need apply for jobs.'" Buckley insists the church must employ homosexuals, said Crowe.
"He has no regard, no understanding whatsoever of the religious community at all, and certainly no respect for the U.S. Constitution," Crowe explained. "He says he's going to summarily override anything in the Constitution. He believes we ought to be forced to hire homosexuals. They come to the door, we ought to hire them."
He said the homosexual-rights promoters are becoming "very righteous" in their attitudes, saying, "We're against any kind of discrimination and certainly this kind as well." Churches, meanwhile, are being portrayed as impeding "what is really good."
The entire issue, however, is built on false pretenses, Crowe said, because the need for such legislation can only be substantiated if there is a significant problem with discrimination against homosexuals. In Oregon, while about 170 cases have been reported since 2000, a state agency confirmed the validity of only a handful of cases. "The substance is not there," Crowe said.
But the proposal leaves churches unprotected in their religious beliefs and actions that derive from those beliefs, he said. It states churches are exempted "only if the employment, housing or the use of facilities is closely connected with or related to the primary purposes of the church or institution. " Then the issue is left to the state courts to determine any relationship to "the primary purposes of the church."
"The bill restricts religious freedom. It denies religious liberty to business owners. And the bill goes even further to establish 'a program of public education calculated to eliminate attitudes upon which practices of discrimination because of sexual orientation are based,'" he wrote. "People who view homosexual conduct as wrong, sinful and or unhealthy will see their tax dollars at work against their own moral code."
Crowe said the results of the bill would be to "limit your free speech rights and rights of conscience; require public schools to teach that homosexual/lesbian/bisexual behavior is 'okay' and 'moral'; impact your rights as a business owner; and put judges in authority on certain church matters."
"The law, and this is onerous, has a clause that talks about developing a program of education to change our attitudes," Crowe said. "To change our attitudes? Is it the government's business to change attitudes? But that's precisely what's in the bill."
Crowe called the plan "the most sweeping and culturally devastating law in Oregon history, establishing pagan morality under the guise of a 'civil right,' and imposing it upon all Oregonians under the cover of 'law.'"
In spite of days of controversy, today's signing of the "Berlin Declaration" went ahead without amendment.
The pivot and crux of the controversy is the announcement of an intended replacement for the failed EU constitution which will have the same content under a different title and is to be ratified as quickly as possible. This arrangement has occasioned great displeasure in several European capitals. The most influential German think tank, the Bertelsmann Foundation, maintains that European unification must be driven forward; the greatly contested EU constitution is to be merely the "point of departure".
For the first time, the foundation recently presented a draft paper to top politicians from twenty European countries and the USA over the "strategic reorientation" of the EU in which it recommended, as a first step, that the national armed forces of all member states should be combined into a single EU army. The German Chancellor has taken up this suggestion. Frau Merkel warned against refusing so-called integration. She said "The ideal of European unification is today again a matter of war and peace".
To increase pressure on the smaller EU members, the German government is dropping bellicose hints and portraying their EU plans as a method of avoiding descent into a new catastrophe - war. The Federal Chancellor announced in tones pregnant with disaster, "We should not take peace and democracy for granted. The ideal of European unification is still today a question of war and peace."
Similar threats already enabled the Federal Government to force through the Eastern expansion of the EU against massive resistance in the mid Nineties. Then the present Minister of the Interior, Wolfgang Schaeuble, declared in a strategy paper that "Germany might be required or compelled by its own security considerations to achieve the stabilisation of Eastern Europe alone and in the traditional manner".
The paper was published on 1st September 1994, the 45th anniversary of Germany's attack on Poland. The Federal Chancellor's warning is a spin on those threats of war in a scarcely concealed form. It makes clear the radical determination of German foreign policy to achieve a total reordering of Europe under the aegis of Berlin, enforced by all means - apparently not excluding military.
The growing controversy over vaccines where children are forced to get increasing numbers of vaccinations before attending school, and parents are forced to decide whether to comply despite the reality that dreadful adverse reactions to the shots do regularly occur has now mushroomed into an issue crucial to all Americans, according to the April edition of WND's monthly Whistleblower magazine.
For years, the vaccine debate was confined largely to the traditional childhood vaccines like DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus), MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) and polio. Even then, there were major concerns. The pertussis vaccine, for example, is notorious for having rare but horrendous side effects, and most polio cases in the world in recent years have been caused by the live-virus vaccine itself!
But in recent times, many new childhood vaccines have been introduced, from rotavirus and chickenpox to hepatitis B, meningitis and pneumonia, each with their own controversies and, in some cases, scandals. At first, the new vaccines are just "suggested," then they became "recommended" by pediatricians, and before long they're "required" before entering public school.
"A one-year-old healthy child today can get 10 different antigens injected into his body in one day," warns columnist Barbara Simpson in this issue of Whistleblower. "No one knows the effect on his immune system, and such tests haven't been conducted."
But it gets worse, much worse. As a result of today's vaccine mania:
Right now, state after state is attempting literally to force young, prepubescent school-girls into getting a brand-new vaccine, with an unproven safety record, to prevent a sexually transmitted form of cancer. The manufacturer, pharmaceutical giant Merck, has lobbied state politicians to make their vaccine mandatory.
There's major movement toward an AIDS vaccine. Once approved by the government, will there be another push like the current one to immunize schoolgirls against a sexually transmitted disease, only this time to mandate the AIDS vaccine for everybody?
Despite publicity to the contrary, the controversial mercury-based vaccine preservative Thimerosal ? thought by some researchers to be linked to rising levels of autism in the U.S. ? is still used in some vaccines.
Then there's the U.S. military, which compels soldiers to get multiple vaccinations. Some experts, citing compelling evidence, blame the military's anthrax shots for the epidemic dubbed "Gulf War Syndrome."
In this highly polarized debate, on one side there is the medical establishment, including the federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which endlessly repeats the mantra that vaccines are safe and effective and everybody should get them. To question their wisdom tags one as a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
On the other side is a substantial and growing movement of skeptics, including many medical professionals, who openly question vaccines. Some are strident, claiming all vaccines are bad for all people at all times and places, and a few even impute a sinister motive to vaccine manufacturers and the doctors that give the shots. But many others are careful and nuanced and very well informed. They consider each vaccine individually on its merits as well as its known and suspected negatives ? and come out holding up a big "caution" sign.
Russia is preparing its own military response to the US's controversial plans to build a new missile defence system in eastern Europe, according to Kremlin officials, in a move likely to increase fears of a cold war-style arms race.
The Kremlin is considering active counter-measures in response to Washington's decision to base interceptor missiles and radar installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move Russia says will change "the world's strategic stability".
The Kremlin has not publicly spelt out its plans. But defence experts said its response is likely to include upgrading its nuclear missile arsenal so that it is harder to shoot down, putting more missiles on mobile launchers, and moving its fleet of nuclear submarines to the north pole, where they are virtually undetectable.
Russia could also bring the new US silos within the range of its Iskander missiles launched potentially from the nearby Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, they add.
In an interview with the Guardian, the Kremlin's chief spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said Moscow felt betrayed by the Pentagon's move. "We were extremely concerned and disappointed. We were never informed in advance about these plans. It brings tremendous change to the strategic balance in Europe, and to the world's strategic stability."
The Bush administration says the bases are designed to shoot down rogue missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. Its proposed system would be helpless against Russia's vast nuclear arsenal, it says. But this claim has been greeted with widespread incredulity, not just in Russia but also among some of the US's nervous Nato allies. They include Germany, where the Social Democrat leader, Kurt Beck, warned last month that the US and Russia were on the brink of another arms race "on European soil".
Defence experts say there is little doubt that the real target of the shield is Russia. "The geography of the deployment doesn't give any doubt the main targets are Russian and Chinese nuclear forces," General Vladimir Belous, Russia's leading expert on anti-ballistic weaponry, told the Guardian. "The US bases represent a real threat to our strategic nuclear forces."
Lawmakers in California are pursuing their homosexual marriage agenda despite opposition from voters and the governor alike, with a 7-3 vote in the state Assembly's Judiciary Committee in favor of such a plan, according to critics who battled the same proposal last year.
"Shame on the Democrat politicians for attacking and redefining marriage," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, a nonpartisan organization that defends traditional marriage and the family.
"This is an attack upon the voters and our system of government as much as it is an attack on marriage," he said after testifying before the committee against AB 43. "AB 43 shamelessly violates the California Constitution, which expressly prohibits the Legislature from repealing voter-approved ballot initiatives. This is political arrogance in the extreme."
Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute, said the bill clearly flouts the will of the people.
"Yet again the California legislature has shown that it will arrogantly ignore the will of the people," said England. "Even though the vast majority of citizens oppose homosexual marriage, radical activists continue to push their agenda."
Meredith Turney, who serves as CRI's legislative liaison, said the issue was decided with Proposition 22. "The governor has made clear, by his previous veto, that he will honor the people's decision. And yet agenda-driven legislators have decided that they will override the wishes of Californians," she said.
"Gov Schwarzenegger, regardless of his personal beliefs, has committed to honor the people's vote and already vetoed a previous homosexual marriage bill," said England. "So why are radical legislators wasting taxpayer money and time by once again pushing an issue clearly decided by the people?"
"The answers is obvious: they will push their extreme agenda until they get their way," she said.
Someone has finally fixed an approximate taxpayer cost of between 12 million and 15 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S.
A new study by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector found a household headed by an individual without a high school education, including about two-thirds of illegal aliens, costs U.S. taxpayers more than $32,000 in federal, state and local benefits. That same family contributes an average of $9,000 a year in taxes, resulting in a net tax burden of $22,449 each year.
Over the course of the household's lifetime that tax burden translates to $1.1 million. If the lower figure of 12 million illegal aliens is used for estimation purposes, the total tax burden translates to $2.2 trillion.
"Would any of us buy shares in a company that we knew would produce a loss of a million dollars a share," asks Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in response to the study. "Cheap labor is not cheap at the cost of over a million dollars per head of household."
Rector's study, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer," examines the economics of the 17.7 million American households made up of people without a high-school degree. Using numbers from the Census Bureau, the Congressional Research Service, the Bureau of Labor Standards and other government agencies, Rector determined what they earn, what they spend and what they receive in government services.
About half of the 17.7 million households studied are illegal aliens. About two-thirds of illegal alien households are headed by someone without a high school degree. Only 10 percent of native-born Americans fit into that category.
"Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion," Rector writes. "This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services."
The Office for National Statistics said children in the UK were three times more likely to live in one-parent households than they were in 1972.
Since 1971 the proportion of all people living in "traditional" family households of married couples with dependent children has fallen from 52% to 37%. Nearly a quarter of children lived with only one parent last year and nine out of 10 of those households were headed by lone mothers.
SOCIAL TRENDS SURVEY - KEY FINDINGS
In 2005 there were a record 60.2m people living in Britain. The number of households has risen 30% since 1971, but the population only rose by 8% . One in seven children live in households where no parent is working.
Source: Office for National Statistics
Sue Palmer, an independent education adviser, said she believed growing up with a single parent could be detrimental to children. "It's not many adults. What you need when children are growing up is constant consistent care from the adults who love them and that's very difficult to provide if there's just one of you," she said.
David Green, director of the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If you take almost any measure - how well children do in school, whether they turn to crime, whether they commit suicide, etc - it's better to have two parents. "It's also the biggest disadvantage of lone parenthood that you're much more likely to be poor."
More children are born in Britain today outside of marriage than in most other European countries, the report also said. The average figure is 44%, compared with just 3% in Cyprus, and just 12% in Britain in the early 1970s. BBC home editor Mark Easton said that in Wales and the north east of England the numbers of children born to unmarried parents were even higher, at 52% and 55% respectively.
More than seven million people in Britain also live alone now, compared with three million in 1971. This, the report said, had left societies more fragmented and led to much less trust and co-operation between neighbours.
Other findings included: Second marriages made up two-fifths of all marriages in 2005. In the same year, the average age at first marriage in England and Wales was 32 for men and 29 for women - up from 25 and 23 respectively in 1971. Divorces in 2005 fell to 155,000 from a 1993 peak of 180,000. In 2005, 66% of single-parent families lived in rented housing compared with 22% of couples with dependent children.
Jonathon Porritt, the government's green guru, says consumerism is now a lethal disease.
'Many big ideas have struggled over the centuries to dominate the planet,' begins the argument by Jonathon Porritt, government adviser and all-round environmental guru. 'Fascism. Communism. Democracy. Religion. But only one has achieved total supremacy. Its compulsive attractions rob its followers of reason and good sense. It has created unsustainable inequalities and threatened to tear apart the very fabric of our society. More powerful than any cause or even religion, it has reached into every corner of the globe. It is consumerism.'
According to Porritt, the most senior adviser to the government on sustainability, we have become a generation of shopaholics. We are bombarded by advertising from every medium which persuades us that the more we consume, the better our lives will be. Shopping is equated with fun, fulfilment and self-identity. It is also, Porritt warns, killing the planet. He argues, in an interview with The Observer, that merely switching to 'ethical' shopping is not enough. We must shop less.
From pictures of Coleen McLoughlin weighed down with designer bags to branding endorsements by the likes of David Beckham, the image of consumerism as a universal aspiration is ubiquitous. Last week 3,000 people stormed Primark's new flagship store on London's Oxford Street before the official opening time, putting two staff in hospital and earning the description by BBC2's Newsnight of 'a plague of locusts'.
Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission, has concluded that consumerism is central to the threat facing the planet, cannibalising its natural resources and producing the carbon dioxide emissions which result in climate change.
In a film for Channel Five, he points out that Britons throw away their own body weight in rubbish every seven weeks, with 100 million tonnes of waste pouring into the country's 12,000 landfill sites every year. If all six billion people in the world were to consume at the same level, we would need two new Earths to supply all the energy, soil, water and raw materials required.
"States which did not support the substance of the constitutional treaty should ask themselves whether they want to continue to belong to the EU."
The day after the Berlin declaration, when the German government confirmed its determination to press on with ratification of the European Constitution, the European Parliament has expressed a view on what to do about the constitutional 'crisis' and in particular what to do if Mrs Merkel's proposed intergovernmental conference in the second half of this year does not lead to agreement between the twenty-seven EU member states.
The SPD MEP, Klaus Hänsch, who was the Parliament's representative at the European Convention, has even suggested that if countries do not like the Constitution, then they should leave the EU altogether. He said that if there was general agreement about the way forward, the one or two nay sayes should not be allowed to impede progress.
States which did not support the substance of the constitutional treaty, he said, should ask themselves whether they want to continue to belong to the EU.
The same point of view was expressed by the veteran CDU MEP, Elmar Brok, a German like Hänsch. Brok said that if the second attempt to get the Constitution going fails, then a 'core Europe' should be created. This is an odd thing to say, since the Constitution provides precisely for the creation of core Europe, since it allows states to take initiatives among themselves without all other states having the right to prevent them. But 'core Europe' (Kerneuropa) has been a favourite idea of many Germans ever since two advisers to the then Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, published an article about it in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in 1989, before the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
The Germans know that they would easily dominate any such 'hard core' and that it would therefore represent a natural extension of their power. Brok said he did not actually want 'core Europe' because it would mean dividing the EU between first class and second class states and he claimed that this was neither in Germany's interests nor in Europe's. Brok said that France would be one of the first countries to be interested in joining such a 'core', even though of course France, like the Netherlands which is presumably also a perfect candidate for 'core' membership, voted No to the European Constitution in 2005.
Brok also used the occasion to deliver a little homily to the Poles and the Czechs about the right attitude to adopt towards the EU. Germans have a history of regarding these two nations as problems to be solved (occasionally by invasion). On this occasion, Brok said that Prague and Warsaw had to understand that solidarity was not a one-way street.
He was referring to the fact that the Polish President, Lech Kaczynski, had distanced himself while still in Berlin from the common declaration that the EU wanted to get itself back on track by 2009. Kaczynski had said, It's a nice goal but I do not think it is achievable. Europe is always a Europe of nations, and no constitution can change that. For his part, the Czech President, Václav Klaus, made it clear that the Berlin declaration was not binding.
So-called "free trade" agreements are not free at all, victimizing the poor while benefiting the wealthy, says a new report by Oxfam International, the coalition fighting poverty, suffering and social injustice around the world.
"In an increasingly globalized world, these agreements seek to benefit rich-country exporters and firms at the expense of poor farmers and workers, with grave implications for the environment and development," the report said. There are more than 250 regional and bilateral agreements in place today and many more are in the works, according to Oxfam. These treaties already govern more than 30 percent of world trade.
Emily Jones, author of the Oxfam report, pointed to NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, as a case study. Her report said NAFTA has brought 1.3 million job losses to Mexico in 10 years. Other studies have explained how cheap agricultural imports from U.S. agribusiness concerns have made it nearly impossible for small farmers to compete.
Many reportedly have been forced from their land and become illegal migrant workers in the U.S. In fact, the implementation of NAFTA coincides with the largest wave of illegal immigration into the U.S. from Mexico in history.
NAFTA has driven many legitimate Mexican farmers out of business, and many have turned to drug cultivation, charges Charles Bowden, author of "Down By The River," and other acclaimed books about the drug business. "It's one of the unintended consequences of NAFTA," he says. In addition, with the drug crisis raging in Mexico and even threatening its national security, some are pointing to the "protections" NAFTA has provided to the drug runners.
Up to three-quarters of cocaine entering the U.S. now comes via Mexico as well as most of its marijuana. In 1996, the U.S. and Mexican governments agreed to start training Mexican soldiers in the U.S. for the "war on drugs." These elite commandos were called "Los Zetas." They have now switched sides and are working as a paramilitary security detail for the drug cartels.
According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, over the past decade, Colombia-based drug groups have allowed Mexico-based trafficking organizations to play an increasing role in the U.S. cocaine trade. In the 1980s, Colombia's drug dealers used the drug smugglers in Mexico to transport cocaine shipments across the Southwest border into the U.S. but retook possession of the narcotics once the transporters arrived in the U.S.
After the seizure of nearly 21 metric tons of cocaine in 1989, the Colombians changed the way they did business and allowed Mexico-based transportation groups to receive up to half the cocaine shipment they smuggled in exchange for their services.
According to the DEA, "virtually all heroin produced in Mexico and South America is destined for the U.S. market." This reflects a big increase since NAFTA.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor accused Labour of "legislating for intolerance" in his most outspoken attack yet on the imposition of gay rights laws on church bodies.
The leader of England and Wales's four million Roman Catholics also questioned "whether the threads holding together democracy have begun to unravel".
The lecture delivered in Westminster made him the first Catholic leader in nearly 180 years to place a question mark over the allegiance of his church to the British state. He declared: "For my own part, I have no difficulty in being a proud British Catholic citizen. "But now it seems to me we are being asked to accept a different version of our democracy, one in which diversity and equality are held to be at odds with religion. "We Catholics - and here I am sure I speak too for other Christians and all people of faith - do not demand special privileges, but we do demand our rights."
The Sexual Orientation Regulations come into force next month after minimal debate in the House of Commons. They are aimed at stopping businesses discriminating against gays, but Christian leaders say they will force those of faith to act against their conscience.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said last night: "My fear is that, under the guise of legislating for what is said to be tolerance, we are legislating for intolerance. Once this begins, it is hard to see where it ends. "The question," the Cardinal added, "is whether the threads holding together pluralist democracy have begun to unravel. That is why I have sounded this note of alarm.
"I am conscious that when an essential core of our democratic freedom risks being undermined, subsequent generations will hold to account those who were able to raise their voices yet stayed silent."
He added: "What looks like liberality is in reality a radical exclusion of religion from the public sphere."
The Cardinal described the Act as a historic turning point.
The speech is likely to make uncomfortable reading for Tony Blair - he is expected to convert to Roman Catholicism after he leaves Downing Street later this year - and for Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a staunch Catholic responsible for pushing through the Sexual Orientation Regulations.
Trilateral Commission, chairman of British Petroleum, CFR, and the Club of Rome all fan hysteria to achieve world government
A common charge levelled against those who question the official orthodoxy of the global warming religion is that they are acting as stooges for the western establishment and big business interests. If this is the case, then why do the high priests of the elite and kingpin oil men continue to fan the flames of global warming hysteria?
The Trilateral Commission, one of the three pillars of the New World Order in alliance with Bilderberg and the CFR, met last week in near secrecy to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.
At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland , gave a speech to his elitist cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address global warming with a single voice."
Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defence Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."
Allegations that sceptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to push global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives.
We have a similar situation to the Peak Oil scam, which was created by the oil industry as a profit boon to promote artificial scarcity, and yet is parroted by environmentalists who grandstand as if they are in opposition to the oil companies. In his excellent article, Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government, Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the CFR.
"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalised era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves."
Taylor also points out future British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's admonishment that only a "new world order" (world government) can help fight global warming. Other attendees at the recent Trilateral meeting raised the specter of climate change as a tool to force through tax hikes.
Calling on the United States government to adopt a "carbon monoxide control policy," former CIA boss and long term champion of creating a domestic intelligence agency to spy on Americans John Deutch, argued that America should impose a $1-pergallon increase in the gasoline tax under the pretext of fighting pollution.The lapdog media have proven adept in the past at taking their orders from the elitists in pushing higher taxes in the name of saving the environment.
"When the TC called on the United States to increase gas taxes by 10 cents at a meeting in Tokyo in 1991, The Washington Post, which is always represented at TC and Bilderberg meetings, called for such an increase in an editorial the following day," reports Jim Tucker.
Tucker writes that an essential means of achieving global government by consent over conquest, as has long been the ultimate goal of the elite, is by "fanning public hysteria" over climate change, encouraging further integration by forcing countries to adhere to international law on global warming. Such restrictions have prevented the development of third world nations and directly contributed to poverty, disease and squalor by essentially keeping them at a stone age level of progress, as is documented in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.
People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.
Globalists love global warming! Oil industry kingpins, Bilderbergers and Rothschild minions have all put their weight behind it. This is a fraud conceived, nurtured and promulgated by elite, and to castigate individuals for merely questioning the motives behind climate change fearmongering by accusing them of being mouthpieces for the establishment is a complete reversal of the truth.
According to the Japanese Health Ministry, 54 people have died after taking Tamiflu the drug governments around the world have stockpiled for use against avian flu since the drug was approved for use in Japan in 2000. Most suspiciously, in multiple cases people, including those cases above, acted erratically after taking Tamiflu.
The anti-Tamiflu forces in Japan are led by Dr. Rokuro Hama, an epidemiologist and internal medicine specialist who heads the Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance, a medical industry watchdog. Hama believes that Tamiflu can directly cause temporary neurological disorders in a small percentage of users especially young people.
That can lead to abnormal behavior, such as a seemingly happy, healthy teenager suddenly deciding to leap off a high-rise apartment building. Hama also notes that the Tamiflu doses taken in Japan can be as much as 10 times greater than the normal amount taken in the U.S., which could aggravate the side effects. "There is no possibility whatsoever" that there could be another cause behind the Tamiflu deaths, says Hama. "Ultimately it should be taken off the market."
Though the Health Ministry has said there is no clear evidence linking Tamiflu to the deaths, there is growing concern among doctors and parents in Japan over the drug's possible side effects. That is potential cause for concern in the rest of the world, because in the absence of a vaccine, Tamiflu will be the drug of first and last resort in the event of a pandemic.
How can we protect against the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran? The key to that dilemma rests with our policies toward Moscow and Beijing.
The facts and the experts attest that the Iranian nuclear threat has been and remains completely dependent on expertise, technology, and components from Russia and China. Without their continued help, it is unlikely that Iran could complete its nuclear WMD program.
Yet the current Bush administration, like the Clinton and Bush Senior administrations before it, pretends that Russia and China are our "partners" in helping rein in Iran, North Korea and other "rogue" regimes. Putting all of the pressure at our disposal against Moscow and Beijing to cease this dangerous proliferation is the key to stopping the threat from Tehran.
There is no evidence of a grave and imminent danger requiring a pre-emptive military attack, especially since the consequences could be horrendous, and other more reasonable options exist. What are some of those potential consequences? Here are but a few:
An immediate widening and intensification of the violence in Iraq, as Shi'ite forces join the fray, resulting in a drastic increase in U.S. casualties.
Rather than causing Iranians to revolt against Ahmadinejad, as the neocons claim, an attack on Iran will most likely solidify Iranian nationalism behind the regime, causing even moderate Iranians to rally against the invaders, as Saddam found out when he tried the same thing.
The whole Middle East will be further destabilized; many oil fields, pipelines, tankers, and shipping ports in the region will be damaged, destroyed, or shut down; oil prices will skyrocket, and America's economy will be greatly harmed.
Russia and China will be the big winners in the region, as both powers continue to solidify their influence and play against America's image as the imperialist, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab superpower.
Anti-Americanism and Islamic jihadism will be whipped into a new frenzy.
Terrorist cells already allowed into the United States, due to our government's suicidal refusal to protect our own borders
More than 10,000 US personnel, two aircraft carriers and 100 warplanes begin biggest simulated demonstration of force in Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq
DEBKAfile's military sources note that the exercise was launched March 27 the day before the Arab League summit opens in Riyadh, to demonstrate the Bush administration's determination not to let Iran block the Strait of Hormuz to oil exports from the Persian Gulf, or continue its nuclear program.
Taking part are the USS Stennis and USS Eisenhower strike forces.With Iran's Revolutionary Guards one week into their marine maneuvers, military tensions in the Gulf region are skyrocketing and boosting world oil prices.
Intelligence sources in Moscow claim to have information that a US strike against Iranian nuclear installations has been scheduled for April 6 at 0040 hours. The Russian sources say the US operation, code-named "Bite," will last no more than 12 hours and consist of missile and aerial strikes devastating enough to set Tehran's nuclear program several years back.
The maneuver also occurs four days after 14 British seamen and one crew-woman were seized by an Iranian Revolutionary Guards warship, with no sign that their release is imminent. London insists its marines were on routine patrol on the Iraqi side of the Shatt al Arb on behalf of the Iraqi government. Tony Blair has threatened a new phase in the crisis if the captured personnel are not speedily released.
The warplanes are flying simulated attack maneuvers on enemy shipping with aircraft and ships, hunting enemy submarines and seeking mines, off the coast of Iran.
US Navy Cmdr Kevin Aandahl declined to say when the maneuver was planned or how long it would last. He said US warships would stay out of Iranian territorial waters up to 12 miles from the Iranian coast. Tehran does not recognize this limit and claims a deeper stretch of water.
Our military sources explain the presence of the French naval strike group led by the nuclear aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle which joined the two US carriers last Friday: The group will carry out security missions in the Arabian Sea and its warplanes fly in support of NATO in Afghanistan
Today we find the Church of God in a “wilderness of religious confusion!”
The confusion is not merely around the Church – within the religions of the world outside – but WITHIN the very heart of The True Church itself!
Read online or contact office@cogiw.org to request a copy