The current credit crisis is basically a capital crisis: at a time when banks are already short of the capital needed to back their loans, capital
requirements are being raised. Nearly a century ago, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia demonstrated that banks do not actually need capital
to make loans so long as their credit is backed by the government. Denison Miller, the Banks first Governor, was fond of saying that the
Bank did not need capital because it is backed by the entire wealth and credit of the whole of Australia. With nothing but this national
credit power, the Commonwealth Bank funded both massive infrastructure projects and the countrys participation in World War I.
President John Adams is quoted as saying, There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. The
major conquests today are on the battlefield of debt, a war that is raging globally. Debt forces individuals into financial slavery to the
banks, and it forces governments to relinquish their sovereignty to their creditors, which in the end are also private banks, the originators
of all non-cash money today. In Great Britain, where the Bank of England is owned by the government, 97% of the money supply is issued
privately by banks as loans. In the U.S., where the central bank is owned by a private consortium of banks, the percentage is even higher.
The Federal Reserve issues Federal Reserve Notes (or dollar bills) and lends them to other banks, which then lend them at interest to
individuals, businesses, and local and federal governments.
That is true today, but in the past there have been successful models in which the government itself issued the national currency, whether as
paper notes or as the credit of the nation. A stellar example of this enlightened approach to money and credit was the Commonwealth Bank
of Australia, which operated successfully as a government-owned bank for most of the 20th century. Rather than issuing sovereign debt
federal bonds indebting the nation to pay at interest in perpetuity the government through the Commonwealth Bank issued sovereign credit,
the credit of the nation advanced to the government and its constituents.
The Banks achievements were particularly remarkable considering that for its first eight years, from 1912 to 1920, it did not have the power
to issue the national currency, and it operated without startup capital. Sir Denison Miller, Governor of the Bank from its creation in
1912 to 1923, was quoted in the Australian Press on July 7, 1921 as saying, The whole of the resources of Australia are at the back of this
bank, and so strong as this continent is, so strong is the Commonwealth Bank. Whatever the Australian people can intelligently conceive in
their minds and will loyally support, that can be done.
This was not just hype. In a 2001 article titled How Money Is Created in Australia, David Kidd wrote
of the Banks early accomplishments:
Australias own government-established Commonwealth Bank achieved some impressive successes while it was ?the peoples bank, before being
crippled by later government decisions and eventually sold.At a time when private banks were demanding 6% interest for loans, the
Commonwealth Bank financed Australias first world war effort from 1914 to 1919 with a loan of $700,000,000 at an interest rate of a fraction
of 1%, thus saving Australians some $12 million in bank charges. In 1916 it made funds available in to purchase
15 cargo steamers to support Australias growing export trade. Until 1924 the benefits conferred upon the people of Australia by their Bank
flowed steadily on. It financed jam and fruit pools to the extent of $3 million, it found $8 million for Australian homes, while to local
government bodies, for construction of roads, tramways, harbours, gasworks, electric power plants, etc., it lent $18.72 million. It paid
$6.194 million to the Commonwealth Government between December, 1920 and June, 1923 - the profits of its Note Issue Department - while by
1924 it had made on its other business a profit of $9 million, available for redemption of debt.The banks independently-minded Governor, Sir
Denison Miller, used the banks credit power after the First World War to save Australians from the depression conditions being imposed in
other countries. . . . By 1931 amalgamations with other banks made the Commonwealth Bank the largest savings institution in Australia,
capturing 60% of the nations savings.
Harnessing the Secret Power of Banking for the Public Good
The Commonwealth Bank was able to achieve so much with so little because both its first Governor, Denison Miller, and its first and most
King OMalley, had been bankers themselves and knew the secret of banking: that banks create the money they lend simply by writing accounting
entries into the deposit accounts of borrowers.
This banking secret was confirmed by a number of early banking insiders. In a 1998 paper titled Manufacturing Money, Australian economist Mike
Mansfield quoted the Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told shareholders of the Midland Bank on January 25,
1924, I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. The amount of money in
existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or decreasing deposits and bank purchases. We know how this is effected.
Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment of a loan, overdraft or bank sale destroys a deposit.
Dr. Coombs, former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, said in an address at
Ralph Hawtrey, Assistant Under Secretary to the British Treasury in the 1930s, wrote in Trade Depression and the Way Out, When a bank lends,
it creates money out of nothing. In his book The Art of Central Banking, Hawtrey clarified this, writing, When a bank lends, it creates
credit. Against the advance which it enters amongst its assets, there is a deposit entered in its liabilities. But other lenders have
not the mystical power of creating the means of payment out of nothing. What they lend must be money that they have acquired through their
Banks can do what no one else can: create the means of payment out of nothing. The Commonwealth Banks far-sighted founders roped this guarded
banking secret into the public service.
The Bank Collapse of 1893 Spawns a New Public Banking Model
The Commonwealth Bank was founded under conditions like those prevailing today: the country had just suffered a massive banking collapse. In
the 1890s, however, there was no FDIC insurance, no social security, no unemployment insurance to soften the blow. People who thought they
were well off suddenly found they had nothing. They could not withdraw their funds, write checks on their accounts, or sell their products or
their homes, since there was no money with which to buy them. Desperate people were leaping from bridges or throwing themselves in front
of trains. Something had to be done.
The response of the Labor government was to pass a bill in 1911 which included a provision for a publicly-owned bank that would be backed by
the assets of the government. In a rare move for the time, the bank was to have both savings and general bank business. It was also the first
bank in Australia to receive a federal government guarantee.
Jack Lang was Australias Treasurer in the Labor government of 1920-21 and Premier of New South Wales during the Great Depression. A
controversial figure, he was relieved of his duties after he repudiated loans owed to the bankers. In The Great
Bust: The Depression of the Thirties (McNamaras Books, Katoomba, 1962), Lang described the Commonwealth Banks triumphs and tribulations in
revealing detail. He wrote:
The Labor Party decided that a National Bank, backed with the assets of the Government, would not fail in times of financial stress. It also
realised that such a bank would be a guarantee that money would be found for home building and other needs. After the collapse of the
building societies, there was a great scarcity of money for such purposes.
. . . Chief advocate of the cause of a Commonwealth Bank was King OMalley, a colorful Canadian-American . . . Before coming to Australia, he
had worked in a small New York bank, owned by an uncle. . . . He had been much impressed by the way that his uncle had created credit. A bank
could create the credit, and at the same time manufacture the debit to balance it. That was the big discovery of OMalleys banking career. A
born showman, he itched to try it out on a grand scale. He started his political career in by
advocating a State Commercial Bank. In 1901 he went into the first Federal Parliament as a one-man pressure group to establish a Commonwealth
Bank, and joined the Labor Party for that purpose.
King OMalley insisted that the Commonwealth Bank had to control the issue of its own notes, but he lost on that point until 1920, when the
Bank did take over the issuance of the national currency, just as the U.S. Federal Reserve was authorized to do in 1913. That was the
beginning of the Commonwealth Banks central bank powers. But even before it had that power, the Bank was able to fund infrastructure and
defense on a massive scale, and it did this without startup capital. These achievements were chiefly due to the insights and boldness of the
Banks first Governor, Denison Miller.
The other bankers, fearing competition, had thought that by getting one of their own men in as the banks governor, they could keep it in
line. But they had not reckoned on their independent appointee, who saw the opportunity posed by a government-backed bank and set out to make
it the finest institution the country had ever known. As Lang tells the story:
The first test came when a decision was required regarding the amount of capital needed to start a bank of that kind. Under the Act, the
Commonwealth had the right to sell and issue debentures totalling £1 million. Some even thought that amount of capital would be insufficient,
having in mind what had happened in 1893. . . .
When Denison Miller heard of it, his reply was that no capital was needed.
Miller was wary of going to the politicians for money. He could get by without capital. Like King OMalley, he knew how banking worked.
(This, of course, was before the modern-day capital requirements imposed from abroad by the central bankers bank, the Bank for International
Settlements.) Lang went on:
Miller was the only employee. He found a small office . . . and asked the Treasury for an advance of £10,000. That was probably the first and
last time that the Commonwealth lent the Bank any money. From then on, it was all in the reverse direction.
. . . By January, 1913
[Miller] had completed arrangements to open a bank in each State of the Commonwealth, and also an agency in . . .
. [O]n January 20th, 1913 he made a speech declaring the new Commonwealth Bank open for business. He said:
?This bank is being started
without capital, as none is required at the present time, but it is backed by the entire wealth and credit of the whole of
In those few simple words was the charter of the Bank, and the creed of Denison Miller, which he never tired of reciting.
He promised to provide facilities to expand the natural resources of the country, and it would at all times be a people's bank. ?There is
little doubt that in time it will be classed as one of the great banks of the world, he added prophetically.
. . . Slowly it began to dawn on the private banks that they may have harbored a viper. They had been so intent on the risks of having to
contend with bank socialisation that they didnt realise they had much more to fear from competition by an orthodox banker, with the resources
of the country behind him.
. . . One of the first demonstrations of his vigor came when the Melbourne Board of Works went on the
market for money to redeem old loans, and also to raise new money. Up to that time, apart from Treasury Bills and advances by their own
Savings Banks, Governments had depended on overseas loans from . . . . In addition to stiff underwriting charges,
they found that the best they could expect would be £1 million at 4 per cent., at 97 1/2 net.
They then decided to approach Denison
Miller, who had promised to provide special terms for such bodies. He immediately offered to lend them £3 millions at 95 on which the
interest rate would be 4 per cent. They immediately clinched the deal. Asked where his very juvenile bank had raised all that money, Miller
replied, ?On the credit of the nation. It is unlimited.
Another major test came in 1914 with the First World War:
The first reaction was the risk that people might start rushing to the banks to withdraw their money. The banks realised that they were still
vulnerable if that happened. They were still afraid of another Black Friday.
There was a hurried meeting of the principal bankers.
Some reported that there were signs that a run was already starting. Denison Miller then said that the Commonwealth Bank on behalf of the
Commonwealth would support any bank in difficulties. . . . That was the end of the panic. But it put Miller on the box seat. Now, for the
first time, the Commonwealth Bank was taking the lead. It was giving, not taking, orders. . . .
Denison Miller . . . was virtually in control of the financing of the war. The Government didnt know how it was going to be achieved. Miller
And so this interesting story continues. Miller died in 1923, and in 1924 the bankers got back in control, throttling the activities of the
Commonwealth Bank and preventing it from saving Australians from the ravages of the 1930s Depression. In 1931, the bank board came into
conflict with the Labor government of James Scullin.
The Banks chairman refused to expand credit in response to the Great Depression unless the government cut pensions, which Scullin refused to
do. Conflict surrounding this issue led to the fall of the government, and to demands from Labor for reform of the bank and more direct
government control over monetary policy.
The Commonwealth Bank received almost all of the powers of a central bank in emergency legislation passed during World War II, and at the end
of the war it used this power to begin a dramatic expansion of the economy. In just five years, it opened hundreds of branches throughout
Australia. In 1958 and 1959, the government split the bank, giving the central bank function to the Reserve Bank of Australia, with the
Commonwealth Banking Corporation retaining its commercial banking functions. Both banks, however, remained publicly-owned.
Eventually, the Commonwealth Bank had branches in every town and suburb; and in the bush, it had an agency in every post office or country
store. As the largest bank in the country, it set the rates and set policy, which the others had to follow for fear of losing customers. The
Commonwealth Bank was widely perceived to be an insurance policy against abuse by private banks, serving to ensure that everyone had access
to equitable banking. It functioned as a wholly owned state bank until the 1990s, when it was privatized. Its focus then changed to
maximization of profits, with steady and massive branch and agency closures, staff layoffs, and reduced access to Automated Teller Machines
and to cash from supermarket checkouts. It has now become just another part of the banking cartel, but proponents say it was once the
lifeblood of the country.
Today there is renewed interest in reviving a publicly-owned bank in Australia on the Commonwealth Bank model. The United States and
other countries would do well to consider this option too.
Obama to Bypass Congress and Grant Amnesty through Executive Fiat?
Over the last month, conservatives have speculated that President Obama might bypass
Congress and grant blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens currently residing in the United States by way of executive fiat. According
to a controversial new “draft” report crafted by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), this lawless Obama
administration scheme is more than mere rumor. It is a detailed and well-thought-out strategy.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., on Sunday said he and his colleagues are still looking for answers on whether the administration has seriously
considered mass legalization for illegal immigrants, after an administration memo surfaced outlining ways to grant legalization without going
The draft memo, first obtained by Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office from the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services,
outlines ways the administration was exploring to legalize swaths of illegal immigrants “in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration
Reform.” The memo describes how to, “reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without
Of course the Obama administration is trying to downplay the significance of the memo. But these denials ring hollow. And no one can deny
the intent of the memo.
You don’t even have to read past the subject header of the memo to get a clue as to what the USCIS is up to: “Administrative
Alternatives to Comprehensive Illegal Immigration Reform.” Is there any way to misread the objective here? Clearly the USCIS expended a
considerable amount of effort trying to sneak this past Congress in order to implement the President’s illegal alien amnesty plan.
But even if you’re someone who believes you can’t judge a memo by its title, let’s take a look at some excerpts from the
USCIS document so you can judge for yourself. (You can also read the entire memo for yourself by clicking here).
The following items - used alone or in combination - have the potential to result in meaningful immigration reform absent legislative
Allow TPS [Temporary Protected Status] Applicants Who Entered Without Inspection to Adjust or Change Status
…Thus, USCIS should no longer adhere to the 1990 General Counsel opinions, and instead permit individuals in TPS to adjust or
change status. Opening this pathway will help thousands of applicants obtain lawful permanent residence without having to leave the
Expand the Use of Parole-in-Place
USCIS has the discretionary authority under [federal law] to parole into the U.S. on a case-by-case basis for “urgent humanitarian
reasons” or “significant public benefit” any applicant for admission…Granting parole to aliens in the U.S. who have
not been admitted or paroled is commonly referred to as “parole-in-place” (PIP). By granting PIP, USCIS can eliminate the need
for qualified recipients to return to their home country for consular processing, particularly when doing so might trigger a bar to
Lessen the Standard for Demonstrating Extreme Hardship
…By statute, DHS has discretion to waive these grounds of inadmissibility for spouses, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens or
lawful permanent residents if the refusal to admit these individuals would result in extreme hardship for their qualifying relatives.
Generally the “extreme hardship” standard has been narrowly construed by USCIS. To increase the number of individuals applying
for waivers, and improve their chances for receiving them, CIS could issue guidance or regulation specifying a lower evidentiary standard for
Increase the Use of Deferred Action
…USCIS has previously allowed the use of deferred action to provide relief to non-immigrants whose period of admission had expired,
or otherwise had failed to maintain lawful immigrant status…While it is theoretically possible to grant deferred action to an
unrestricted number of unlawfully present individuals, doing so would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive…Rather than
making deferred action widely available to hundreds of thousands and as a non-legislative version of “amnesty,” USCIS could
tailor the use of this discretionary option for particular groups….
The memo goes on for about 11 pages with other recommendations that I cannot adequately cover in this space, so do consider taking the
time to read the document for yourself.
I’ve reviewed tens of thousands of government documents in my 12-plus years here at Judicial Watch. So it is not insignificant for me
to say that this memo is about the most brazen and shocking government document I’ve ever reviewed.
Republicans and, eventually, even Democrats are unlikely to let this matter drop. In fact, according to Fox News, Republican members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee have written to Chairman Leahy demanding the matter be investigated by the Committee: “We are very concerned about
the options outlined in the memo and are troubled that the executive branch could be engaged in an effort to inappropriately expand its
authority to ensure illegal immigrants are not removed from the United States and are given access to various immigration benefits, including
potential green card status," the Senators wrote.
Let’s sum up. Obama’s top political appointees in the agency charged with enforcing our immigration laws are spending their
time thinking of ways not to enforce the law and how to bypass the elected representatives of the people to grant mass amnesty through a raw
abuse of executive power.
Obama and his appointees are obviously impatient with the niceties of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. We already knew
they’re against the rule of law with their coordinated and dishonest attack on Arizona’s SB 1070. This latest memo shows
they’d be happy to throw the rule of law out entirely when it comes to immigration.
Judicial Watch is hard at work. We already had a Freedom of Information Act request in place on the secret amnesty plan, and we plan to
expand our investigation in light of the new memo.
August 5, 2010, by a vote of to 63 to 37, the Senate confirmed Elena Kagan as the Sociopath’s appointee to the Supreme Court. And with
that, another shovel of dirt is dug for the hole to bury the constitutional republic that once was the United States of America.
At a minimum, Kagan is distinguished only by her utter mediocrity and lack of qualifications. She has never been a judge; she hasn’t
even been an attorney. Like Obama, her academic career is notable for a lack of publications — something that is curious, to say the
least, in the publish-or-perish Darwinian world of academe. I should know: I was in academe and retired as a tenured Full Professor. A
curriculum vitae and publication record as thin as Kagan’s would not get her hired as a beginning assistant professor in a
mid-ranking state university, much less as the dean of Harvard Law School. (For more on Kagan’s mediocrity, style="color:#0000ff;">CLICK HERE.)
More than her mediocrity, Kagan is an enemy to everything patriots hold dear:
She supports style="color:#0000ff;">massive government censorship of TV, press and Internet. She is prepared to use the law to silence “hate speech,” which to Obama and his mini-me means any one who’s opposed to their ideological agenda, especially to what
they call ”diversity.” Kagan wrote in a style="color:#0000ff;">law journal
article: “We live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality. Certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this
inequality. style="color:#ff0000;">The disappearance of such style="color:#ff0000;">speech would be cause for great elation.”
Kagan’s advocacy for “diversity” clearly does not extend to the ethnic and religious composition of the highest court of
the land for, with her appointment, four of the nine Supreme Court judges will be Jews. That’s 44.4% for a minority group consisting of
less than 2% of the U.S. population. There will be no white Protestants on the Supreme Court in a country founded by Protestants.
“Kagan, who could be on the court for thirty years, is the last nail in the coffin of marriage, family and American
freedom. Obama makes appointments on the basis of ethnic or sexual identity…. Clearly, we are witnessing an assault on heterosexual
Americans of Christian European origin. The object is to destroy American sovereignty and democracy; and meld the US into a Luciferian world
government and religion….”
Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) joined 36 Republicans as the lone Democrat voting against Kagan. Five Republican senators joined
58 Democrats in voting for Kagan: Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Richard Lugar (Indiana), and
Judd Gregg (New Hampshire).
Remember the names of these traitorous RINOS and vote them out this November or in 2012: Graham, Collins,
Snowe, Lugar, and Gregg.
Payoffs for Judges, Prosecutors Is Legal by Statute
Anyone who has ever attended an Internal Revenue Service court case likely noticed the biased attitude
of the presiding judge in favor of the prosecution. Perhaps, though, only those of us who have sat in courtrooms, in every section of the
country, can attest to this unwavering pattern of unfairness. Whatever happened to the judge’s impartial role of
Federal statutes show how and why U.S. law encourages prosecutorial and judicial conflicts of interest,
non-neutrality, non-impartiality and corruption of justice in the federal courts. (See page 13 for portions of 5 USC 4502 through 4504 from
the United States Code.)
How can the federal judiciary be independent and impartial when the law permits the federal government to
secretly award judges up to $25,000 in undisclosed secret “cash awards,” and to privately, secretly and “erroneously”
overpay them up to $10,000, and “waive” these erroneous overpayments?
How can any defendant be found innocent or
“guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” when such statutory “cash award” provisions on their face create an irrefutable,
behind-the-scenes incentive for the prosecution? These questions and others must be answered by the U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon
following a lawsuit naming multiple defendants in the Department of Justice including Judge Anna J. Brown, who presided over a trial of
“conspiracy to impede the IRS” last November.
Defendant Roy Bendshadler’s attorney Nancy Bergeson had complained of
suspected “jury tampering” and was found strangled to death in her Portland home the next day. Her cause of death was at first
passed off as “natural causes” until a second medical examiner changed it to homicide. The murder is unsolved.
action was filed by Michael Sean Mungovan, one of five convicted in the above 2009 case. Mungovan was sentenced to four years in prison on
July 28. This was an hour after he had served Judge Brown with a copy of the suit, which should have legally restricted her from any
sentencing action over him until it was resolved, according to Mungovan.
None of this is new to the IRS. Its manual on pages 1,229 to
1,291 (Delegation Orders of January 17, 1983) outlines the IRS system of monetary awards “of up to and including $5,000, for any one
individual employee or group of employees, in his/her immediate office, including field employees, engaged in National Office projects; and
contributions of employees of other government agencies and armed forces members. ”This would include U.S. District Court judges and
The Mungovan suit, composed by Utah lawyer Dr. Dale Livingston, explains, “These awards include secret cash
awards. They are not limited as to the number of awards that may be awarded to any one person or group. There is no limitation placed upon
any award. Any person or group of persons can be awarded this money, including: U.S. attorneys, federal judges, the president of the United
States or anyone else for that matter.”
Livingston added: “The awards may be given to the same person or group, each minute, each hour, every day, every week, every month,
every year or not at all. In other words, the U.S. government and the alleged Internal Revenue Service . . . have a perfectly legal (not
lawful) system of bribery. The bribery works against the American people . . . when they expect impartial justice, and there is no proof on
the record to the contrary.”
The murder of attorney Bergeson, who only threatened to initiate an investigation into what she
believed to have been a stacked jury, sends the warning that Mungovan, by forcing the issue, may have placed a much larger target on his
Lack of space here prevents this writer’s attempt to list all the negative ramifications of such a surreptitious program
posing as “justice for all,” but let us consider for a moment a few of the many dubious convictions from the recent decades
reported in AFP and The Spotlight over the years.
How much money did Judge Paul Benson receive for railroading Yori Kahl and
Scott Faul in 1983? There was no evidence these young men ever fired a shot in the melee in Medina, North Dakota, where Yori’s father,
Gordon, admitted shooting U.S. Marshal Ken Muir in self-defense. Later it was learned this was the same judge that had sent away Leonard
Peltier of Wounded Knee fame for life, with no evidence he had killed the two FBI agents found dead after the 1973 shootout. Are judges paid
more for high-profile cases?
How about Judge Walter Smith of Waco, Texas? We cannot imagine how many bucks he may have received after
sending away 11 Branch Davidian Church members, who had been acquitted by a jury of capital crimes in 1994, not long after the Waco massacre
of men, women and children by federal agents and troops. These 11 churchgoers received a total of 240 years. These outrageous maximum
sentences for merely carrying a firearm were applied against people who had not even fired a shot in self-defense at the onrushing U.S.
marshals, U.S. military Special Forces soldiers and other federal gunmen.
Then there were the Montana Freemen, who were labeled as
“separatist outlaws.” In 1996 they were working to expose the banking fraud of the Federal Reserve System. Many of these men are
still in federal prison, yet they never harmed anyone.
Cash incentives paid for convictions help us understand not only what has
happened in the past, but also what we can expect to see in the future.
(B4IN) It's clearer every day. One more major event, one more instigated crisis, one more mega false flag, and they're in. They're locked
and loaded, the propaganda fertilizer is spread, their police and military machinations are in place, and the public mind is numbed and
programmed, ready to cry for the 'protection of the state', the very one that is intent on controlling them.
They'll Come To You
Anyone on to the real Truth will tell you--'it won't be long now'--as most of those reading this will testify. "Conspiracy" people have
their own world they live in. It's not light outside, it's dark. The chemtrails keep coming, the unwitting populace won't listen. The deadly
cell towers proliferate at schools, hospitals and highly populated areas, no one will take heed. Frankenfood production continues unabated,
as the masses suck down TV propaganda, junk food and cry for the vaccine. It's not pretty--on that level.
The good news is, the awakening is unavoidable. It may be late, but it will happen. As the hammer comes down and the systematic scientific
militarization evolves, people will catch on. Late, but better late than never. And they'll remember what you said--and come to you.
Screaming in a Bad Dream
I had a vivid dream one night that really hit me. I dreamt I was standing next to a chunky sort of American guy at a pizza place--only he
was standing alone in front of the pizza oven. It resembled a tandori bread oven, old fashioned arched construction off to my left, modest
size. But as I watched him as he stood in front of the oven it got hotter and hotter. So much so the heat and flames were cooking him alive!
I screamed and screamed at him to get away, yet he reacted with nothing--he simply stared into the apparently enrapturing light of the
fire--as he was roasting like an animal on a spit.
It's like that now, and this dream reflected my daily reality. I drive each day wondering how the joggers and bikers can't see they're
sucking down these poisonous chemicals. I wonder how an intellegent race cannot know it's being sprayed, poisioned and electro-bombed from
every angle. I just don't get it. Yet I do.
Back to the World Situation
Well, it's sad, but inspiring. The truth is getting louder, as the lie becomes stronger. Much like a candle that becomes brighter in the
dark, so the truth stands to triumph. We're passing through an ugly time in history, and pass we must. We cannot deny or escape it. But being
awake and aware, that might take some courage. Are you up to it?
The amount of deflation rhetoric in the mainstream media has been continuing to surge this week. Yesterday there was an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, "Defending Yourself Against Deflation" and on Monday Paul Krugman wrote an editorial in the New York Times entitled, "Why Is Deflation Bad?". We decided to do a simple Google News archive search to see when previous spikes in media chatter about the topic of deflation have taken place.
The largest spike this decade in articles about deflation came in May of 2003. At that time, the Dow Jones was 8,500, the price of gold was $350 per ounce, and the price of oil was $30 per barrel. The Dow Jones went on to rise for four years straight reaching a high in 2007 of 14,198 up 67%. Gold went on to rise for seven years straight reaching a high this year of $1,248 per ounce up 257%. Oil went on to rise for five years straight reaching a high in 2008 of $147 per barrel up 390%.
The second largest spike this decade in articles about deflation came in November of 2008. At that time, the Dow Jones was 8,000, the price
of gold was $725 per ounce, and the price of oil was $50 per barrel. Since then, the Dow Jones has risen as high as 11,257 up 41%, gold has
risen as high as $1,248 per ounce up 72%, and oil has risen as high as $88 per barrel up 76%.
NIA has come to the conclusion that the mainstream media talking about deflation is the most accurate contrarian indicator out there. The
false threat of deflation in 2003 came at the beginning of the biggest rise in asset prices in U.S. history. The false threat of deflation in
2008 came almost exactly when stocks, precious metals, and commodities had reached their bottom. NIA believes that the threat of deflation
today could mean that the biggest move to the upside for gold and silver in history is right around the corner.
Investors today are currently faced with a dilemma. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the U.S. economic recovery is phony, but the
U.S. dollar is rapidly being debased. The U.S. dollar is no longer a safe haven and with the fundamentals of our economy continuing to
deteriorate, stocks and Real Estate are no longer attractive investments. The only asset class suitable to protect investors from both
inflation and our collapsing economy is precious metals.
The U.S. Dollar Index has been in free fall since early June and could be setting up for a crash. Yu Yongding, a former Chinese central bank
adviser, wrote on Monday, "I do not think U.S. Treasuries are safe in the medium-and long-run." According to Yu, a scary trajectory of budget
deficits and a growing supply of U.S. dollars has put the value of China's U.S. Treasuries at risk. Yu is concerned that China has no way to
sell their U.S. Treasuries in a "big way".
Of course China has no way of selling their U.S. Treasuries in a "big way". China needs to continue buying larger amounts of new U.S.
Treasuries in order to keep this ponzi scheme going. If China decided to sell in a "big way", the only buyer out there will be the Federal
Reserve and we will see immediate hyperinflation.
With the U.S. dollar in rapid decline, the price of crude oil surged yesterday to over $82.50 per barrel. Surging crude oil prices will help
contribute to across the board price inflation in the months ahead. The sentiment on Wall Street will quickly shift from fears of deflation
to fears of massive inflation as soon as the bankers on Wall Street who are in control of the mainstream media are done accumulating their
positions in precious metals.
U.S. Expands Asian NATO To Contain And Confront China
U.S. Expands Asian NATO To Contain And Confront China
The U.S. ended the four-day Invincible Spirit joint military exercise with South Korea on July 28, which consisted of 20 warships and
submarines, 200 aircraft and 8,000 troops “in the sea, shore and the skies”  of South Korea and in the Sea of Japan near the
coasts of North Korea and Russia.
On the same day the Taiwan News ran a feature entitled “China reports: the US means to set up another NATO in Asia,” which
cited Chinese news media, scholars and analysts warning that “The US is establishing another ‘NATO’ in Asia to contain
China as evidenced in the ongoing high-profile naval exercise with South Korea and a perceived intrusion in South China Sea affairs. [T]hese
moves including explicit intervention in Asian affairs underline the US’s schemes to challenge China over its growing presence in this
Chinese scholar Shih Yongming is paraphrased as asserting that “The US is capitalizing on the contradictions among East Asian
countries to form a front against China,” in reference to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposing “to include the
controversy over the issues of South China Sea into the mechanism of international laws and [speaking] explicitly about US stakes in the
disputed sea’s areas,”  an allusion to her comments at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum in
Hanoi on July 23.
Clinton’s signal that Washington would rally Southeast Asian nations engaged in disputes with China over claims to the Paracel and
Spratly Islands in the South China Sea occurred at the end of a six-day tour of Asia – Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Korea and Vietnam
– which followed by two weeks visits to Ukraine, Poland, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia on Russia’s western and southern
During her trips last month to nine nations from the Baltic Sea to the South China Sea, especially during her stays in Georgia and
Vietnam, Clinton reiterated in no equivocal terms that the U.S. recognizes no “spheres of influence” by any other nation anywhere
in the world, including ones by Russia and China on their borders and in their immediate neighborhoods , and that Washington reserves the
exclusive right to intervene in regional conflicts around the world and to “internationalize” them when and how it sees fit.
Two days after Clinton left Vietnam the nearly 100,000-ton USS George Washington nuclear-powered supercarrier moved into the Sea of Japan
for large-scale war games which also included the first deployment of U.S. F-22 Raptor fifth generation stealth warplanes to Korea. According
to a local news source, “Two F-22s known as the best fighter aircraft in the world were shown combat-ready at Osan Air Base in Gyeonggi
Province on [July 26].
“Saying the Raptor is the most lethal fighter, the US Air Force pointed out the jet’s stealth design which prevents it from
being detected by enemy radars.
“U.S. officials were also eager to remind North Korea of the supersonic jet’s presence as it can launch precise strikes at
strategic targets.” 
The F-22s were not only within easy striking distance of Pyongyang but of Vladivostok, Russia’s largest port city on the Pacific
Ocean. And not North Korea and Russia alone.
A research scholar with the Academy of Military Science of the People’s Liberation Army, Luo Yuan, wrote of the Invincible Spirit
war games that the Pentagon deployed not only “a nuclear-powered super-carrier, but also its military aircraft, warships, [a]
nuclear-powered submarine and [an] Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer for the joint drill.”
The naval, submarine and air exercises were conducted “only 500 km from Beijing. Considering that the nuclear-powered super-carrier
USS George Washington’s radius of action is up to 600 km, and the aircraft it carries can reach a speed of 1,000 km an hour, the joint
drill was dangerously close to China’s security threshold.”
The author asked a question that Russian authorities should also have posed, mutatis mutandis: “China has to be alarmed when other
powers display their military might near its territory. Will the US allow China to conduct military drills with neighboring countries in the
Gulf of Mexico?”
He added these concluding remarks: “[T]he military exercise was aimed at, it was a threat to China.
“The US has bandied about the ‘China threat theory’ for some time now. But this joint military exercise proves once and
for all that the US, and not China, is a threat to the world.” 
South Korean new media have reported that the U.S. is to participate in monthly naval drills off the Korean Peninsula, in the Yellow Sea
off China’s coast, next month. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell announced on August 6 that USS George Washington will participate in a
joint U.S.-South Korean military exercise in the Yellow Sea “in the near future.”
Before the military drills began, the influential China Daily contained an editorial that connected the expansion of a U.S.-led equivalent
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to a hostile policy toward China, stating, “the US has seemingly become less restrained in
its move to push forward an Asian version of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with its allies in the region.
“In so doing, Washington has harbored the obvious strategic intention of
containing China – whose economic and strategic influence has kept increasing in the international arena – in a bid to preempt
possible troubles that the fast-growing nation may cause to the US.” 
Recent articles by a U.S. geopolitical strategist and by a retired military official have renewed the demand for an Asian NATO , in the
second case insisting that “The Asian ‘NATO’ must stand-up a credible, united effort against China’s intimidation and
hegemonic actions much as NATO formed the backbone of our defense against the former Soviet Union.” 
Over six years ago Liu Xuecheng, a researcher with the China Institute of International Studies, sounded the following alarm:
“Almost as early as from the end of the Cold War, the United States began to promote a military mechanism in Asia similar to NATO.
“During the eight years of former US President Bill Clinton’s term, the United States confirmed Japan and Australia as its
core allies in the Asia-Pacific region and respectively regarded the two countries as the northern and southern anchors of its East Asian
“Through various military exercises and construction of a missile defence system, Washington subsequently succeeded in networking
its bilateral military relations with Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore.
“Following the Kosovo War, the perception that Europe’s security situation had [come] under [the] control of NATO while
Asia-Pacific security was being threatened by more uncertain and unpredictable factors prompted the United States to begin to shift its
military strategy eastward.” 
After September 11, 2001 that geostrategic transition was intensified, the author continued, and “the Bush administration…put
its priority on countering terrorism and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Under those two banners, the
United States has strengthened its strategic control of the V-shaped belt stretching from Northeast to Central Asia, to which China, India,
Japan and Russia are closely adjacent.
“The US traditional energy transportation passage and nations Bush branded as part of the so-called ‘axis of evil’ also
overlap this long arc.
“While strengthening its strategic control of the outstretched chain, the United States has also actively worked to extend the
network of Asia-Pacific security alliances under its domination to the Indian Ocean and even to the Persian Gulf to join the
“To expedite implementation of this strategy, Washington has promoted active participation of its traditional allies in the
anti-terror war, and prompted them to co-ordinate its anti-proliferation moves and support its ambitious missile defence system.”
The preceding year an unsigned item appeared in China Daily which stated “The United States is designing a NATO-like multilateral
military mechanism for Asia to better serve its own strategic interests….Washington’s basic purpose for closer ties with India
and an Asian version of NATO is to extend its status as the world’s sole superpower.” 
When the seventh of what had become annual U.S.-India Malabar naval war games expanded to include Australia, Japan and Singapore in 2007,
Indian journalist Praful Bidwai wrote: “The naval exercises…are the largest and the most complex that India has ever participated
in and feature as many as 25 ships from India, United States, Australia, Japan and Singapore….China…sees India’s military
collaboration with staunchly pro-U.S. states like Australia and Japan and Singapore, and above all, with the U.S. itself, as an attempt to
set up what it calls ‘an Asian NATO’, and eventually, to encircle it.” 
What in fact the U.S. is doing to complete its status as history’s first sole world military superpower, as its commander-in-chief
Barack Obama referred to it in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, is to not only drag almost all Asia-Pacific nations into a military
bloc analogous to NATO, but to integrate the East into a global military alliance with NATO as the foundation. 
As was remarked above, since the end of the Cold War the U.S. has incorporated almost all of Europe into the North Atlantic military bloc
it controls. Every European nation (excluding microstates) except for Cyprus (for the moment, though it is also under pressure to join the
Partnership for Peace) is now a member of NATO or part of the Partnership for Peace and even more advanced programs. 38 European nations have
provided the bloc with troop contingents of varying size for the war in Afghanistan.
Having subjugated Europe, Washington moved onto Asia, Oceania, Africa and the Middle East with the Caribbean and Latin America slated to
follow. In short, the entire planet.
The five former Soviet Central Asian republics – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – are
Partnership for Peace members, all except Tajikistan joining in the early 1990s and it in 2002. Since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001
NATO troops and warplanes have operated out of bases in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The Pentagon has recently announced plans to
open training centers in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan in addition to the Transit Center at Manas in the second country through which 50,000 U.S.
and NATO troops pass each month to and from Afghanistan.
This week Semyon Bagdasarov, member of the Russian State Duma’s International Affairs Committee, commented on NATO’s expanded
plans for the region: “[T]here are plans to send 52 OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] policemen to Kyrgyzstan
who are supposed to do something there. But what can 52 unarmed men do? Kyrgyzstan is not Kosovo. If anything happens to these OSCE
policemen, orders will be given to bring in armed units to Kyrgyzstan. Who is going to send military units there? Of course, it’s NATO.
There’s a US military base in Manas, a French air base in Dushanbe, a 154,000 NATO military contingent in Afghanistan. What’s the problem? If
that happens, we will witness a very interesting situation that will resemble the one in Kosovo.” 
In recent years NATO developed a new category of military cooperation, what are termed Contact Countries, all of which are in the
Asia-Pacific region: Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.
Last week NATO announced that Malaysia had become the 47th nation to officially contribute troops for the bloc’s war in Afghanistan,
joining other new Asian contributors Singapore, Mongolia and South Korea. Australia has 1,550 troops in Afghanistan and New Zealand over 200,
with more to be deployed in September. Australia wants yet more New Zealand forces to serve under an Australia and New Zealand Army Corps
(ANZAC) command in the South Asian war zone.  The first soldier from the nation was killed in Afghanistan on August 3.
Last week it was announced that Britain will underwrite expenses for 275 marines from the South Pacific kingdom of Tonga to be deployed to
Asian NATO is not a metaphor.
From July 19-23 the U.S. Air Force and the government of Singapore sponsored the 2010 Pacific Rim Airpower Symposium in the Southeast
Asian country to which delegations from Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia,
Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga and Vietnam
were also invited to participate.
The U.S. Air Force’s Lieutenant General Hawk Carlisle said of the gathering, “The U.S. Air Force looks forward to these events
every year, and our 2010 editions are no exception.” 
On August 1 the U.S. completed month-long biennial Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) war games in Hawaii, the world’s largest
naval maneuvers, which included 36 warships, five submarines, 170 aircraft and 20,000 troops from 14 nations: Australia, Canada, Chile,
Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Peru, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand and the U.S. India and New Zealand were
Vice Admiral Richard Hunt, commander of the U.S. Third Fleet and combined task force commander for the exercises, said, “This is the
largest RIMPAC that we’ve had.” 
“Diesel electric submarines from Japan and South Korea stalked the U.S. aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan in the final phase –
simulating a growing undersea worry as nonallied nations build up their stock of quiet subs in the Pacific.” 
Participants for the first time were one of NATO’s three nuclear powers, France; Colombia, which is the first Latin American nation
to provide NATO troops for the war in Afghanistan; and Singapore and Thailand, prominent members of the U.S. Asian NATO project.
On July 26 and 27 senior Indian air force leaders visited the Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico “to learn how the U.S. Air Force
operators use simulators for different aircraft and how to do distributed mission operations….The visiting [Indian Air Force] leaders
are interested in taking part in future Virtual Flag exercises….Virtual Flag exercises link geographically separated live, virtual and
constructive weapons assets in a shared joint synthetic theater environment.” 
Japan sent several officers from the Maritime Self-Defense Force to the recently concluded U.S.-South Korean war games in the Sea of
Japan. A government panel recently issued a recommendation stating “existing defense guidelines, made in the Cold War era, are now seen
as ‘unsuitable,’ and that it is necessary to respond proactively to limited, small-scale invasions and contingencies on the
Korean Peninsula and in the Taiwan Strait,” and proposed “lifting outright bans on development and possession of nuclear weapons
and their transportation to Japan….” 
Regarding U.S. plans to recruit Asia-Pacific nations into its global interceptor missile system, United Press International announced on
August 5 that “Japan may export the ship-launched Standard Missile-3 system, a change from the country’s current ban on selling
arms and weapons.”
“The apparent move comes after a request last October by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Japan’s Defense Minister
Toshimi Kitazawa….The United States is expecting an answer by the end of the year….
“The 21-foot SM-3 missile, designated RIM-161A in the United States, is a major part of the U.S. Navy’s Aegis Ballistic
Missile Defense System and is a compliment to the Patriot missile.” 
On July 31 the two-week U.S.-led Angkor Sentinel 2010 military exercises in Cambodia ended. The drills which formally are for training
peacekeepers for worldwide deployments included military forces from the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, Japan, India,
Indonesia, the Philippines and Mongolia as well as the host nation. Like the latest RIMPAC war games, a combination of major NATO and Asian
The U.S. has just launched Khaan Quest 2010, reputed to be the largest of the annual military exercises it leads in Mongolia, and South
Korean troops are to participate for the first time. 
On August 5 a Nepalese news sources disclosed that eight U.S. Army troops had arrived in the nation for a joint two-week military
Australia, which last year announced the largest military buildup since World War Two , has begun Exercise Pitch Black, a
“three-week air combat exercise in Darwin, in northern Australia. The Royal Australian Air Force is being joined by military personnel
from New Zealand, Singapore and Thailand.”
“Security analysts say the annual war games over Darwin and the Northern Territory are designed to boost Australia’s military
ties with its strategic partners. In the past, Indonesian forces also have taken part.” 
A major Philippine newspaper recently reported that “The United States has pledged to provide the Philippines with $18.4-million
worth of precision-guided missiles this year to use in its fight against Islamist militants in the south….” 
On August 5 Agence France-Press revealed that the Pentagon will supply Taiwan with two more Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates.
“Taiwan’s navy already operates a fleet of eight such frigates, but it has launched a five-year buildup beginning from
2008,” said a Taiwanese naval spokesman.
“Taiwanese media have said the planned buildup includes eight conventional submarines, as well as an undisclosed number of frigates
and guided-missile patrol boats.” 
An article that appeared in the International Herald Tribune this week, “Washington Shores Up Its Strategic Assets in Asia,”
included these observations:
“The United States has been gravely weakened by its Iraq and Afghan wars and consequent neglect of the strategic importance of East
Asia. But two recent moves by Washington — the joint naval exercises with South Korea and a spirited diplomatic defense of the freedom of the
South China Sea — have shown a renewed concern with America’s security interests in Northeast and Southeast Asia.”
“America’s military maneuvers with South Korea last week reminded China of the overwhelming naval superiority that the U.S. and its
allies still enjoy in the region. Meanwhile, at the meeting last month in Hanoi of the Asean regional forum, which brought foreign ministers
from the 10 Southeast Asian nations together with U.S., Chinese and other officials, Vietnam successfully conspired with the United States to
get the South China Sea issue back on the table for discussion at international meetings.”
“The United States, by declaring in Hanoi that it has an interest in freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and the settlement
of disputed claims by international law, has put itself firmly in the camp of Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and other nations with
stakes in the outcome….” 
Last week a bipartisan, congressionally mandated defense panel headed by former White House National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and
former Defense Secretary William Perry “challenged the Pentagon to broaden its focus beyond counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq
and expand the Navy to deal with threats from rising powers in Asia.” The panel’s report called for the U.S. Navy to expand its
current 282 ships to 346 ships to “beef up U.S. maritime power in Asia.”
The report stipulated confronting “an accelerating global competition for resources” and “the rise of new global great
powers in Asia.” 
The allusion, those phrased in the plural, was to China.
The perspective of a looming conflict is shared on the Chinese side, albeit in regards to developments in China’s own region and not
thousands of miles away. Wang Jisi, director of Peking University’s Center for International and Strategic Studies, wrote on August 5
that “In early 2010, conflicts between China and the US came thick and fast, leading to the most serious political disturbance between
the two countries since the plane collision in 2001….The gap between the two sides’ perceptions on major international issues is
getting bigger. US strategists are still trying to take advantage of China’s weak spots in domestic and foreign affairs. [I]n the
future the strategic cooperation space between the two will be squeezed, and major competition is inevitable.” 
The tone of commentary in the Chinese press is increasingly grave and even ominous, as is indicated by these samples from Global
“The Chinese government has not sent a clear signal, though there is heated debate among the public as how to respond to the
aggressive US policy. Ideas range from military action to leveraging China’s financial holdings of US assets, to more diplomatic
communication. Admittedly, China has fewer means to counter the US than the US can use against China.
“China won’t follow a path to war like Japan did in World War II, but that does not mean that China will surrender to US
strategic containment….Taking on China as a competitor may serve as an incentive to the US. If the US takes China as an enemy, the
result would be disastrous.
“Plenty of water has passed under the bridge for China and the US since President Obama took office. What started out warmly soon
turned chilly, and many feel the Sino-US relationship is heading toward a dangerously uncertain era.” 
China’s first direct experience with NATO occurred on May 7, 1999 when five of the Alliance’s bombs hit its embassy in
Yugoslavia in a strike approved by President Bill Clinton. Three Chinese citizens were killed and over 20 wounded in what the Chinese
government branded a “crime of war” and a “barbarian act.”
In the intervening years NATO has moved to China’s borders – in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – and
China’s neighbors are being recruited into an Eastern extension of the world first global military bloc.
1) Navy NewsStand, July 28, 2010
2) Taiwan News, July 28, 2010
3) Clinton Renews U.S. Claims On Former Soviet Space
Stop NATO, July 7, 2010
4) Arirang News, July 28, 2010
5) Luo Yuan, Big Brother flexes muscles
Xinhua News Agency, July 31, 2010
6) China Daily, July 12, 2010
7) Max Boot, Building an East Asian NATO
Atlantic Council, May 12, 2010
Robert Maginnis, Winning the New Cold War
Human Events, August 6, 2010
8) Human Events, August 6, 2010
9) People’s Daily, June 3, 2004
10) China Daily, July 18, 2003
11) Inter Press Service, September 7, 2007
12) Global Military Bloc: NATO’s Drive Into Asia
Stop NATO, January 24, 2009
13) Russia Today, August 3, 2010
14) New Zealand Press Association, July 29, 2010
15) Pacific Air Forces, July 15, 2010
16) Navy Times, July 6, 2010
17) Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 31, 2010
18) U.S. Air Forces in Europe
American Forces Press Service
July 30, 2010
19) Agence France-Presse, July 27, 2010
20) United Press International, August 5, 2010
21) Australian Military Buildup And The Rise Of Asian NATO
Stop NATO, May 6, 2009
23) Voice of America News, August 4, 2010
24) Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 31, 2010
25) Agence France-Presse, August 5, 2010
26) International Herald Tribune, August 2, 2010
27) Washington Times, July 29, 2010
28) Global Times, August 5, 2010
28) Global Times, August 5, 2010
Corporate News Fails Us Again, “Gulf is Kill Zone,” Humans and Wildlife Used as Guinea Pigs
Today, on Democracy Now, activist Jerry Cope stated that their has been a tremendous cover up to conceal the whole situation from the public. Remember, even the corporate news has complained about the restrictions around the beaches. What has BP been attempting to cover up?
In and around Orange Beach Alabama, a massive amount of people are sick from the toxic mixture of oil and Corexit9500. Cope stated that Orange beach and Gulf Shores Alabama are, “kinda like ground zero,” Doctors are lost in the wind when it comes to the proper treatment for the chemical rape of the people in the Gulf region.
Cope had this to say regarding his own health:
“Myself, i have pneumonia induced by chemical exposure.”
Numerous fisherman has stated that a very large scale operation took place to cover up the loss of marine life. BP, along with multiple federal agencies have literally gathered up the carcasses of the dead animals and disposed of them, at the same time, the corporate news continues to report that wildlife exposure to toxic chemicals has been relatively minor.
Workers at the, “source,” reported that the sea was literally FULL of animal carcasses. Unreported by the fraudulent media, the carcasses eventually disappeared!
Jerry Cope and his team spent two days flying over the Gulf and from what he has seen, the whole Gulf is a strange greenish color, with nothing moving, wildlife is virtually non existent! This would indicate that not only are thousands of people sick but a vast amount of wildlife throughout the Gulf has either left or been killed.
Corporate news has enthusiastically declared, “75% of the oil has dissipated.” This criminally negligent reporting on the part of these so called news outlets must not go unpunished. The media is supposed to play an important part in our society by providing the checks and balances needed to keep our government honest. When they fail to do so, not only are they failing at their job, they are jeopardizing thousands of lives.
Meanwhile, in Louisiana, a dive team has found oil, under their feet! That’s right, in a scene similar to the beaches around the Exxon Valdez spill, oil has been filmed spewing out from underneath the beach.
Oil companies, using their corporate puppets in the mainstream news, have been documented leaving spill infected areas to basically rot while at the same time publicly declaring that they did everything possible in their cleanup efforts.
People need to understand this; the oil has NOT dissipated! The stated purpose of Corexit9500 and other dispersants of the same nature is to push the oil under the water. In fact, Professor Ian McDonald of Florida State University has gone on record stating that 40 to 45% of the oil is currently caught up in underwater plumes.
Everyday it looks more and more like Agenda 21 is playing out before our eyes. The plan to kill 80% of the worlds population has been put into overdrive, with the Gulf being a major part of the overall plan.