Monday, October 31, 2011

Breaking the Matrix, Part One: False Options that Keep Us Divided, Conquered, and Controlled

     Liberal and conservative, Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, human needs and environmental needs—these are stark choices, seemingly based on diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive viewpoints.
     What if the Tea Partiers and the Occupiers, like the blind men examining the elephant, not realizing that they were all confronting the same thing, are needlessly arguing with each another about what the problem is? What if human needs and environmental needs are one and the same? What if the Matrix—the world that is presented to us—really is “the wool that has been pulled over your eyes to keep you from seeing the truth”?
     This article—a case study of natural allies needlessly squabbling with each other—is part one of a three-part series.
     A month or two ago, I watched a video called The Story of Stuff, hosted by Annie Leonard. When I recently looked for that video, I found a rebuttal called The Story of Stuff, the Critique, by Lee Doran. Doran’s video is a classic example of how liberals and conservatives are talking past each other, when we should be listening to one another’s concerns.
     The original video, The Story of Stuff, is twenty minutes long. The rebuttal, which contains all original, plus the rebuttal, is almost twice as long. It’s worth watching in full, albeit with a critical mind. If you don’t have the time or the patience to watch the whole thing, here’s my summary and a rebuttal to both versions of The Story of Stuff.
     Annie Leonard and Lee Doran seem to have been produced by Stereotypes R Us, which is precisely why my comments on their respective efforts are useful for the rest of us.
      My take on Annie Leonard is that she’s an aging flower child wannabe who was born a few years too late to have participated in the Summer of Love or Woodstock. She bubbles with more enthusiasm than facts, and emphasizes her points with wide, circular sweeps of her arms. 
      Lee Doran is a dweebish character who seems to fit the stereotype of the frat boy with a head full of college knowledge but with too little real-world experience. He’s the perfect straw man conservative that every liberal wishes he had to oppose.
     Annie is filled with natural wisdom concerning the environment and does a masterful job of explaining why simple recycling is not enough for us to preserve our natural resources and avoiding, as she puts it, “trashing the planet.” She lays most of the blame at the doorstep of big business, which she correctly accuses of having too much influence over how government regulations are written and enforced. Her solution is to write more laws—which she fails to realize are written by business-financed lobbyists more often than congressmen—to give government (which she suggests is controlled by business) more control over business. Hmmm.
     At the suggestion that business is capable of wrongdoing, Lee Doran forgets all about Annie’s main point—environmental protection—and treats her video as if it were all about business. In his defense of business, he cites an abundance of facts without a shred of wisdom—and some of his “facts” are wrong—showing that he hasn’t the first clue as to how the world outside the college classroom really works.
     According to Lee, entrepreneurs are in the business of giving the public what they want. Wrong. Entrepreneurs don’t follow the market so much as they create it. If Henry Ford had given the public what they wanted, he’d have given them a faster horse. According to Lee, advertisers are in the business of informing the public of a wider range of goods and services. Wrong. Advertisers are in the business of limiting consumers’ options to marketable products or services. Have you ever seen an advertisement telling people of the benefits of silence or quality time with family instead of buying a radio? Of course you haven’t. Silence and quality time with family are not marketable.
     In Lee’s world, government is to be praised for the results of regulations they’ve already made, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act; but he’s horrified at the thought that other someone may actually favor government regulations. In Lee’s neatly packaged world, nobody dumps nuclear waste or a shipload of old television sets in the waters off the coast of Somalia. Either that, or Africans don’t count.
     Nuclear waste doesn’t just disappear. If it’s dumped into the ocean, it’s because government officials somewhere have turned a blind eye. The fact that it does happen suggests that Annie’s faith in government is flawed, and that Lee’s faith in business is equally flawed.
     I’d like to say one more thing about Annie’s careless use of words and Lee’s careless use of facts. As Lee points out, Annie undermines her argument by confusing toxicity with risk. Aluminum, for example, is toxic, but in most cases the risk is minimal. Lee, on the other hand, is careless with the idea of risk.
     Let’s suppose that, at a fraternity party, one of Lee’s frat brothers urinated in the punch bowl, and Lee found out about it. There’s a greater risk of harm in partaking in the fried chicken, cookies, the beer bong, and other amusements offered at the frat party than there is in drinking the punch. Which do you think Lee would decline, the punch or the riskier fare offered at the frat party? He’d refuse the punch, of course; and he may even join in on the beer bonging (as in the photo above). Unlike fried chicken and kegs of beer, urine isn’t a marketable product offered by big business.
     Isn’t it about time we started learning from each other instead of acting like the blind men who’d encountered an elephant? Don’t we have more in common with each other than we have with the banksters and other people who profit from creating disasters?
     In part two of this three-part series, I’ll show that the supposed trade-off between jobs and the environment is a false paradigm. Business, environment, and society all need each other. The most successful strategies for these three areas are a strategic fit among these needs. I’ll show examples of how businesses, societies, and social action groups have worked together to achieve that fit.

Monday, October 24, 2011

How Banking Really Works: The Video

     About a year ago, I wrote an article called "How Banking Really Works."  As a companion piece for the article, using all-new material, I'm presenting a video by that name.
      Here is the link to the YouTube video: (link)
    If this video piques your interest, you may like to read the full-length American Action Report article, "How Banking Really Works."

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

What is the Gates Foundation up to?

     Until 1994, Bill Gates was described as the stingiest man in the world, based on his practically non-existent charitable giving. His charitable giving, as I recall, amounted to a fraction of one percent of his total income.
     If he wanted to keep all his money, it was really his business. I, for one, think that Charles Dickens gave Ebenezer Scrooge a bum rap. Except that Bill Gates was rich, no one would have cared that he was stingy; and, except that Ebenezer Scrooge was rich, Charles Dickens would not have had a story. Accusations against both men were driven mainly by envy.
     Then Gates, like Scrooge, announced himself a changed man and promised to give away a billion dollars. He eventually would increase that amount to several billion. That’s when he stopped acting like the pre-Christmas Scrooge and began acting more like the post-Pentecostal Ananias.
     Ananias was the phony philanthropist in the Bible who, along with his wife Sapphira, announced that they were giving all they had to the church in Jerusalem. As it turned out, they lied about how much they’d given, and the Almighty struck them dead.
     Similarly, Bill and Melinda Gates lied about actually giving away their money. Unlike Ananias and Sapphira, Bill and Melinda seem to have no fear of the Almighty.
     It’s an old trick. Even upper middle class tax dodgers can use it. First, you start a tax-exempt foundation with yourself at the head. Technically, you give up ownership of the money, but you maintain control of it. By this means, business investments or other assets can continue to be of benefit to you or your business, but you don’t have to pay taxes on them. What’s more, it can be tax deductible as charitable giving.
     Take a look at the web site for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It’ll curl your hair. When you examine their site, though, I suggest you read it with the eyes of an economist rather than the eyes of a business administrator.
     Economics is more than just the study of numbers that represent money. It’s the study of cost, reward, and—get this—motivation. Economists recognize that money is not the only motivator. Power is another. So is prestige. There are others.
     Of the six major areas the foundation boasts, two of them pertain to vaccinations. They’re talking about eradicating polio. Polio?
     As of the year 2000, polio was declared eradicated in Taiwan. In this island nation of 23 million people, there are fewer than ten new cases of polio each year. I have rarely seen a Taiwanese bearing signs of polio, yet Taiwan continues to push an eradication program that accomplished its goals eleven years ago.
     As of 1994, China has reported five cases a year. In Latin America, polio is “completely eradicated.” (link) 
     What about certain third-world nations where polio is still a problem? Shouldn’t they also receive Jonas Salk’s miracle cure for polio?
     Perhaps, but that’s not what the Gates Foundation is offering. Jonas Salk’s vaccination contained the inactivated polio virus. The Sabin Vaccine Report for March 1999, says that the Gates Foundation offered the Sabin Vaccine Institute $100 million for children’s vaccines. (link)  The Sabin vaccine uses live polio viruses, which the late Jonas Salk had condemned.
     In January 2010, the Gates Foundation pledged a further $10 billion for vaccine research for “the world’s poorest countries.” The following month, Gates said, “If we do a really great job; on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services –we could lower [population] by 10 or 15 percent….”  (video)
     Spinmeisters for Gates claim that what he really meant was, families in poorer countries would have fewer children if they could be confident that their children could live long enough to reach adulthood. If that’s what he really meant, would he be providing the most controversial vaccines? Would he resort to vaccines at all?
     The Gates Foundation also boasts that it is promoting the use of GlaxoSmithKlein’s (GSK’s) vaccine for rotavirus. Until I read the Gates Foundation web site, I’d never heard of rotavirus or GSK.
     Two drug companies—Merck and GSK—produce similar vaccines for the rotavirus. In Hong Kong, health authorities recommended that GSK’s Rotarix be recalled. (link)  In the United States, the FDA, which routinely rubber stamps dangerous drugs and blocks healthy foods, recommended that doctors suspend the use of Rotarix. Merck’s RotaTeq has the same contamination problems, (link)  but the FDA is giving it a free ride.
     Both vaccines were found to be contaminated with viruses that “cause immune suppression, wasting disease, and death in baby pigs.” The Gates Foundation is pushing the one that’s hard to sell in the United States: GSK’s Rotarix. GSK offers Bill Gates group rotavirus vaccine at 95% discount. (link)
     How sweet of them! They can’t sell their junk to the industrialized world, so they’re foisting it on third worlders at fire sale prices.
     One of the pages for the Gates Foundation web site is titled, “Improving Health through More Nutritious Foods.” Click that link, and you’ll find nothing but Monsanto Frankenseeds and Frankenfoods.  It’s no coincidence that Bill Gates has bought Monsanto; it’s now one of his business interests.
     The first “food” you see is a bizarre-looking “golden rice,” which has been called a Trojan horse. According to the Food Freedom web site, Gates and Monsanto misled non-governmental organizations (NGOs) into pushing that stuff. (link)
     The Gates Foundation also highlights its promotion of genetically “enhanced” potatoes. The Organic Consumer’s Association sums it up, “Monsanto’s GE Potato Fails in Africa.” (link)
     It’s well known that Monsanto seeds are not heritage seeds—that is, they are not seeds that can be held back from each crop and replanted year after year. They’re terminator seeds. Once used, they must be bought again.
     So why would farmers who have been using heritage seeds for thousands of years suddenly start using expensive seeds that they’d have to repurchase year after year?
     That brings us to another form of fake philanthropy: giving something away in order to entrap a captive buyer. In Haiti, where farmers are now burning Monsanto seeds in protest, it all started out as a “fabulous Easter gift” from Monsanto. The “fabulous Easter gift” came as a result of an $8.3 million “gift” from the Gates Foundation to Monsanto for the program.
     Uh, wait a minute. The Gates Foundation, funded by Gates, gave money to Monsanto, which is owned by Gates, as a loss leader to hook captive buyers for Monsanto’s seeds, to the profit of Monsanto. Does that sound more like a gift or an investment?
     According to the Institute for Food and Development Policy, “Monsanto is known for aggressively pushing seeds, especially GMO seeds, in both the global North and South, including through highly restrictive technology agreements with farmers who are not always made fully aware of what they are signing. According to interviews by this writer with representatives of Mexican small farmer organizations, they then find themselves forced to buy Monsanto seeds each year, under conditions they find onerous and at costs they sometimes cannot afford.” (link)
     Since Gates is the owner of Monsanto, his fake philanthropy in poor countries should be highly profitable. Like Robin Hood in reverse, he seems to be robbing from the poor and giving to himself—and calling it “charitable giving.”
     I could go on and on with this, but I think you get the message. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a multi-billion-dollar, tax-exempt investment disguised as a charitable foundation. To make matters worse, judging from the nature of its “giving,” it has the net effect of furthering the global elites’ oft-stated goals of gaining complete control of the world’s food and water supplies, and the reduction of the world’s population in order to control the survivors of their phony “charity.”

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Meet the Mind-controlled Obama Twins

     It's an open secret that acting-President Obama uses one or more doubles.  What if Obama’s double is not just a double?  What if he’s Obama’s twin, and what if neither of them is “in charge” in the White House? 

     Just in case you’re not up to speed on the Obama double part, take a look at the photos on this page and at the following links. (here) and (here)
     Mr. Obama has scars that appear to be cranial surgery scars.  As if that weren’t curious enough, the scars are inconsistent from one photo to the next, suggesting that "Obama" is more than one person, and that both persons are Manchurian candidates.
     One person commenting to a blog entry wrote that Obama’s scars are consistent with the scars a person would have after being implanted with a cranial transmitter/transponder (CTT).  I couldn’t find enough articles on CTT’s to come to a conclusion on that one, but I did find that a patent for a CTT does exist.  Its official title in the patent is “Apparatus and method for detecting neural signals and using neural signals to drive external functions,” and the patent number is 7187967. (here)

     Notice also the photos of Mr. Obama waving.  In one photo he has long, thin fingers.  In another, his fingers are short and stubby. 
     Someone has said that Obama’s ears don’t stick out in some photos the way they do in others.  I really couldn’t tell the difference.
     It’s a fairly safe bet, then, that Obama uses a double or more than one.  That doesn’t mean, though, that the double is his twin.  The thought that Obama may be twins stems from my little investigation of his hidden past.
     As I’m sure you know, he has left almost no paper trail.  Most of the documents he claims as his own are forged.  Most people have only one official birth record.  Obama claims two, and both were clumsily Photoshopped.   Most American men get their first Selective Service cards when they’re young.  Obama got his about the time he declared his candidacy for President.  Most Americans have only one Social Security number.  Obama has several, including one that had been issued to a woman who died during the 1930s.  Unlike names of hurricanes, Social Security numbers are not reused.
Selective Service Registration
     The National Review Online attempts to explain away the layers in the most recent Obama forged birth certificate, but techno savvy readers commenting on the article shoot that set of excuses to hell and back.   (here)
     As far as I know, the only lawful document recording Obama’s existence prior to his achieving national prominence was an elementary school record from Indonesia.
     You may also be aware that no one from his classes at Harvard remembers him.  I did, however, find one person who claims to remember him from his time at Occidental College.  Her name is Lisa Jack.
     Who is Lisa Jack?  She’s a psychologist who is almost as enshrouded in mystery as Barack Obama.
     Lisa Jack is credited with having taken about a dozen photos of Obama in 1980, when he was supposedly attending Occidental College.  The background in the photos is devoid of anything suggesting the place they were taken.  Those pictures could have been taken anywhere except my teenage son’s bedroom.
     I searched out the name Lisa Jack on the Internet.  Her bio says that she has a PhD in psychology and works at Augsburg College in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  (here)

     Curiously enough, she has the thinnest bio I’ve ever seen for a member of a college faculty.  Her bio says nothing of her classes, conferences, academic papers, or much of anything else.  All that’s listed is what you see below:
Lisa Jack
Assistant Professor
Ph.D., University of Southern California (Counseling Psychology)
Office: Memorial Hall 329
phone: 612-330-1221
     I checked Google Scholar for any academic papers Lisa Jack may have written.  I found no papers for which she was listed as first author or corresponding author, but I found close to a dozen that listed her a bit further down among the authors.  Most of them concerned psychological studies of twins.  Two of them concern psychological studies of cigarette smokers.  (Obama is a cigarette smoker.)
     Okay, so what’s the story on Augsburg College?  Augsburg College is in Minnesota, quietly nestled among—no, not anything as pastoral as trees or rolling hills—it’s quietly nestled among classified government buildings.  Their Physics Department could have kept Mulder and Scully, of X-Files fame, busy for an entire season.  Professor Cyndi Jones is joined at the hip with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and her specialties include nuclear terrorism. (here) Does that include false flags?   Professor Mark J. Engebretson is in cahoots with NASA and the National Science Foundation, and is an unindicted co-conspirator for what sounds like the HAARP project. (here)    Did college pranksters in his classes have anything to do with the collapse of a nearby bridge at both ends? (here)

     Professor David Murr came to Augsburg College from the State Department and monitors activity in space.   (here)  Agent Mulder would have a field day with that guy!  Like, what does a physicist from the State Department do with activity in outer space, conduct exo-diplomacy?  
     Several faculty members, including two with Russian-sounding names, don’t have links to their pages.  Hmmm.  The Cold War ended barely twenty years ago, and this place is packed with people sporting Eastern European-sounding names.  One can be excused for wondering if Augsburg College has more “rabbits” than a fake chinchilla farm.  (A "rabbit" is the CIA term for a defector.)
     Let’s recap this thing before moving ahead.  We have a “President” and his double—possibly a twin.  Both have cranial surgery scars, meaning that some sawbones has been playing around with their brains.  One “Obama” has no known history; the other “Obama’s” history is forged or hidden.  The only person who remembers Barack Obama from his college years is a woman whose profession involves rummaging through people’s brains, who specializes in twins and smokers, and who works for a college that CIA spooks and other spooky types would love.  The name of one of Bela Lugosi's last movies comes to mind: Spooks Run Wild.

     Are there any indications that the Obama twins are mind controlled?  Yes, there are.  For one, the guy is not able to speak for more than a minute without a teleprompter.  For another, his voice has the same sonorous tone regardless of what he’s saying.  It’s as if he doesn’t know or care what he’s saying.
     The following paragraph reads like a description of the crumbling personality of someone who is controlled by others:
     “President Obama finished the speech, walked off the stage, was escorted to the back corridor where he collapsed into a seat against the wall.  Both hands went to each side of his head which was leaning down almost between his knees. You could see marks on the sides of his face where the stage makeup had been rubbed off by his hands. He wears that stuff everywhere these days.  A staffer walked up and leaned over the president and told him it was time to go.  The president looked up, gave a little smile, and got to his feet slowly. Very slowly.  The only word he said was 'Yeah.'  There was no excitement. No energy from him.  The people around the president seemed to ignore his condition.  They looked right through him until he started walking down the hallway toward the outside.  They followed alongside him and seemed to kind of push him out the door.  The president looked incredibly tired.  Used up.”  (source)  I wonder if the other Obama twin feels like that.

     Wall Street fixer Timothy Geithner recently announced, “He (Obama) is not in charge.  I am!”  (here) Check out the Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Timothy Geithner goings on when they lived in Indonesia.  You’ll find Rockefellers, the CIA, and a deliberately created financial crisis.  (here)
     Before CIA-connected Geithner was “in charge” of Obama, Mossad-connected Rahm Emanuel was in charge of him. (here)     and (here)
     So where’s all this heading?  An entertainment critic, upon hearing of the alleged death of Elvis Presley, commented, “Good career move.”  Really.
     The Book of Revelation suggests a possible career move for the sock puppet Obama twins in the event that “Obama’s” poll numbers sag below that of telemarketers.  Revelation says that the Anti-Christ would be “killed” by a wound in the head but would be resurrected three days later.  Gullible people would be told that this is evidence of his divinity, and they'd believe it and worship him (the way they worshiped Obama during his first few months in office). 
     Obama’s handlers have a ready made double to pull off the trick.  That’s the way stage magicians do it, except that they don’t assassinate their stage doubles when they disappear and reappear.  A stunt like that would work wonders for Obama’s poll numbers.
     Another possibility is that his handlers will pull a JFK on us.  The assassination of President Kennedy was an inside job.  After bumping off JFK, his assassins reshaped the Kennedy image and evoked that false image of Kennedy as a martyr to the very goals that Kennedy had opposed during the last few months of his life.   Toward that end, the Obama twins could be worth more to Wall Street dead than they are alive.