Friday, December 28, 2007

Was the Bush Administration Behind Benazir Bhutto Assassination?

Was the Bush Administration Behind Benazir Bhutto Assassination?
by Mitch Battros - Earth Changes Media
December 27th 2007
It is being mentioned in high circles that US President George Bush was receiving heat for spending billions of dollars on propping the puppets of the Musharraf regime. It is believed that somewhere along the way Musharraf didn't want to continue this game of charades and was leaning more towards the care and needs of his people (in Pakistan) than to navigate the desires of the Bush regime.

It has been rumored that behind the scenes, Benazir Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf had come to some agreement to take back the sovereignty of Pakistan. Of course this action is the last thing the Bush regime would want, because it would usher in independence and promulgate a peace movement of the overwhelming percentage of Pakistanis who support an independent nation. It is said that if an agreement was to ensue between Bhutto and Musharraf, a natural wage (or surge) would quell anti- Pakistan sentiments brought forth by al-Qaeda types.It is suggested the last thing the Bush regime would want is a stable independent Pakistan. No conflict - no war - no defense contract - no money.

Actually we have seen this very same scenario played-out with every dictator put in place by the US government. In fact, George Bush (41) was caught in this same situation with Manuel Noriega Presidential dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989.Noriega was put in power by the Bush regime (41) , then Noriega just as Musharraf, decided he didn't want to play this game anymore, and wanted to return sovereignty back to the people of Panama. "Operation Just Cause" was the U.S. military invasion of Panama that deposed General Manuel Noriega in December 1989. General Manuel Noriega was at one time a U.S. ally, who was increasingly using Panama to facilitate drug trafficking for the CIA, from South America to the United States. In the 1980s, Dictator Manuel Noriega was one of the most recognizable names in the United States, being constantly covered by the press.

Another puppet of the US installed puppeteer school was Saddam Hussein, again placed by the CIA and worked closely with George Bush (41). While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al- Karim Qasim.Just as with Noriega -- Hussein, although a brutal dictator, also decided he no longer wanted to play the game doing the bidding as another US stooge.

Then there was the 2004 Bush (43) regime and his US led coup against President Jean- Bertrand Aristide of HAITI. Here even CNN discloses the shear veil outing a US led coup orchestrated by the Bush regime."I was told that to avoid bloodshed I'd better leave," Aristide said in an interview on CNN. Earlier, the Bush administration vigorously denied that Aristide was kidnapped by U.S. troops, which is what two U.S. members of Congress said the deposed Haitian president told them in telephone calls.But Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, said Aristide told them a very different story. Waters said Mildred Aristide, the ex-president's wife, called the congresswoman at her home at 6:30 a.m. (9:30 a.m. ET) Monday, and told her "the coup d'etat has been completed," and then handed the phone to her husband. Waters said that Aristide told her the chief of staff of the U.S. Embassy in Haiti came to his home, told him that he would be killed "and a lot of Haitians would be killed" if he did not leave and said he "has to go now."

Haitian President Aristide was fighting for the rights of the Haitian people and against slave labor supported by the Bush regime. It seems companies such as Wal-Mart, Disney, Sears, Kmart, and J.C. Penney lobbied the Bush regime to maintain their 8 cents per hour wages. This was being threatened by a determined advocate for the Haitian people and of course big business just won't stand for that. It would appear Aristide, who was originally set up by the US government, realized he was propped as a stooge for corporate greed, and fought back. That's when the CIA, and later US military was called in to snuff him out.

The U.S.-Haiti ConnectionBush - CIA - Bhutto - Musharraf
Are you ready to 'follow-the-bouncing-ball'? Are we not seeing the same thread weaved through Iraq, Panama, Haiti, and now Pakistan. Was the Bush regime behind the assassination of an independent thinker with vision and a passion to return power back to the people of Pakistan? Was this a warning to Musharraf to "play ball" or you're next? Did India have to sign-off on this for it to play? Like all the others, we will probably never know.I guess George bubba Bush (43) said it best ---- " you are either with me, or you are with the terrorists. Now what's it going to be? "

But not all countries have fallen to US manipulation driven by self-seeking greedy corporations. Although the odds are certainly against them, but we can now understand why America's own citizens might have a silent cheer when the bully on the block gets kicked in the nuts by a much smaller but defiant underdog.Some high placed sources have hinted something to the effect of: "This should get the attention of Musharraf for not following our plan after funding him over $10 billion dollars." In fact, here is a quote from an AP article: 'Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan is likely to prompt calls for a close review of U.S. policy toward a country crucial to regional stability and the war on terrorism. Such a review is overdue, considering the minimal results from the $10 billion in U.S. aid funneled to President Pervez Musharraf's government since 2001.' And what does bubba Bush have to say?: President Bush blames "murderous extremists" for the attack. (AP) Okay, I think we get the picture now-----

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Bali IPCC Global Warming Conference Has Nasty Backlash

Bali IPCC Global Warming Conference Has Nasty Backlash
by Mitch Battros - Earth Changes Media
News coming out from numerous sources as attendants of the Bali IPCC conference return home; and they are less than flattering. In fact, they are down right vitriolic as if the light had been turned on, and cracks in the global warming facade are expanding.

A growing group of scientists from many countries including the United States have published their views in The International Journal of Climatology of almost bewilderment of what they heard and witnessed at the Bali IPCC conference. One of the authors, David Douglas, a climate expert from the University of Rochester, in New York states: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, doesn't show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming." According to co-author John Christi from the University of Alabama, "satellite data and independent balloon data agree that the atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface," while greenhouse models "demand that atmospheric trend values be two to three times greater."Climatologist Fred Singer at the University of Virginia and another co-author stated: "the current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep sea sediments, and stalagmites."

Hmm, where have I heard this before? "Global Warming: A Convenient Disguise": "There will be warming trends and cooling trends. It is simply the cycle of life and the universe. Always has been - always will be." (Mitch Battros) Reporter David Deming of the Washington Post covered the Bali conference. What he has to say does not fare well with Gore's global warming army. "Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency". It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards. "Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo."Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third- quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S....

Monday, December 10, 2007

Hand scan payment at Shell stations?

Hand scan payment at shell stations?
WC Douglass December 10, 2007
Would you give up your fingerprints so you could get in and out of a gas station more quickly? Shell Oil thinks that you will. And so once again, it seems that Americans are ready to cash in their privacy for a little convenience. And once again, our society inches just a little closer to the world that George Orwell imagined in his novel 1984 – a world utterly without any privacy. Ten Shell gas stations in the Chicago area are testing biometric systems that let you pay for your purchases using a fingertip scan. Your fingerprint would be linked directly to your checking or credit card accounts for payment. The system was created by a company with the deceptively friendly name of "Pay by Touch." Does this worry me? You bet your bottom it does. This little "convenience" offered by Shell proves that the "surveillance state" that I've warned you about isn't as far away as we'd like to believe it is. According to a spokesman for Shell, "Customers are always looking for ways to make buying gasoline quicker and easier, and always looking for ways to make their transactions faster and more secure." Shell claims that people don't want to "carry more cards, kits, and key chains" and they want these conveniences to be "free." But freedom at what cost?

You may believe that biometrics like hand-scans — and even retinal scans that we've all seen in science fiction films — are protecting you from the growing menace of identity theft. But it just baffles my mind that people are willing to surrender something as personal and unique as their fingerprints to a corporation. While this may be theoretically more secure than a credit card PIN code, an email password, a social security card, or even a photo ID, just remember: you're giving up a vital part of yourself to some corporation that's motive is always – ALWAYS – profit. Profit above all else – including your security. Naturally, the beneficent and ever-helpful Shell Oil company claims they would "never share personal information of their customers with third parties." If you believe that pile of B.S., just think about it the next time you're sorting all the junk out of your daily mail. And, of course, your phone calls are only being monitored for quality control purposes. Any other lies you want to hear? But it's not just Shell that's at fault here. Already, the trend has spread. Sunflower Market, a Chicago-based grocery store chain, has also installed Pay by Touch systems in their stores, though only about two percent of its customers have signed up to use the service – so at least some people in Chicago are using their heads instead of their hands.
The manager of one Sunflower store thinks people are put off by the system. "I think it scares people," the manager said. "Some of them say, 'Well, now the FBI can find me.'" Know what? Those people are right. The FBI routinely accesses credit card records when tracking suspects. There's no reason that they can't use the finger scan in the same way. And thanks to these "convenience" schemes run by the big corporations on our lazy, time-crunch obsessed populace, it seems that sooner rather than later, the government will be able to build up a database of fingerprints on everyone in the U.S. – whether you have a criminal record or not. Sharing my opinions but keeping my hands to myself,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

(How soon before we see this in the UK?)

To start receiving your own copy of the Daily Dose, visit:

Saturday, December 08, 2007


David Icke Newsletter Preview
The prime role of Taser technology is the same as the electric shocks that mice receive in laboratory behaviour-control experiments. The mice are shocked each time they try to enter certain channels and eventually they stop trying. The fear of being shocked is enough to control them and that's the real role of the Taser.
The videos of people being Tasered, and the stories of those who die, are no problem for those in real authority. They want people to see this because it is saying ... 'Look what will happen to you if you don't obey'. An article I saw about the Taser XREP included this line from the writer: 'We'll behave ourselves, officer, but please, just point that thing somewhere else'.
That's exactly the mentality that the Taser is designed to instil ...
... It shows how far we have come down the Orwellian road that the website can say that the Taser is a 'proven solution for stopping violence'. Hitting another human being with 50,000 volts of electricity is considered to be 'stopping violence'. Ahh, but you see the authorities are never violent, even when they are pepper-bombing cities. Only the people are violent. The authorities merely employ the 'use of force'.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job

Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
Man who set up Operation Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossad
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison PlanetTuesday, December 4, 2007
Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.
Cossiga was elected President of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.
Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed - an honest politician - and led the country for seven years until April 1992.
Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they coined "false flag operations," terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.
Cossiga's revelations contributed to an Italian parliamentary investigation of Gladio in 2000, during which evidence was unearthed that the attacks were being overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "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."

Cossiga's new revelations appeared last week in Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera. Below appears a rough translation.
"[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."
Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley's book as stating that "The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”
Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied to hundreds more professors and intellectuals - he can't be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Big Brother may ban smoking in your house – what's next?

Daily Dose - Home invasion: Big Brother may ban smoking in your house – what's next?
WC Douglass 4 Dec 2007
By now, smoking has been banned nearly everywhere: in bars, in restaurants, in offices, in movies, on planes, and – this one always gets me – at outdoor stadiums. The only place it's still OK to smoke is in the privacy of your own home, right? Wrong. There's a growing movement by the anti-smoking fascists throughout the country to create a smoke-free housing law. This law would ban smoking in multi-unit residences like apartment buildings and condominiums. That tug you feel is the anti-smoking lobby trying to pull away another of your personal freedoms. I'm not a believer in smoking bans. But as a believer in personal freedom, I'll be the first one to hand you a match if you want to light up. I've pointed out time and again that smoking is not the primary cause of lung cancer. And yet, this myth persists. And the anti-smoking lobby is using it to further their cause. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the smoking ban provides several hundred miles of blacktop. Why? Because wholesale government bans enacted under the guise of the "greater good" are always, always about the restriction of personal freedoms. (Did you know that Hitler was the original mastermind behind government regulated smoking bans? It's an interesting little story, and I'll tell you about it in the December issue of The Douglass Report.) As I was saying…Smoking bans are the first step on a slippery slope toward the obliteration of our individual rights. The simpletons in Congress and the Senate are often more concerned with celebrating our rights than protecting them. The smoke-free lobby seems to neither realize nor care that such a ban is discriminatory and, therefore, unconstitutional. Thankfully, there are some smart people speaking out against this ban. Many real estate companies are pointing out that this so-called "health concern" is about to take a big swipe at the sanctity of one of the most fundamental American rights: private property. Don't let all this smoke cloud an issue that's crystal clear. When the government comes to your door and says they want to pass a ban to protect you – and your children – slam the door in their face. Whether you light up after you slam that door is up to you. And that's exactly how it should be.
(Similar rumblings in the UK!)

Saturday, December 01, 2007

In Lies We Trust Part 2 - The CIA, Hollywood, and Bioterrorism

In Lies We Trust Part 1 - The CIA, Hollywood, and Bioterrorism

Abundant Evidence to Warn People Against GE Crops

Abundant Evidence to Warn People Against GE Crops
November 30, 2007
Straight to the Source
1.There's abundant evidence to warn people against GE crops
2."GM Canola will be everywhere and that is inevitable" - expert
Announcements in Victoria and NSW that genetically engineered (GE) crops will be allowed threaten more than just the income of Australia's farmers and food companies. There is irrefutable evidence that GE foods are unsafe to eat.
Working with more than 30 scientists worldwide, I documented 65 health risks of GE foods. There are thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions in humans, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals. Government safety assessments, including those of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), do not identify many of the dangers, and analysis reveals that industry studies submitted to FSANZ are designed to avoid finding them.
The process of inserting a foreign gene into a plant cell and cloning that cell into a GE crop produces hundreds of thousands of mutations throughout the DNA. Natural plant genes may be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds can change their function. This is why GE soy has less protein, an unexpected new allergen and up to seven times higher levels of a known soy allergen.
The only human feeding study conducted on GE foods found genes had transferred into the DNA of gut bacteria and remained functional. This means that long after we stop eating a GE food, its protein may be produced continuously inside our intestines.
Lab animals fed GM crops had altered sperm cells and embryos, a five-fold increase in infant mortality, smaller brains, and a host of other problems.

Documents made public by a lawsuit revealed that scientists at the US Food and Drug Administration warned that gene-spliced foods might lead to allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. When 25 per cent of US corn farmers planted GE varieties, corn sales to the European Union dropped by 99.4 per cent. All corn farmers suffered as prices fell by 13 to 20 per cent. In North America a growing number of doctors are prescribing a non-GE diet. Next year, the US natural food industry will remove all remaining GE ingredients.
Consumer buying pressure will likely force the entire food chain in North America to swear off GE within the next two years. Such a tipping point was achieved in Europe in April 1999. Australia should be taking notice of the response to GE foods throughout the world. It is certainly not the time to let the state bans expire.
Jeffrey M. Smith
Executive director Institute for Responsible Technology Iowa, USA
2.Press release from GM Free Cymru 28th November 2007
"GM Canola will be everywhere and that is inevitable"
In the light of the decisions in NSW and Victoria (1) to give a "green light" to the commercial growing of GM canola in those two states, one has to wonder what possible benefits to the consumer or to the farming community the two governments had in mind. No wonder that there is uproar amongst NGOs and consumer groups who have actually done some homework on GM canola and on the matter of coexistence.
Four items which are relevant to the debate in Australia:
1. GM Canola is impossible to contain
2. Contamination thresholds are not based on science
3. GM Canola spread by wild animals
4. Uncontrollable GM Canola Contamination in Japan...

Freedom of Speech

David Icke Newsletter Preview
'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' - attributed to Voltaire
Had those same protesting Oxford students been banned from a debate at the Oxford Union they would have been screaming 'human rights' and 'freedom of speech'. Ahh, but that's different because that's them and they are the good guys. You can tell by the hearts emblazoned on their sleeves. 'We must be allowed freedom of expression because what we say is right and good - it's the baddies that must be stopped.'
Contradiction and irony are indivisible and thus you have both in abundance with the doublethinking free speech deniers who also believe in the right to free speech. For instance, one of their heroes, the American academic, Noam Chomsky, said: 'If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all'.
But the Robot Radical computer software is so firewalled from reality that it can cheer at that sentiment while doing the opposite. Even then, we need to go further than Chomsky. It is not only that if we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in freedom at all. It is that if we don't have freedom for those we despise there can be no freedom for anyone. This is the point that most people miss. Put simply, freedom is only freedom when everyone is equally free. You can't be a little bit pregnant and, by the same principle, you can't be a little bit free. You either are, or you aren't.
If people we don't like are not free to say what we don't like, how can we be free to say what we like? We can't, because if others are denied the right to free expression then whatever we say is not free speech, but speech that is within the bounds of official acceptability. That is NOT freedom of expression; it is conformity to what others have decided it is okay to say.