Published on Jul 26, 2013
Obama’s Second Term Scandals “Phony?” – Sarah Palin & Michele Bachmann On The Record
Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world’s largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.
You may have heard of the Libor scandal, in which at least three – and perhaps as many as 16 – of the name-brand too-big-to-fail banks have been manipulating global interest rates, in the process messing around with the prices of upward of $500 trillion (that’s trillion, with a “t”) worth of financial instruments. When that sprawling con burst into public view last year, it was easily the biggest financial scandal in history – MIT professor Andrew Lo even said it “dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets.”
That was bad enough, but now Libor may have a twin brother. Word has leaked out that the London-based firm ICAP, the world’s largest broker of interest-rate swaps, is being investigated by American authorities for behavior that sounds eerily reminiscent of the Libor mess. Regulators are looking into whether or not a small group of brokers at ICAP may have worked with up to 15 of the world’s largest banks to manipulate ISDAfix, a benchmark number used around the world to calculate the prices of interest-rate swaps.
Interest-rate swaps are a tool used by big cities, major corporations and sovereign governments to manage their debt, and the scale of their use is almost unimaginably massive. It’s about a $379 trillion market, meaning that any manipulation would affect a pile of assets about 100 times the size of the United States federal budget.
It should surprise no one that among the players implicated in this scheme to fix the prices of interest-rate swaps are the same megabanks – including Barclays, UBS, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and the Royal Bank of Scotland – that serve on the Libor panel that sets global interest rates. In fact, in recent years many of these banks have already paid multimillion-dollar settlements for anti-competitive manipulation of one form or another (in addition to Libor, some were caught up in an anti-competitive scheme, detailed in Rolling Stone last year, to rig municipal-debt service auctions). Though the jumble of financial acronyms sounds like gibberish to the layperson, the fact that there may now be price-fixing scandals involving both Libor and ISDAfix suggests a single, giant mushrooming conspiracy of collusion and price-fixing hovering under the ostensibly competitive veneer of Wall Street culture.
Why? Because Libor already affects the prices of interest-rate swaps, making this a manipulation-on-manipulation situation. If the allegations prove to be right, that will mean that swap customers have been paying for two different layers of price-fixing corruption. If you can imagine paying 20 bucks for a crappy PB&J because some evil cabal of agribusiness companies colluded to fix the prices of both peanuts and peanut butter, you come close to grasping the lunacy of financial markets where both interest rates and interest-rate swaps are being manipulated at the same time, often by the same banks.
“It’s a double conspiracy,” says an amazed Michael Greenberger, a former director of the trading and markets division at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and now a professor at the University of Maryland. “It’s the height of criminality.”
The bad news didn’t stop with swaps and interest rates. In March, it also came out that two regulators – the CFTC here in the U.S. and the Madrid-based International Organization of Securities Commissions – were spurred by the Libor revelations to investigate the possibility of collusive manipulation of gold and silver prices. “Given the clubby manipulation efforts we saw in Libor benchmarks, I assume other benchmarks – many other benchmarks – are legit areas of inquiry,” CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton said.
But the biggest shock came out of a federal courtroom at the end of March – though if you follow these matters closely, it may not have been so shocking at all – when a landmark class-action civil lawsuit against the banks for Libor-related offenses was dismissed. In that case, a federal judge accepted the banker-defendants’ incredible argument: If cities and towns and other investors lost money because of Libor manipulation, that was their own fault for ever thinking the banks were competing in the first place.
“A farce,” was one antitrust lawyer’s response to the eyebrow-raising dismissal.
“Incredible,” says Sylvia Sokol, an attorney for Constantine Cannon, a firm that specializes in antitrust cases.
It has been four long winters since the federal government, in the hulking, shaven-skulled, Alien Nation-esque form of then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, committed $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue Wall Street from its own chicanery and greed. To listen to the bankers and their allies in Washington tell it, you’d think the bailout was the best thing to hit the American economy since the invention of the assembly line. Not only did it prevent another Great Depression, we’ve been told, but the money has all been paid back, and the government even made a profit. No harm, no foul – right?
It was all a lie – one of the biggest and most elaborate falsehoods ever sold to the American people. We were told that the taxpayer was stepping in – only temporarily, mind you – to prop up the economy and save the world from financial catastrophe. What we actually ended up doing was the exact opposite: committing American taxpayers to permanent, blind support of an ungovernable, unregulatable, hyperconcentrated new financial system that exacerbates the greed and inequality that caused the crash, and forces Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup to increase risk rather than reduce it. The result is one of those deals where one wrong decision early on blossoms into a lush nightmare of unintended consequences. We thought we were just letting a friend crash at the house for a few days; we ended up with a family of hillbillies who moved in forever, sleeping nine to a bed and building a meth lab on the front lawn.
But the most appalling part is the lying. The public has been lied to so shamelessly and so often in the course of the past four years that the failure to tell the truth to the general populace has become a kind of baked-in, official feature of the financial rescue. Money wasn’t the only thing the government gave Wall Street – it also conferred the right to hide the truth from the rest of us. And it was all done in the name of helping regular people and creating jobs. “It is,” says former bailout Inspector General Neil Barofsky, “the ultimate bait-and-switch.”
The bailout deceptions came early, late and in between. There were lies told in the first moments of their inception, and others still being told four years later. The lies, in fact, were the most important mechanisms of the bailout. The only reason investors haven’t run screaming from an obviously corrupt financial marketplace is because the government has gone to such extraordinary lengths to sell the narrative that the problems of 2008 have been fixed. Investors may not actually believe the lie, but they are impressed by how totally committed the government has been, from the very beginning, to selling it.
THEY LIED TO PASS THE BAILOUT
Today what few remember about the bailouts is that we had to approve them. It wasn’t like Paulson could just go out and unilaterally commit trillions of public dollars to rescue Goldman Sachs and Citigroup from their own stupidity and bad management (although the government ended up doing just that, later on). Much as with a declaration of war, a similarly extreme and expensive commitment of public resources, Paulson needed at least a film of congressional approval. And much like the Iraq War resolution, which was only secured after George W. Bush ludicrously warned that Saddam was planning to send drones to spray poison over New York City, the bailouts were pushed through Congress with a series of threats and promises that ranged from the merely ridiculous to the outright deceptive. At one meeting to discuss the original bailout bill – at 11 a.m. on September 18th, 2008 – Paulson actually told members of Congress that $5.5 trillion in wealth would disappear by 2 p.m. that day unless the government took immediate action, and that the world economy would collapse “within 24 hours.”
To be fair, Paulson started out by trying to tell the truth in his own ham-headed, narcissistic way. His first TARP proposal was a three-page absurdity pulled straight from a Beavis and Butt-Head episode – it was basically Paulson saying, “Can you, like, give me some money?” Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio, remembers a call with Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. “We need $700 billion,” they told Brown, “and we need it in three days.” What’s more, the plan stipulated, Paulson could spend the money however he pleased, without review “by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
The White House and leaders of both parties actually agreed to this preposterous document, but it died in the House when 95 Democrats lined up against it. For an all-too-rare moment during the Bush administration, something resembling sanity prevailed in Washington.
So Paulson came up with a more convincing lie. On paper, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was simple: Treasury would buy $700 billion of troubled mortgages from the banks and then modify them to help struggling homeowners. Section 109 of the act, in fact, specifically empowered the Treasury secretary to “facilitate loan modifications to prevent avoidable foreclosures.” With that promise on the table, wary Democrats finally approved the bailout on October 3rd, 2008. “That provision,” says Barofsky, “is what got the bill passed.”
But within days of passage, the Fed and the Treasury unilaterally decided to abandon the planned purchase of toxic assets in favor of direct injections of billions in cash into companies like Goldman and Citigroup. Overnight, Section 109 was unceremoniously ditched, and what was pitched as a bailout of both banks and homeowners instantly became a bank-only operation – marking the first in a long series of moves in which bailout officials either casually ignored or openly defied their own promises with regard to TARP.
Congress was furious. “We’ve been lied to,” fumed Rep. David Scott, a Democrat from Georgia. Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, raged at transparently douchey TARP administrator (and Goldman banker) Neel Kashkari, calling him a “chump” for the banks. And the anger was bipartisan: Republican senators David Vitter of Louisiana and James Inhofe of Oklahoma were so mad about the unilateral changes and lack of oversight that they sponsored a bill in January 2009 to cancel the remaining $350 billion of TARP.
So what did bailout officials do? They put together a proposal full of even bigger deceptions to get it past Congress a second time. That process began almost exactly four years ago – on January 12th and 15th, 2009 – when Larry Summers, the senior economic adviser to President-elect Barack Obama, sent a pair of letters to Congress. The pudgy, stubbyfingered former World Bank economist, who had been forced out as Harvard president for suggesting that women lack a natural aptitude for math and science, begged legislators to reject Vitter’s bill and leave TARP alone.
In the letters, Summers laid out a five-point plan in which the bailout was pitched as a kind of giant populist program to help ordinary Americans. Obama, Summers vowed, would use the money to stimulate bank lending to put people back to work. He even went so far as to say that banks would be denied funding unless they agreed to “increase lending above baseline levels.” He promised that “tough and transparent conditions” would be imposed on bailout recipients, who would not be allowed to use bailout funds toward “enriching shareholders or executives.” As in the original TARP bill, he pledged that bailout money would be used to aid homeowners in foreclosure. And lastly, he promised that the bailouts would be temporary – with a “plan for exit of government intervention” implemented “as quickly as possible.”
Uploaded on Oct 22, 2010
The reason this video is pertinent to this channel is because I have displayed earlier video’s calling into question whether we won the Revolutionary war, the War of 1812, or did we lose control of our country via the Actions of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, or during the Bush/Clinton Monarchy? What happened and at what point did we the people lose control of our nation?
What is clear although the United States is the most powerful military industrial complex in the world, is that we give multi-millions of dollars in aid to countries like Israel among others.
What is also clear is that we do not coin our own money but ‘rent’ and use a Federal Reserve System which is neither Federal nor a Reserve.
” Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who writes her laws”
-Meyer Amschel Rothschlild
The United Nations has documented that after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan and was initially empowered to do so by the actions of the CIA, something unexpected happened.
The Taliban believing they were carrying out the will of God under the Muslim law began eradicating the opium fields that supply the worlds illegal heroin. They were proving to be very successful at this as they had reduced the poppy fields from 100,000 plus hecta-acres to as little as 7000 hecta-acres nearly wiping out the world’s supply of illicit heroin production.
Only after US led troops suspiciously entered Afghanistan under the guise of Taliban sponsored terrorism and removed them from power did the opium fields make a comeback and what a comeback it made under the Bush Regime.
Opium production recovered to near record levels and the Taliban though never claiming responsibility for the events of 911, and never being charged officially with the alleged crimes by the FBI have been labeled as terrorists ever since.
Now we must ask ourselves who would benefit the most from the continued sale of heroin? Who initially made their fortune from the sale of opium to China and then proceed to launder that money into the United States Stock Market?
Some believe there is enough evidence to show the Queen of England was a major benefactor although it is somehow dubious to assume that the British Monarchy are the sole benefactors of the world-wide sale of illicit heroin.
When you follow the money, connect the dots, and objectively review the history of the United States, one begins to question who the major benefactors are to the actions of the United States and it does not seem to always be the United States.
This suggests that we are a pawn manipulated by larger more powerful hidden forces as our actions do not always benefit the United States or their proclaimed interest.
This discovery by a young school girl once again raises the question, have we ever in the history of our nation ever been in control of our destiny or have we just been led to believe so because we were told it to be true in our schools.
How is it that the United States has had to declare bankruptcy about every 70 years since its inception?
How is it that Deutsche Bank of Germany would be the largest benefactor if all the homes in the United States were foreclosed upon?
How is it that this supposed bailout of AIG allowed for most of that money to pass through AIG and end up in the coffers of Societe Generale Bank?
It was not a simple bailout but a debt or ransom that had to be paid for a reason other than what the general public as told and even after 100 years of labor of the taxpayers was moved out of this country in the blink of an eye, we are left again near bankrupted as a nation.
It would be most beneficial to the United States to coin its own money rather than use a system of money that keep us forever in debt, yet we continue to use this Federal Reserve System that is beyond the scope of an audit and though this audit would prove that our interests are not being placed first and likely expose the beneficiary(s) as a foreign entity and our handlers as treasonous we cannot seem to get legislation passed that would preserve our best interests as a nation. The amount of foreign interest in the USA is literally staggering.
It all begs the question, if we are not in charge of our nation and things destructive to our nation’s well being can be accomplished cloak and dagger by a select few (as NAFTA clearly demonstrated) then who has infiltrated our system and what are their intentions?
If you enjoyed this video you will find other eye opening video on my channel. Please DO NOT subscribe to my channel. Instead it is recommended that you Synchronize with it for new content as much of the information will be disseminated through the comments section on the home page youtube.com/ClintFromNYtoVA
Gun control may be a hot topic, but what about water control? Recent comments from Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck imply that the world’s water will soon come under the control of corporations like his. Brabeck makes the astonishing claim that water is not a human right, but should be managed by business people and governing bodies. He wants water controlled, privatized, and delegated in a way that sustains the planet. View the astonishing interview below:
Water control hitting the United StatesAll of this means that Brabeck’s future plans include monitoring and controlling the amount of water people use. One day, cities and towns may be forced by international law to limit each household to a set amount of water. People may have to obtain permits to dig wells or pay fines for collecting rainwater. Laws like these are already in motion in the United States. Learn more here: http://www.naturalnews.com/029286_rainwater_collection_water.htmlNestle’s CEO thinks all water should have a price
In the interview, Brabeck touts that his company is the largest foodstuff corporation in the world with over $65 billion in profit each year. He proudly claims that millions of people are dependent on him and his company. Does this guy think he is a god?
He calls water a “foodstuff” that needs an assigned value. Who controls the price of water? Brabeck bases his sustainability projects on the fact that a third of the world’s population may face water shortages within 15-20 years. By price controlling water, Brabeck believes he may save the planet from food and water shortages in the coming years.
With the threat of future water shortages, is it necessary to strip all humans of their natural liberty to water, as Brabeck suggests?
by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
The White House has given final approval for dramatically raising permissible radioactive levels in drinking water and soil following “radiological incidents,” such as nuclear power-plant accidents and dirty bombs. The final version, slated for Federal Register publication as soon as today, is a win for the nuclear industry which seeks what its proponents call a “new normal” for radiation exposure among the U.S population, according Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
Issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, the radiation guides (called Protective Action Guides or PAGs) allow cleanup many times more lax than anything EPA has ever before accepted. These guides govern evacuations, shelter-in-place orders, food restrictions and other actions following a wide range of “radiological emergencies.” The Obama administration blocked a version of these PAGs from going into effect during its first days in office. The version given approval late last Friday is substantially similar to those proposed under Bush but duck some of the most controversial aspects:
In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period;
Today, my friend in India told me that the government is instituting a plan to make sure everyone installs a box on their TV so that they can monitor their behavior and install an entertainment tax. Entertainment Tax? That’s crazy! My first thought was how desperate was his government that they had to deploy this repressive tax.
Well, it turns out that India is desperate. They are grappling with over population and how to distribute resources. So they put up silly crazy taxes like this Entertainment Tax to try and pay for it. But it is just trying to stop a coming flood with Silly Putty; in the end, it’s too late. It won’t work! There is nothing under the current economic system that will stop the coming hell from visiting us. Here me out!
30 years ago, India was more free. The government was less involved. There were less people. Today, they provide controlled cooking gas canisters to the people and shut of the electricity at various times because there just isn’t enough to go around. And don’t get me started on clean water.
With the population of India currently over 1.2 billion people and growing fast. With a developing consumer market that is seeing the creation of many new super rich and an unseemly fast growing super poor, the divide is becoming more clear. And what is worse, the population is expected to hit 2 billion by 2050.
There is simply not enough resources to deal with this population. Let me rephrase that….under our current global capitalist system of resource distribution, there is not enough resources to deal with this population. In short, the rich will get theirs but the poor are out of luck.
Now expand this challenge to the other population exploding areas where resources are already on the edge and we about to enter a new era of human existence.
In short, right now we have 7 billion people on our planet. By 2050, experts agree that we are going to be around 10-12 billion and by 2100 that number could reach 25 billion. But hold on….25 billion people? Can that really happen?
Under our system we have a ruling elite class of people in global finance and global political leadership folks that are fully aware of this population challenge. Some call them the Bilderberger Group; or Bilderbergers. Whomever they are, rest assured that they derive their power from our monetary economic system that is current in place and they will collective aim to insure that this unequal system of resource distribution continues forward.
Professor of Anthropology
Department of Anthropology
phone: (704) 687-2519
fax: (704) 687-3209
The Eugenics Page
During the first few decades of this century, the most influential geneticist in America was Charles B. Davenport. He taught at Harvard until 1899, and then moved to the University of Chicago briefly, before founding the Carnegie Institution’s genetics and evolution laboratories at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. Shortly thereafter, he persuaded Mrs. E. H. Harriman, widow of a railroad tycoon, to endow a Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor as well.
According to Davenport, in his major work, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics (1911),
“The general program of the eugenicist is clear — it is to improve the race by inducing young people to make a more reasonable selection of marriage mates; to fall in love intelligently. It also includes the control by the state of the propagation of the mentally incompetent. It does not imply the destruction of the unfit either before or after birth.”
Falling in love intelligently is, of course, harder than it may sound. And who are the “mentally incompetent” and “unfit”? According to Davenport, it was obvious. They were the people who had the broadly distributed genes for “feeblemindedness”. The genotype could be easily diagnosed from the phenotype, and indicated a general atavistic, non-human nature:
“The acts of taking and keeping loose articles, of tearing away obstructions to get at something desired, of picking valuables out of holes and pockets, of assaulting a neighbor who has something desirable or who has caused pain or who is in the way, of deserting family and other relatives, of promiscuous sexual relations — these are crimes for a twentieth-century citizen but they are the normal acts of our remote, ape-like ancestors and (excepting the last) they are so common with infants that we laugh when they do such things. In a word the traits of the feeble-minded and the criminalistic are normal traits for infants and for an earlier stage in man’s evolution.”
The plan of the eugenics movement was that since the poor had these genes for feeblemindedness, which led them to misery, vice, and crime, the obvious solution to American social problems was to sterilize them, and restrict the immigration of more poor.
Davenport’s friend Madison Grant was a wealthy New York lawyer, Yale graduate (1887), and an ardent amateur naturalist. He had helped to found the New York Zoological Society, and introduced the eugenic ideals to mass audience in his best-selling The Passing of the Great Race (1916). Grant built on Davenport’s genetics to produce a master plan for ending crime and poverty, along with a calculus for emptying the jails and balancing the budget.
“A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit — in other words social failures — would allow solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums. The individual himself can be nourished, educated and protected by the community during his lifetime, but the state through sterilization must see to it that his line stops with him, or else future generations will be cursed with an ever increasing load of misguided sentimentalism. This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types.”
Eliminate the social failures, says Grant.
It would be nice to think there were relatively few things Theodore Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler agreed upon, but this was one. It was a scientific, modern solution to social problems.
“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from breeding their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes. . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
The interesting aspect of the eugenics movement is that it was mainstream science. The Passing of the Great Race was reviewed favorably in the journal Science, by MIT geneticist Frederick Adams Woods. Every genetics textbook of the era advanced the case of eugenics, showing how genetics could be used to solve social problems, if we simply believe everything geneticists say, give them lots of money, and not worry too much about individual civil rights, and the poor training and track record of geneticists in that area.
Thus, the first edition of Principles of Genetics can talk very casually about people whose stock ought to be eliminated on the basis of their contributions to society. The senior author, Edward Sinnott, became a professor at Columbia, and later, dean of the Yale Graduate School. The junior author, Leslie C. Dunn, also became a professor at Columbia, and became an outspoken critic of racist biology after the Nazis came to power. This passage (and the entire chapter it is from) does not appear in the editions that followed the stock market crash and the Depression, when it suddenly became clear to geneticists that wealth wasn’t necessarily a good indicator of genotype.
Geneticists were slow to get it. Many, of course, believed it; they came from the privileged classes and shared the cultural prejudices of the era. Others may not have agreed with Madison Grant or Charles Davenport, but didn’t disagree with them publicly. In fact, during the heyday of the eugenics movement, virtually every geneticist of note served below Grant and Davenport on the Advisory Board of the American Eugenics Society. (Alongside Madison Grant, as it were, Henry E. Crampton was a paleontologist, Fisher an economist, Laughlin a geneticist, Little a geneticist—who founded modern mouse genetics in America— Olson a judge, Roswell H. Johnson a geologist, Davenport a geneticist, and Fairchild a sociologist. Obviously it was a broad intellectual movement, that believed in genetics!). One notable exception among the geneticists was Thomas Hunt Morgan, from Columbia University, who worked in the same building as anthropologist Franz Boas, a tireless critic of eugenics. Morgan published some polite reservations about eugenics in the mid-1920s, but not enough either to piss anyone off or to allow people to invoke his prestige to repudiate the movement. In the mid-1920s the only critics of eugenics were non-scientists or soft scientists, like Boas and Clarence Darrow, a great defender of civil liberties. Darrow evolved from biology’s champion at the Scopes trial in 1925 to biology’s basher in 1926.
Published on Dec 20, 2012
Investigative reporter Jon Rappoport warned of alarming future trends in the genetic engineering of human beings. Based on his contacts with several scientists over a period of 20 years, he’s concluded that human genetics research is basically a continuation of the Nazi eugenics program, and that medical research into genes as causes of human illness is simply a cover story.
Part of this secret agenda, he detailed, is to demonstrate that people have genetic predispositions to certain diseases like cancer, so in the case of lawsuits, this argument can be made rather than placing blame for illness on environmental factors like pollution. In citing the book Remaking Eden, Rappoport noted that author Lee Silver foresees a time when the “gen-rich” (genetically enhanced class) will account for 10% of the population, while “naturals” will work as low paid service providers/laborers.
Eventually, the gen-rich class and the naturals will become entirely separate species, with no ability to crossbreed, Silver continued, adding that the trend for genetic enhancement was inevitable. Rappoport had no doubt that some of this research was already underway, possibly under compartmentalized lab studies, so that scientists don’t even realize the significance of what they’re working on. “The best thing that could happen,” he stated, “is that recognized doctors and researchers stand up together, and say, this has to stop.”
Jon Rappoport has worked as an investigative reporter for 20 years, and is the author of five books. He has written on medical fraud, deep politics, and health issues for newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe, including CBS Healthwatch, Spin, Stern and LA Weekly.The LA Weekly placed Jon’s name in nomination for a Pulitzer Prize, for his interview with the president of Salvador University, where a military takeover had occurred.
Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany’s racially-based social policies that placed the improvement of the Aryan race through eugenics at the center of Nazis ideology. Those humans were targeted who were identified as “life unworthy of life” (German: Lebensunwertes Leben), including but not limited to the criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane, and the weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while 70,000 were killed under Action T4, a “euthanasia” program
After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it was spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals. By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California’s
Hitler’s views on eugenics
Adolf Hitler read racial hygiene tracts during his imprisonment in Landsberg Prison. He thought that Germany could become strong again only if the state applied the principles of racial hygiene and eugenics to German society.
|The science of eugenics was invented by Sir Francis Galton, an amateur British scientist. The term eugenics was coined by Galton in 1883, though he had been doing research and writing in the field for some time before then. Galton also did research in several scientific fields including geography, meteorology and anthropology.
Galton was the cousin of Charles Darwin and the son of a wealthy, influential family. In 1869 Galton wrote a book called Heredity Genius in which he followed the lives of several accomplished men from, what he considered good families. These good families, Galton claimed, were more likely to produce intelligent and talented offspring.Galton concluded that it was possible to produce “a highly gifted race of men” by the process of selective breeding, which he later termed “positive” eugenics. Discouraging the reproduction of “undesirables” was subsequently termed “negative” eugenics. (Dolan)The “negative” eugenics movement was much stronger than the “positive” eugenics and swept across the U.S.
Published on Jan 30, 2013
~Unslave Humanity Tactical Media: http://whynotnews.eu/?p=2078 ~credits video-edit: Anthony Bacala III http://goo.gl/Hq0Ay “Over the last week I have witnessed an ongoing trend on duality, this time around with guns at the forefront of the debate. After some inner searching, I have come to two conclusions.The government has us right where they want us, yet again, getting our blood boiling and our weapons and ammunition stocked up. While I fully support the right to bear arms, I am seeing a deeper agenda at work.”
***PLEASE READ*** The recent conspiracies are but a single pixel in the big picture!If these recent events have woken you up to the fact that something’s not right in the world today, it’s time to take a look at how we can change things. Peacefully. Without a single drop of blood shed.Let’s regain our sovereignty! Power to the people, not the corrupt!We shall overcome!***An updated after posting this video***When I made this video it was merely to spark a connection with centuries old plans to bring society down, and a manner in which one country fought this peacefully.While the exact steps may not work here, the principle will.Recent controversies are waking people up, but this can be scary when they realize, “Whoa, the real reality is kind of a shit-storm right now.”I merely wanted them to realize that the problems they are facing, and even the potentials on the horizon have been documented and in gear for quite a long time.Also, I do not wish to see any sort of civil war breakout, or have any unnecessary blood shed on American soil. I am aware by even putting this video out, I am now falling into the category of a “low level terrorist,” but I am also placing myself in the category of a “high level patriot.”I wish to see peace, as most of the citizens do.I have two members of my family that have been forced to kill in order to protect themselves and those around them serving the police and Marines. I know that these actions have plagued their minds and hearts.We all want peace.We also don’t want the greedy to keep on stealing from us, as our livelihood is sucked down the drain.I am only 25, so I admit I have a lot to learn. However, I am wise enough to know that things need to be changed immediately.I have no political or religious affiliation. I was raised Catholic, and was even a confirmation sponsor three times. Our family missed mass less than 10 times from the time I was born until I was about 20. I am not going to go there, but I am just saying, I have walked that path and am aware of it.My point is, I am just seeking peace for this country. If that means speaking out against the corrupt, thus making me a potential criminal, I will not let it slow me down. I just want to spark a wave of awakening to the potentials for peaceful revolution throughout the globe. It is up to the people of each community to decide the manner in which they wish to bring this about.
Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvid…
Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom
Over the last few weeks, I have written a number of articles dealing with the dangers of the methods of analyzing the risks of Genetically Modified (GM) food used by both Codex Alimentarius and the FDA known as “substantial equivalence/substantial similarity” and the “risk assessment methodology used in the evaluation process. In conjunction with the Codex document “Foods Derived From Modern Biotechnology,” the Codex position on the evaluation and labeling of GM food, I described the hypocrisy of Codex’s position towards vitamin and mineral supplements and its position in regards to GM food which is, interestingly enough, one hundred and eighty degrees different.
For instance, the damage to the food supply does not end with the introduction of GM foods. In addition, because Codex standards are enforced by the WTO, the Maximum Permitted Levels for vitamin and minerals developed by Codex will remain in place.
So, because the risk assessment for GM food based on “substantial equivalence” will inevitably determine the GM food itself to be safe, the problem then becomes the nutritional value within the food.
The nutrition then becomes the enemy and must be removed.
While this might seem both improbable and impossible, it is, in fact, neither.
The seeming improbability of a Codex declaration of nutrients as toxins has already been realized and the genetic manipulation of the nutritional properties of food is not an impossibility at all.
While the cover story for the introduction of GM food often involves the alleged wish to bring about the end of malnutrition by increasing nutritional properties of the food genetically (a blatant contradiction if one accepts that nutrients should be treated as toxins), the ability to decrease nutrition through genetic modification is just as realistic.
We then have a situation where nutritionally deficient GM food is not only allowed, but required due to the “dangerous” amount of vitamins and minerals that exist in the natural food. Codex even admits later on in the Guidelines that nutrients will be focused on rather than the dangers of the GM food. It says,
To assess the safety of a food derived from a recombinant-DNA plant modified for a nutritional or health benefit, the estimated intake of the nutrient or related substance in the population(s) is compared with the nutritional or toxicological reference values, such as upper levels of intake, acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for that nutrient or related substance.
The question then is not the safety of the GM food, but of the amount of vitamins and nutrients included in it.
Continuing through the Guidelines, such a statement is cleverly made. It says, “Rather than trying to identify every hazard associated with a particular food, the intention of a safety assessment of food derived from recombinant-DNA is the identification of new or altered hazards relative to the conventional counterpart.” Not only is this an extremely limiting set of standards for assessing the safety of the product, what is actually meant by “hazard”, although not explicitly stated, is nutrients.
This is made even clearer in the next paragraph which states, “Upper levels of intake for many nutrients that have been set out by some national, regional and international bodies may be considered, as appropriate. The basis for their derivation should also be considered in order to assess the public health implications of exceeding these levels.” Clearly, nutrients are the focus of much of the risk assessment methods applied to GM food.
This may initially cause some GM food products to be rejected by Codex due to the higher level of nutritional properties being produced. That is, until the food is modified once again to have a lower nutritional value. When seen in this light, it becomes obvious that many of the Codex Guidelines are intertwined with one another. However, none are more important than those related to vitamins, minerals, and nutrients.
Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom
In my last article, “Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines Pt.4,” I discussed a tangible, real-world example of the results of using “substantial equivalence” or “substantial similarity” when assessing the dangers of Genetically Modified (GM) food and/or approving that food for the market.
Post market-monitoring may be undertaken for the purpose of:
A.) Verifying conclusions about the absence or the possible occurrence, impact and significance of potential consumer health effects; and
B.) Monitoring changes in nutrient intake levels, associated with the introduction of foods likely to alter nutritional status significantly, to determine their human health impact. 
It should be noted that these are issues which should be resolved in a scientific setting prior to market. Yet Codex is obviously content to allow the public to act as lab rats in the real world rather than force these side effects to be addressed in an actual lab. Absolute disregard for the global population is evident here.
As will be discussed in future articles, when one understands the ultimate purpose of Codex Alimentarius, it becomes clear as to why policies like this emanate from the organization. Such is also the case when Codex mentions the management of risks finding their way into the market and the need for post-market tracing for the purpose of recall. It is important to note that tracing food materials is a difficult task, especially if those products have already found their way into the environment and have begun to reproduce.
Regardless, the second chapter of Codex’s “Foods Derived From Modern Biotechnology” makes what should be considered a revelatory admission. It says,
The Codex principles of risk analysis, particularly those for risk assessment, are primarily intended to apply to discrete chemical entities, such as food additives and pesticide residues, or a specific chemical or microbial contaminant that have identifiable hazards and risks; they are not intended to apply to whole foods as such.
Essentially, this is an admission that risk assessment methodology is absolutely incapable and inappropriate when dealing with the safety of a whole food. As Codex makes clear, the principles for risk assessment were never intended to address anything other than chemicals and additives.
However, one should remember that risk assessment is indeed the method used to determine the safety of vitamins, nutrients, and minerals by Codex Alimentarius in order to label them unsafe at unreasonably low levels.
But Codex continues with even further admission that the testing methods used are not nearly as intense as one might think. The document reads,
Traditionally, new varieties of food plants have not been systematically subjected to extensive chemical, toxicological or nutritional evaluation prior to marketing, with the exception of foods for specific groups, such as infants, where the food may constitute a substantial portion of the diet. Thus, new varieties of corn, soybean, potatoes and other common food plants are evaluated by breeders for agronomic and phenotypic characteristics, but generally, foods derived from such new plant varieties are not subjected to the rigorous and extensive food safety testing procedures, including studies in animals, that are typical of chemicals, such as food additives or pesticide residues, that may be present in food.
Simply put, Codex is admitting, albeit cleverly, that the testing method for whole foods is inadequate, and that the testing itself is not nearly as extensive as it would be for evaluating a known toxin like a chemical, pesticide, or apparently, vitamins and minerals.
As related to Codex’s position on vitamins and minerals, Codex considers genetically modified foods that have been engineered to produce a deadly chemical or pesticide to be a whole food, but vitamin C is considered a toxin.
Yet Codex does not stop here with the prefacing of their intended deceit and the admission of flawed and manipulated science. It says,
Animal studies cannot be readily applied to testing the risks associated with whole foods, which are complex mixtures of compounds, often characterized by a wide variation in composition and nutritional value. Owing to their bulk and effect on satiety, they can usually only be fed to animals at low multiples of the amounts that might be present in the human diet. In addition, a key factor to consider in conducting animal studies on foods is the nutritional value and balance of the diets used; this is in order to avoid the induction of adverse effects that are not related directly to the material itself. Detecting any potential adverse effects and relating these conclusively to an individual characteristic of the food can, therefore, be extremely difficult. If the characterization of the food indicates that the available data are insufficient for a thorough safety assessment, properly designed animal studies could be requested on the whole foods. Another consideration in deciding the need for animal studies is whether it is appropriate to subject experimental animals to such a study if it is unlikely to give rise to meaningful information.
But there are several problems with this statement.
First, let it be made clear that this writer does not support the use of animals for laboratory testing for any reason.
However, this issue is not the focus of this article and it will be repeatedly referred to in its proper context in terms of scientific debate.
That being said, what Codex has admitted to in this statement, albeit subtly, is that test subjects will actually be fed significantly less of the GM food in question than exists in the standard human diet. Nowhere does Codex mention that the amount fed to the test subjects can be adjusted per capita, but simply that the amount fed to them will be “at low multiples of the amounts that might be present in the human diet.”
Furthermore, Codex attempts to convince the reader that because of differences in nutritional values and diet balance in the animals being tested it is extremely difficult to determine if there are any adverse effects resulting from the material being tested or another material/condition. Hence, Codex would have the reader believe that this problem could not be solved by the addition of a control group.
In the end, the overall conclusion of Codex is that testing GM foods is largely unproductive and that, for the most part, it should only be conducted in very special circumstances. Mere post-market tracking is looked upon as the most favorable route. This, however, leaves the consumer as the test subject, and corrective action can only be taken after it is too late for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people.
Codex furthers this claim with an admission of its acceptance of “substantial equivalence” as a testing standard. Because of the problems associated with using risk assessment to address dangers in whole foods (but evidently not nutrients and vitamins), Codex claims it must rely on substantial equivalence to address intended and unintended changes in the food. Hence, Codex officially accepts the concept.