AGW – BEST offers the latest AGW support, But is it Best?

Posted on October 25, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Animated global map of monthly long term mean ...

Image via Wikipedia

From WUWT, an article by Willis Eschenbach, titled ‘What the BEST data actually says’.

It would have been better to publish this here, prior to ‘Global Temperature “Trends” – Realistically Nowhere!‘. The BEST claims were instrumental in revisiting the arguments which then inspired my comments and the post. Nevertheless, it is all relevant, connected and meaningful.

The BEST claims are offered as ‘conclusive’ evidence that the global warming trends are for real, therefore, it follows that the portion due to man’s industry is real, therefore carbon dioxide is an enemy of civilization, therefore carbon emissions must be drastically cut and carbon trading is justified.

The only part of this scenario that is valid, is that man has contributed to increases in pollution and CO2. The rest is simply debatable. The claim of global warming trends may be valid and is generally accepted in the scientific world. The BEST claim that it is conclusive is more or less irrelevant. Nevertheless, here we have a serious argument as to whether their claim is scientifically valid anyway?

Why am I considering this worth space on this blog? To show how ridiculous the whole debate really is. When BEST claim an issue is conclusive yet it can be fairly argued that it is isn’t even necessarily valid, let alone conclusive, and I argue it is irrelevant anyway, where is the reality of AGW as a threat to mankind?

Here is an extract of the WUWT post:

My theory is that the BEST folks must have eaten at a Hollywood Chinese restaurant. You can tell because when you eat there, an hour later you find you’re hungry for stardom.

Now that the BEST folks have demanded and received their fifteen minutes of fame before their results have gone through peer review, now that they have succeeded in deceiving many people into thinking that Muller is a skeptic and that somehow BEST has ‘proven the skeptics wrong’, now that they’ve returned to the wilds of their natural scientific habitat far from the reach of National Geographic photographers and people asking real questions, I thought I might take a look at the data itself. Media whores are always predictable and boring, but data always contains surprises. It can be downloaded from the bottom of this page, but please note that they do not show the actual results on that page, they show smoothed results. Here’s their actual un-smoothed monthly data:

Figure 1. BEST global surface temperature estimates. Gray bars show what BEST says are the 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for each datapoint.

I don’t know about you, but Figure 1 immediately made me think of the repeated claim by Michael Mann that the temperatures of the 1990s were the warmest in a thousand years.

Follow the story here.

 

Related articles
Posted in carbon tax, climate change, Conspiracies, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Human Folly, Justice, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Global Temperature “Trends” – Realistically Nowhere!

Posted on October 25, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

"The Blue Marble" is a famous photog...

Image via Wikipedia

Back into the fray!

The AGW debate, or whatever you wish to call it, continues unabated with as much, or more, scientific support for questioning AGW and its carbon trading schemes, than is provided by the IPCC and its supporting scientists and bloggers.

Heaps of references mentioned on this site, on other sites referenced here-in and plenty of other sites, provide significant evidence and argument to satisfy the conclusions that proposed, related, world-wide financial and social upheavals are both unjustified and based on debatable science and motivations.

As a suitable example, I refer to WUWT‘s post by Anthony Watts, ‘Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend’. (Rev 1025, article author Michael Palmer, University of Waterloo, Canada).

The article and associated comments are practically conclusive in demonstrating the futility of making accurate scientific sense of the attempted temperature measurements and computations. Certainly not to the degree necessary to, as mentioned above, make serious political decisions affecting millions of Earth’s residents. Arguments are never-ending and obviously never-to-be-resolved.

In addition, it is almost futile to now expect that governments already on “unshakeable’ paths of practical destruction, are going to change their ways no matter what evidence, no matter how obvious, is unleashed. The inertia, the funding, the power of the organizations and their agendas make them virtually unstoppable.

The drive for truth and justice is also strong and unstoppable, BUT ‘brick walls’ are solid and perhaps impenetrable.

Back to the science. An extract from the article is useful in making my point and indicating the author’s drift.  I hope that this, and I mentioned the comments, provide the reader with some glimpse of the reality of this global debacle.

3 Continuously reporting stations

There are several examples of long-running temperature records that fail to show any substantial long-term warming signal; examples are the Central England Temperature record and the one from Hohenpeissenberg, Bavaria. It therefore seemed of interest to look for long-running US stations in the GISS dataset. Here, I selected for stations that had continuously reported at least one monthly average value (but usually many more) for each year between 1900 and 2000. This criterion yielded 335 rural stations and 278 non-rural ones.

The temperature trends of these stations are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Temperature trends and station counts for all US stations in GISS reporting continuously, that is containing at least one monthly data point for each year from 1900 to 2000. The slope for the rural stations (335 total) is -0.00073 deg/year, and for the other stations (278 total) -0.00069 deg/year. The monthly data point coverage is above 90% throughout except for the very first few years.

While the sequence and the amplitudes of upward and downward peaks are closely similar to those seen in Figure 2, the trends for both rural and non-rural stations are virtually zero. Therefore, the average temperature anomaly reported by long-running stations in the GISS dataset does not show any evidence of long-term warming.

Figure 3 also shows the average monthly data point coverage, which is above 90% for all but the first few years. The less than 10% of all raw data points that are missing are unlikely to have a major impact on the calculated temperature trend.

4 Discussion

The number of US stations in the GISS dataset is high and reasonably stable during the 20th century. In the 21st century, the number of stations has dropped precipitously. In particular, rural stations have almost entirely been weeded out, to the point that the GISS dataset no longer seems to offer a valid basis for comparison of the present to the past. If we confine the calculation of average temperatures to the 20th century, there remains an upward trend of approximately 0.35 degrees.

Figure 4: Locations of US stations continuously reporting between 1900 and 2000 and contained in the GISS dataset. Rural stations in red, others in blue. This figure clearly shows that the US are large, but the world (shown in FlatEarth™ projection) is even larger.

Interestingly, this trend is virtually the same with rural and non-rural stations.

The slight upward temperature trend observed in the average temperature of all stations disappears entirely if the input data is restricted to long-running stations only, that is those stations that have reported monthly averages for at least one month in every year from 1900 to 2000. This discrepancy remains to be explained.

While the long-running stations represent a minority of all stations, they would seem most likely to have been looked after with consistent quality. The fact that their average temperature trend runs lower than the overall average and shows no net warming in the 20th century should therefore not be dismissed out of hand.

The full article is linked here. 

Related articles
Posted in carbon tax, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Human Folly, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Washington Targeting China, via Libya, Africa

Posted on October 23, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

The leader de facto of Libya, Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Image via Wikipedia

There is much afoot in the world around us, particularly in Africa.

I believe a great deal is to be learnt from this ‘Mayihlome’ post titled ‘Washington Targeting China’s Achilles Heel.

The Washington-led decision by NATO to bomb Gaddafi’s Libya into submission over recent months, at an estimated cost to US taxpayers of at least $1 billion, has little if anything to do with what the Obama Administration claims was a mission to “protect innocent civilians.” In reality it is part of a larger strategic assault by NATO and by the Pentagon in particular to entirely control China’s economic Achilles heel, namely China’s strategic dependence on large volumes of imported crude oil and gas. Today China is the world’s second largest imported of oil after the United States and the gap is rapidly closing.

If we take a careful look at a map of Africa and also look at the African organization of the new Pentagon Africa Command—AFRICOM—the pattern that emerges is a careful strategy of controlling one of China’s most strategically important oil and raw materials sources.

NATO’s Libya campaign was and is all about oil. But not about simply controlling Libyan high-grade crude because the USA is nervous about reliable foreign supplies. It rather is about controlling China’s free access to long-term oil imports from Africa and from the Middle East. In other words, it is about controlling China itself.

Libya geographically is bounded to its north by the Mediterranean directly across from Italy, where Italian ENI oil company has been the largest foreign operator in Libya for years. To its west it is bounded by Tunisia and by Algeria. To its south it is bounded by Chad. To its east it is bounded by both Sudan (today Sudan and Southern Sudan) and by Egypt. That should tell something about the strategic importance of Libya from the standpoint of the Pentagon’s AFRICOM long-term strategy for controlling Africa and its resources and which country is able to get those resources.

Gaddafi’s Libya had maintained strict national state control over the rich reserves of high quality “light, sweet” Libyan crude oil. As of 2006 data Libya had the largest proven oil reserves in Africa, some 35%, larger even than Nigeria. Oil concessions had been extended to Chinese state oil companies as well as Russian and others in recent years. Not surprisingly a spokesman from the so-called opposition claiming victory over Gaddafi, Abdeljalil Mayouf, information manager at Libyan rebel oil firm AGOCO, told Reuters, “We don’t have a problem with Western countries like the Italians, French and UK companies. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.” China and Russia and Brazil either opposed UN sanctions on Libya or pressed for a negotiated settlement of the internal conflict and an end to NATO bombing.

As I have detailed elsewhere, Gaddafi, an old adherent of Arab socialism on the line of Egypt’s Gamal Nasser, used the oil revenues to improve the lot of his people. Health care was free as was education. Each Libyan family was given a state grant of $50000 towards buying a new house and all bank loans were according to Islamic anti-usury laws, interest free. The state was also free of debt. Only by bribery and massive infiltration into the tribal opposition areas of the eastern part of the country could the CIA, MI6 and other NATO intelligence operatives, at an estimated cost of $1 billion, and massive NATO bombing of civilians, destabilize the strong ties between Gaddafi and his people.

Why then did NATO and the Pentagon lead such a mad and destructive assault on a peaceful sovereign country? Clear is that one of the prime reasons was to complete the encirclement of China’s oil and vital raw material sources across northern Africa.

Pentagon alarm over China

Step-by-step in the past several years Washington had begun to create the perception that China, which was the “dear friend and ally of America” less than a decade ago, was becoming the greatest threat to world peace because of China’s enormous economic expansion. The painting of China as a new “enemy” has been complex as Washington is dependent on China to buy the lion’s share of the US Government debt in the form of Treasury paper.

In August the Pentagon released its annual report to Congress on China’s military status. This year the report sent alarm bells ringing across China for a strident new tone. The report stated among other things, “Over the past decade, China’s military has benefited from robust investment in modern hardware and technology. Many modern systems have reached maturity and others will become operational in the next few years,” the Pentagon said in the report. It added that “there remains uncertainty about how China will use its growing capabilities… China’s rise as a major international actor is likely to stand out as a defining feature of the strategic landscape of the early 21st century.”

In a matter of perhaps two to five years, depending on how the rest of the world react or play their cards, the Peoples’ Republic of China will emerge in the controlled Western media painted as the new “Hitler Germany.” If that seems hard to believe today, just reflect on how that was done with former Washington allies such as Egypt’s Mubarak or even Saddam Hussein. In June this year, former US Secretary of the Navy and now US Senator from Virginia, James Webb, startled many in Beijing when he told press that China was fast approaching what he called a “Munich moment,” when Washington must decide how to maintain a strategic balance, a reference to the 1938 crisis over Czechoslovakia when Chamberlain opted for appeasement with Hitler over Czechoslovakia. Webb added, “If you look at the last 10 years, the strategic winner has been China.”

The same massively effective propaganda machine of the Pentagon, led by CNN, BBC, the New York Times or London Guardian will get the subtle command from Washington to “paint China and its leaders black.” China is becoming far too strong and far too independent for many in Washington and in Wall Street. To control that, above all China’s oil import dependency has been identified as her Achilles Heel. Libya is a move to strike directly at that vulnerable Achilles heel.

China moves into Africa

The involvement of Chinese energy and raw materials companies across Africa had become a major cause of alarm in Washington where an attitude of malign neglect had dominated Washington Africa policy since the Cold War era. As its future energy needs became obvious several years ago China began a major African economic diplomacy which reached a crescendo in 2006 when Beijing literally rolled out the red carpet to heads of more than forty African states and discussed a broad range of economic issues. None were more important for Beijing than securing future African oil resources for China’s robust industrialization.

China moved into countries which had been virtually abandoned by former European colonial powers like France or Britain or Portugal. Chad is a case in point. The poorest and most geographically isolated African countries, Chad was courted by Beijing which resumed diplomatic ties in 2006.

In October 2007 China’s state oil giant CNPC signed a contract to build a refinery jointly with Chad’s government. Two years later they began construction of an oil pipeline to carry oil from a new Chinese field in the south some 300 kilometres to the refinery. Western-supported NGO’s predictably began howling about environmental impacts of the Chinese oil pipeline. The same NGOs were curiously silent when Chevron struck oil in 2003 in Chad. In July 2011 the two countries, Chad and China celebrated opening of the joint venture oil refinery near Chad’s capital of Ndjamena. Chad’s Chinese oil activities are strikingly close to another major Chinese oil project in what then was Sudan’s Darfur region bordering Chad.

Sudan had been a growing source of oil flows to China since cooperation began in the late 1990s after Chevron abandoned its stake there. By 1998 CNPC was building a 1500 km long oil pipeline from southern Sudan oilfields to Port Sudan on the Red Sea as well as building a major oil refinery near Khartoum. Sudan was the first large overseas oilfield project operated by China. By the beginning of 2011 Sudan oil, most all from the conflict-torn south, provided some 10% of China’s oil imports from taking more than 60% of Sudan’s daily oil production of 490,000 barrels. Sudan had become a point of vital Chinese national energy security.

According to geological estimates, the subsurface running from Darfur in what was southern Sudan through Chad into Cameroon is one gigantic oil field in extent perhaps equivalent to a new Saudi Arabia. Controlling southern Sudan as well as Chad and Cameroon is vital to the Pentagon strategy of “strategic denial” to China of their future oil flows. So long as a stable and robust Ghaddafi regime remained in power in Tripoli that control remained a major problem. The simultaneous splitting off of the Republic of South Sudan from Khartoum and the toppling of Ghaddafi in favor of weak rebel bands beholden to Pentagon support was for the Pentagon Full Spectrum Dominance of strategic priority.

AFRICOM responds

The key force behind the recent wave of Western military attacks against Libya or more covert regime changes such as those in Tunisia, Egypt and the fateful referendum in southern Sudan which has now made that oil-rich region “independent” has been AFRICOM, the special US military command established by the Bush Administration in 2008 explicitly to counter the growing Chinese influence over Africa’s vast oil and mineral wealth.

In late 2007, Dr. J. Peter Pham, a Washington insider who advises the US State and Defense Departments, stated openly that among the aims of the new AFRICOM, is the objective of “protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance … a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.”

Caption: The China National Petroleum Company (C.N.P.C.) operates this exploration site southeast of Ndjamena, the capital of Chad. China has been investing in one African country after another. In large oil-exporting countries like Angola and Nigeria, China is building or fixing railroads, and landing giant exploration contracts in Congo and Guinea. In mineral-rich countries that had been all but abandoned by foreign investors because of unrest and corruption, Chinese companies are filling the void.

In testimony before the US Congress supporting creation of AFRICOM in 2007, Pham, who is associated with the neo-conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stated:

“This natural wealth makes Africa an inviting target for the attentions of the People’s Republic of China, whose dynamic economy…has an almost insatiable thirst for oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it…China is currently importing approximately 2.6 million barrels of crude per day, about half of its consumption; more than 765,000 of those barrels—roughly a third of its imports—come from African sources, especially Sudan, Angola, and Congo (Brazzaville). Is it any wonder, then, that…perhaps no other foreign region rivals Africa as the object of Beijing’s sustained strategic interest in recent years…
Intentionally or not, many analysts expect that Africa—especially the states along its oil-rich western coastline—will increasingly becoming a theatre for strategic competition between the United States and its only real near-peer competitor on the global stage, China, as both countries seek to expand their influence and secure access to resources.”

It is useful to briefly recall the sequence of Washington-sponsored “Twitter” revolutions in the ongoing so-called Arab Spring. The first was Tunisia, an apparently insignificant land on north Africa’s Mediterranean. However Tunisia is on the western border of Libya. The second domino to fall in the process was Mubarak’s Egypt. That created major instability across the Middle East into north Africa as Mubarak for all his flaws had fiercely resisted Washington Middle East pollicy. Israel also lost a secure ally when Mubarak fell.

Then in July 2011 Southern Sudan declared itself the independent Republic of South Sudan, breaking away from Sudan after years of US-backed insurgency against Khartoum rule. The new Republic takes with it the bulk of Sudan’s known oil riches, something clearly not causing joy in Beijing. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, led the US delegation to the independence celebrations, calling it “a testament to the Southern Sudanese people.” She added, in terms of making the secession happen, “the US has been as active as anyone.” US President Obama openly supported secession of the South. The breakaway was a project guided and financed from Washington since the Bush Administration decided to make it a priority in 2004.

Now Sudan has suddenly lost its main source of hard currency oil revenue. The secession of the south, where three-quarters of Sudan’s 490 000 barrels a day of oil is produced, has aggravated economic difficulties in Khartoum cutting some 37% off its total revenues. Sudan’s only oil refineries and the only export route run north from oilfields to Port Sudan on the Red Sea in northern Sudan. South Sudan is now being encouraged by Washington to build a new export pipeline independent of Khartoum via Kenya. Kenya is one of the areas of strongest US military influence in Africa.

The aim of the US-led regime change in Libya as well as the entire Greater Middle East Project which lies behind the Arab Spring is to secure absolute control over the world’s largest known oil fields to control future policies in especially countries like China. As then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is reported to have said during the 1970′s when he was arguably more powerful than the President of the United States, “If you control the oil you control entire nations or groups of nations.”

For the future national energy security of China the ultimate answer lies in finding secure domestic energy reserves. Fortunately there are revolutionary new methods to detect and map presence of oil and gas where even the best current geology says oil is not to be found. Perhaps therein lies a way out of the oil trap that has been laid for China. In my newest book, The Energy Wars I detail such new methods for those interested.

By F. William Engdahl
(This article first appeared on Set You Free News www.setyoufreenews.com)

Related articles

Read the original article here.

 

 

Related articles
Posted in Atrocities, Civil Liberties, Human Behaviour, Inhumanity, Libya, Military, New World Order | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Al Qaeda – so many Questions.

Posted on October 18, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City: V...

Image via Wikipedia

Western intelligence Data Base?

World-wide terrorist Threat?

Master-mind of 9/11 tragedy?

Aid to NATO and the US when convenient?

All of these things?

NSNBC posts this article by Professor Michel Chossudovsky, titled ‘ Al Qaeda: The End of a Legend? Wherever there is Counterinsurgency, there are “Al Qaeda Affiliated Organizations”. It provides a comprehensive look at Al Qaeda which helps to answer the above questions.

To those who are happy with Washington’s propaganda, please read this and think about which is most likely correct!

Throughout the post 9/11 era, Al Qaeda and the “threat of Islamic terrorism” have played a central role in defining Washington’s diplomatic agenda, shaping its rhetoric at World summits as well as establishing the contours of US military doctrine.

The pre-emptive “defensive war” doctrine against Al Qaeda and its alleged “State Sponsors” constitutes the foundation of America’s post 9/11 National Security Strategy (NSS), first formulated in early 2002.

In the wake of 9/11, the Al Qaeda Legend became part of the mainstay of US foreign policy. Contained in the 2002 NSS is the notion of a “global jihadist network of terrorists” and “state sponsors of terrorism”. The response of the US administration is to launch “a war of global reach”, a “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT):

“The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. …America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.

…Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction (…)

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (…). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.” (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

The underlying objective of the 2002 NSS was to present “pre-emptive military action” –meaning war as an act of “self-defense” against two categories of enemies, “Rogue States” and “Islamic terrorists”, both of which were said to possess “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. The “Rogue States” are also defined as “State sponsors” of terrorism.

The 2002 NSS as well as subsequent National Security documents identified a list of  “Axis of Evil” countries which had been singled out for preemptive military intervention under the “Global War on Terrorism”. These included Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Libya, North Korea.

While former enemies Russia and China of the Cold War era were not officially designated as part of the “Axis of Evil”, they were, nonetheless, included (in several military documents) in the list of targetted countries for military intervention.

From the outset in 2001, a vast Public Relations campaign was launched by the Pentagon with a view to shaping and manipulating World public opinion. The PR stunt consisted in leaking reports on links or relations between Al Qaeda and its alleged State sponsors (e.g. How Saddam was supporting bin Laden, etc). The objective was to justify preemptive military actions against countries which were “harboring the terrorists”.

There was no truth or rationale in these statements emanating from higher authority. “Going after Bin Laden” became part of an unbending consensus. Fear and insecurity prevailed over common sense. What we are dealing with is an outright and blind acceptance of the structures of power and political authority. In the wake of 9/11

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan was accused of harboring Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

Afghanistan was identified as a “state sponsor of terror”. The 9/11 attacks were categorized as an act of war, an attack on America by a foreign power. The right to self-defense was put forth.

The US-NATO aggressor was portrayed as the victim.

On September 12, less than 24 hours after the attacks, NATO invoked for the first time in its history “Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – its collective defence clause” declaring the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon “to be an attack against all NATO members.”

There was foreknowledge of 9/11. Military analysts will confirm that the war on Afghanistan launched on October 7, 2001, was planned well in advance of  9/11.

Public opinion was led to believe that war preparations got underway on September 12th on the spare (sic) of the moment, that it was the result of indignation and outrage.

Homeland Security

“The Homeland” emerged as a political concept in the wake of 9/11 leading to the establishment of the US Department of Homeland Security.

The doctrine of pre-emptive war and “defense of the Homeland” are intimately related. Al Qaeda, the alleged perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks threatens “the American Homeland” with the support of the State sponsors of terrorism.

The late Osama bin Laden was defined as the Bogeyman, the “Number One enemy of America” who threatened the Homeland.

The objective was to sustain the illusion that “America is under attack” by Al Qaeda. Washington has a self-proclaimed holy mandate to extirpate Islamic fundamentalism and “spread democracy” throughout the world.

The logic of the “outside enemy” and the evildoer, allegedly responsible for American civilian deaths, prevails over common sense. In the inner consciousness of Americans, the attacks of September 11, 2001 justify acts of war and conquest, directed against the State sponsors of terrorism, including Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

In this regard, the post 9/11 “American Inquisition” as an ideological construct, is, in many regards, similar to the inquisitorial social order prevailing in France and Spain during the Middle Ages. The inquisition, which started in France in the 12th century, was used as a justification for conquest and military intervention.

The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)

Terrorist acts are said to be conducted by non State jihadist organizations, which allegedly are supported and abetted by the governments of several Muslim countries, described as the “State Sponsors” of terror. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were accused by Washington of supporting Al Qaeda.

9/11 remains the pretext and justification for waging a war without borders. In the wake of the NATO sponsored “Liberation” of Libya (August 2011), Syria and Iran, both identified in US military doctrine as State Sponsors of Terror, constitute the next phase of the US-NATO military roadmap.

Al Qaeda portrayed as a Sunni fundamentalist network is increasingly upheld as a global jihadists organization, a base, a decentralized network comprised of affiliated national and regional organizations.

The “Global War on Terrorism” is established with a view to defending the American Homeland as well as the “Western Way of Life”. It requires “going after” the terrorists, using advanced weapons systems including nuclear warheads. It upholds a pre-emptive religious-like crusade against evil, which serves to obscure the real objectives of military action.

The American people’s acceptance of this crusade against evil is not based on any rational understanding or analysis of the facts. The lies underlying 9/11 are known and documented. The evidence amply confirms that Al Qaeda was established with the support of the CIA in liaison with Pakistan’s Military Intelligence, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

From the Soviet-Afghan war to the present, Al Qaeda and its affiliate organizations constitute US sponsored “intelligence assets” used in the implementation of CIA covert operations.

America’s inquisition is used to extend America’s sphere of influence and justify military intervention, as part of an international campaign against “Islamic terrorists”. Its ultimate objective, which is never mentioned in press reports, is territorial conquest and control over strategic resources.

Ten Years Later: Continuity of the 9/11- Al Qaeda Presidential Discourse

The GWOT dogma was initially enunciated and formulated by Washington’s neoconservative think tanks. It was embodied into US military doctrine. It remains part of a bipartisan consensus. From George W. Bush to Barack Obama it has become a central theme in presidential speeches and White House press conferences:

[George W. Bush, Septmeber 2001]  “We’ve been warned there are evil people in this world. We’ve been warned so vividly. … And we’ll be alert. Your government is alert. The governors and mayors are alert that evil folks still lurk out there. As I said yesterday, people have declared war on America and they have made a terrible mistake. … My administration has a job to do and we’re going to do it. We will rid the world of the evil-doers,” (George W. Bush, CNN, September 16, 2001, emphasis added)

[Barack obama, September 2011] “Make no mistake, they will keep trying to hit us again, but as we are showing again this weekend we remain vigilant. We are doing everything in our power to protect our people… They [the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq] want to draw us into endless wars, sapping our strength and confidence as a nation. But even as we put relentless pressure on al-Qaeda we are ending the war in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. After a hard decade of war it is time for nation building here at home,” (Barack Obama, September 2011, Free Internet Press :: President Obama: Al-Qaeda Threat Still Remains :: Uncensored News For Real People, September 11, 2001)

The objective of the “Global War on Terrorism” launched in September 2001 was to galvanize public support for a Worldwide campaign against heresy. For the last ten years, an understanding of fundamental social and political events is replaced by a World of sheer fantasy, where “evil folks” are lurking.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda has established numerous affiliate organizations throughout the Muslim world.

Al Qaeda has mushroomed. Wherever the CIA is conducting counterinsurgency operations, there are Al Qaeda affiliated organizations including:

Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI),

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP),

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM),

The Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG),

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, (which comprises

Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, and Islamic Jihad of Yemen),

Al-Shabaab (Mujahideen Youth Movement) in Somalia,

Egyptian Islamic Jihad,

East Turkestan Islamic Movement in Xinjiang, China,

etc.

Wherever Al Qaeda has set up shop, the US has waged counterinsurgency operations under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism”. There are indications that many of these Al Qaeda affiliates were set up with the support of the CIA, using Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) as a go-between.

Wherever Al Qaeda is present, where “bad guys are lurking”, America has an obligation to intervene on behalf of “the international community”. The terrorist threat is used as a pretext to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, including the sending in of special forces and the conduct of drone attacks, without an actual declaration of war. These types of operations are described in the Project of New American Century (PNAC) as constabulary functions.

In turn, large scale military campaigns have been waged in several countries as part of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq were conducted under the banner of the Global War on Terrorism. Both the Afghan and Iraqi governments were identified as “state sponsors of terrorism”.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is also said to support Al Qaeda. The Administration’s pre-emptive war doctrine hinges upon  this alleged relationship between non state terrorist organizations and their terrorist State sponsors. It is understood, pari passu, that the state sponsors of terrorism, whoever they be, are also responsible for the 9/11 attacks, namely for having supported and abetted Al Qaeda.

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research

The original article is linked here.  Courtesy NSNBC

Related articles
Posted in 'WAR on(of) TERROR', 9/11 tragedy, Al Qaeda, Atrocities, Conspiracies, Cover-ups, Justice, osama Bin Laden | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

World Issues coverage #2 – Russia/China influence

Posted on October 17, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Eurasia (orthographic projection)

Image via Wikipedia

Not long before selecting a second blog deserving added exposure.

‘Global Research’ is a hard-hitting news blog right on top of the machinations of the ‘ungodly’, including the ‘New World Order‘. This first example of their ‘wares’, The Eurasian Project: A Threat to The New World Order, by  Elena Ponomareva, provides a brilliant overview of the existence of serious vying for, or at least dampening of,  international control.

The main comment I am tempted to make is that where the US is named as a protagonist, if you like, there is no mention of the likelihood that whatever the US is guilty of, it is clearly itself controlled and/or manipulated by the Zionists/bankers.

One might be tempted to regard Russian premier V. Putin‘s paper “A new integration project for Eurasia: The future in the making”, which saw the light of day in Izvestia on October 3, 2011, as the presidential front-runner’s sketchily laid out program, but upon scrutiny that appears to be only one part of a wider picture. The opinion piece momentarily ignited wide-scale controversy in and outside of Russia and highlighted the ongoing clash of positions on global development…Regardless of interpretation details, the reaction of the Western media to the integration project unveiled by the Russian premier was uniformly negative and reflected with utmost clarity an a priori hostility towards Russia and any initiatives it floats. Mao Zedong, though, used to say that facing pressure from your enemies is better than being in such a condition that they do not bother to keep you under pressure.It helps to understand why, at the moment, Cold War-style headlines are constantly popping up in Western media and what perceived threat the West discerned in Putin’s recent Eurasian integration. The obvious explanation is that, if implemented, the plan would come as a geopolitical challenge to the new world order, to the dominance of NATO, the IMF, the EU and other supranational bodies, and to the undisguised US primacy. Today’s increasingly assertive Russia suggests and is ready to start building an inclusive alliance based on principles providing a viable alternative to Atlantism and neoliberalism. It is an open secret that these days the West is putting into practice an array of far-reaching geopolitical projects, reconfiguring Europe in the wake of the Balkan conflicts and against the backdrop of the crises provoked in Greece and Cyprus, assembling the Greater Middle East based on serial regime changes across the Arab world, and, as a relatively novel design, implementing the Asia project in which the recent disaster in Japan was an active phase.

In 2011, the intensity of geopolitical dynamics was unprecedented since the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, with all major countries and international bodies contributing.
Moreover, the current impression is that military might somehow became a legitimate instrument in international politics. Just days ago, Moscow drew avalanche criticism after vetoing the UN Security Council resolution which could authorize a replay of the Libyan scenario in Syria. As  a result, US permanent envoy to the UN S. Rice slammed Russia and China over the veto, while French foreign minister Alain Juppé declared that “it is a sad day for the Syrian people. It is a sad day for the Security Council”. During the heated UN security Council debates on September 5, Syrian representative lambasted Germany and France, and charged the US with perpetrating genocide in the Middle East. After that, S. Rice accused Russia and China of hoping to sell arms to the Syrian regime instead of standing by the Syrian people and stormed out of the meeting, and French envoy Gérard Araud opined that “No veto can clear of their responsibility these Syrian authorities that have lost any legitimacy by murdering its own people”, leaving an impression that murdering people, as in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, should be a NATO privilege.

Moscow’s Western “partners” are outraged whenever Russia, in concert with China, puts obstacles in the way of the new world order.
Syria, albeit a regionally important country, only fleetingly tops the agenda, but Putin’s ambitious plan for the whole Eurasia – “reaching a higher level of integration – a Eurasian Union” – had to be expected to evoke deep and lasting concerns in the West. Moscow openly challenges the West’s global dominance by “suggesting a model of a powerful supranational union that can become one of the poles of today’s world while being an efficient connecting link between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific Region”. No doubt, Putin’s messages that “the combination of natural resources, capital, and strong human potential will make the Eurasian Union competitive in the industrial and technological race and the race for investor money, new jobs, and advanced production facilities” and that “along with other key players and regional institutions such as the EU, the USA, China, and APEC, it will ensure the sustainability of global development” sounded alarming to Western leaders.

Neither the collapse of the USSR and the bipolar world nor the subsequent proliferation of pro-Western “democracies” marked a final point in the struggle over global primacy. What followed was an era of military interventions and displacements of defiant regimes with the help of information warfare and the omnipresent Western soft power. In this game, Eurasia remains the main prize in line with John Mackinder’s geopolitical imperative by which “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island controls the world”.

In the late XX century the US became the first-ever non-Eurasian country to combine the roles of the world’s top power and the final arbiter in Eurasian affairs. In the framework of the new world order doctrine, the US and the West as a whole see Eurasia as a zone of key importance to their economic development and growing political might. Global dominance is an openly stated and constantly pursued goal of the Euro-Atlantic community and its military and financial institutions – NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank – along with the Western media and countless NGOs. In the process, the Western establishment remains fully aware that, in Z. Brzeziński’s words,
“America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained”.
Sustaining the “preponderance”, in turn, takes control over Europe, Russia, China, the Middle East, and Central Asia.

Untamed Western hegemony in Europe, Central Asia, and, to an extent, in the Middle East and even Russia used to count as an unquestionable outcome of the past couple of decades, but at the moment the situation appears fluid. Western, Chinese, and Russian watchers alike are predicting an imminent failure of the neoliberal globalization model embedded in the new world order, and the time is coming for the political class to adopt the view.

By opening up opportunities to shield original models of national development from Atlantist pressure and to maintain real international security, Putin’s new integration project holds a major promise for Russia and its allies, and thereby presents Russia’s foes with a serious problem. Neither Russia nor any other post-Soviet republic can survive in today’s world single-handedly, and Russia as Eurasia’s key geopolitical player
with economic, political, and military potentials unparalleled across the post-Soviet space can and should stake a bid for an alternative global architecture.

The West’s allergy to Putin’s plan is therefore explainable, but, regardless of the opposition the project is bound to run into, of the weakness of some of its elements, and of the potential difficulty of putting it into practice, the Eurasian integration project grew out of the life of the post-Soviet geopolitical and cultural space and is consonant with current global trends. Surviving, preserving the economic and material foundations of
national existence, keeping traditions alive, and building a secure future for the children are the objectives the Eurasian nations can accomplish only if they stay aligned with Russia. Otherwise, isolation, sanctions, and military interventions awaits them…

Read the original article.

This is incredibly heavy stuff. Hard to believe. Material for ‘conspiracy theories. But believable if one looks at enough relevant data. A thorough read of this is recommended.

Which is what this blog is all about – information for the masses about the real world. Not just as I see it, but as many eyes-more-wide-open people see it.

Related articles

Posted in Civil Liberties, Conspiracies, Human Behaviour, Inhumanity, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Big Pharma’s Plan to Destroy California’s Children?

Posted on October 17, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Gardasil vaccine and box

Image via Wikipedia

‘April Boden Uncovers Big Pharma’s Plan to Destroy California’s Children‘ is the full title of an article by Liam Scheff, posted on ‘Angelbabes 43’s Blog’, covering some very important vaccination problems.

On Tuesday’s Robert Scott Bell Show (10-10-11) April Boden, vaccine activist, blogger and mother of a vaccine-damaged six-year-old in California, reveals her deeply insightful take on the politics of the two – count them, two – vaccine bills, that were just passed by Governor Jerry “Drug-Fever” Brown.

According to April (http://aydansrecovery.blogspot.com), “The whole thing was entirely calculated. On one hand you have bill AB499 which allows a minor to consent to vaccines without parental knowledge, on the other you have SB946 which is about autism insurance reform.”

These two bills were put to Governor Brown for approval on the same day, a crass calculation says April, as they pit one and the same group of activists – those concerned or mortified by vaccine damages – against each other. The first bill, AB499, allows students in public schools – and minors all over the pharma-crazed State of California – to be given drugs for any presumed sexually transmitted disease, including the Gardasil vaccine injection.

But is HPV truly an STD? It occurs in some 80 percent of the human population. It is a harmless wart virus that does not – I repeat – does not “cause cervical cancer,” despite what the pharma propaganda machine tells the sleep-walking public. According to even the mainstream’s statistics, close to 99 percent of women who ever have the ‘virus,’ never get the disease! How’s that for ‘proof of causation?’

The reality is this: HPV is an entirely common nothing of a virus, which like most “viruses” is expressed under cellular stress, and which is suppressed or made completely inactive in a healthy, well-regulated cell.

Cells which are nurtured and fed essential nutrients, like essential fatty acids, selenium and glutathione regularly stop the expression of “viruses.” Cells which are dysregulated, starved for nutrients and intoxicated by chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals and neurotoxins often express viruses. We encourage viral expression in bodies which are starved and abused. And let’s stop to note that the very chemicals and agents which damage cells are precisely those which constitute vaccines!

But the once “hippy” Governor isn’t interested in nutrition, or cellular health, or even that long-forgotten concept of “choice” that Liberals claim to care for with such passion. No, he wants children to be able to “opt in” to eugenic ‘science’ programs that would make Goebbels blush with pride. Now ten-year-olds can be propagandized at school with the anxiety-provoking lie that they have to be afraid of getting genital cancer from something that almost everybody in the world has at one time or another.

And now they can ask for – and receive – the dangerous Gardasil or Cervarix vaccine. And ‘dangerous’ is not hyperbole. This injection has already killed close to a seventy girls, young women and some boys, whose parents trusted the State-pharma complex.

The second bill, SB946, is supposed to help parents with vaccine-damaged (‘autistic’) children pay for medical care, rehabilitative education and special needs. But April, in reading the fine print, found that the bill is like the electronics you buy at Best Buy on a whim – it is obsolete before you get it out of the store. The bill expires in two years, at which point cash-strapped parents will have to muster more free time to fight the state again.

April writes: “[The bill] only pertains to private pay insurance; State-paid insurance will be exempt.”

In other words, those who can afford to pay for insurance are getting a hand. Those too poor to purchase exorbitant insurance, are stuck with a broken and decrepit State system.

And April notes, “It does not prevent insurance companies from raising rates as a result. In the meantime California is reducing its State funded programs for autism left and right – so what happens when the insurance companies start picking up the tab?”

“People won’t notice that their State funded programs have been removed until 2 years later when they are saddled with higher insurance premiums and no services. But people have short term memory and will have completely forgotten how they got there.”

The HIV Clause

How deeply has big pharma parasitized the State of California? April spied a rider to the bill that’s a real blood-sucker: “There is an additional, tag-along clause in SB 946 regarding HIV reporting.”

But what does “HIV reporting” have to do with Autism? Or even Gardasil? The answer is – California is broke, and in order to make up its endless budget shortfall, it is selling its children into pharmaceutical slavery.

Here’s how it works. Beyond asking for Gardasil, children in California can receive handfuls of the FDA’s most deadly drug – AZT – for another phony diagnosis – that of “HIV positive.”

AZT is a bone-killing, blood-suppressing, liver-destroying drug, recycled as a failed chemotherapy agent into the gay community in the late 1980s. It was given to gay men who were told they were “HIV positive,” but it did not help. The shameful and oft-hidden reality is that the death toll attributed to “HIV” in the 1990s was a direct result of AZT. Hundreds of thousands of gay men took high doses of the drug, though they were not sick, and died a short, agonizing death as a direct result.

The numbers tell the story – before the introduction of AZT, the “AIDS” death toll in was a little above 10,000 per year. After AZT, the number jumped to close to 50,000 per year, and stayed there until AZT was reduced from 1200 milligram doses, down to one or two hundred milligrams. AIDS researchers claimed a victory at that point, but the reality was that they just stopped killing so many patients so quickly. This is a well-known and ‘open secret’ in the AIDS community, but like all uncomfortable truths, it is swept under a rug, out of sight of the American public.

But the biggest open secret in ‘HIV care’ is the tests themselves. HIV tests come up “positive” or reactive for hundreds of reasons – there is no end to the number of cross-reactions that occur with this obscenely immoral test. HIV tests do not test for any particular particle – they are cross-reactive with proteins that every human body produces daily. The medical literature demonstrates ably that HIV tests come up positive for the ingredients contained in – get this – HIV tests! That’s right. Taking an “HIV test” can itself make you “HIV positive.” And so can being vaccinated! Having the flu! Drinking milk! The list goes on and on.

Read the whole article here. 

This a scathing report on several aspects of the vaccination programs and the people involved which are a positivre indictment on the industry. The more I read and hear, the more confident I am that such criticisms are absolutely valid. It highlights the lack of proven safety, even what appears to be meaningful evidence of serious health problems. In addition, much appears to be wrong with the behaviour of the people and organizations pushing vaccinations, and those supposedly monitoring and controlling safe procedures.

What’s more, the insurance skull-duggery associated with these programs almost  prove that adverse results are expected and will not be treated as a liability attached to those responsible.

If, or perhaps when, it transpires that criminal negiligence or even deliberate criminal behaviour has been involved, who is going to cop the blame? Who is going to enact it and pass judgement?

A great deal of excellent related information is provided in the ‘Related Article’ section of the original post.

Related articles
Posted in Cover-ups, HEALTH, Human Behaviour, vaccines | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Libya and much, much more.

Posted on October 17, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

This image shows Nicolas Sarkozy who is presid...

Image via Wikipedia

Persuing the World Issues theme, that is currently lead here by the “No Spin News” link, here is an excerpt from the NSCBC latest post.

So why did the Sun Kings of Europe and the USA hate Ghadafi.

Colonialism in Africa has changed significantly since the USA entered African Politics after world war two, and very significantly, with the consolidation of the European Union. While France has particular national interests in the CFA region, most of Southern Europe’s states are working towards an expansion of the European Market to the Mediterranean Basin, and a new colonization by means of economic control and military presence in Northern Africa. Seldom mentioned in the corporate media, the Royal Family of Morocco is a stern supporter of this policy. Cooperation on multiple areas, such as the control of the Mediterranean Basin States Social Economy (34) have been implemented for years.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy made it his personal ambition to achieve what even Napolean did not , a colonization of the entire Northern and Western African Continent. In 2008 France and the European Union had been so far in their preparations, that the only remaining obstacle for it´s North African Colonial Ambitions was Libya, and Libya outright rejected to play into the hands of the want to be colonialists. When asked for his opinion about the Mediterranean Basin alliance, Muammar Ghadafi said: “If Europe wants co-operation, it should go through Cairo and Adis Abeba”. (35) In 2008, President Sarkozy wanted to make the Mediterranean Alliance his contribution to the European Union, and during the six months of the French E.U. Presidency (ibid.) French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner did not only convey Sarkozy´s “disappointment”, but clearly indicated that Libya and Ghadafi had become “the” obstacle for further colonial expansion in Northern Africa, when he stated that “ Colonel Ghadafi is not in agreement with this vision. Neither was he in agreement with the Barcelona process which we intend to support and pursue”(ibid.).

The reason why Libya opposed the Mediterranean Alliance was, that it would have split, rather than united African Nations. Rather than establishing one more “zone” like the CFA Region in Northern Africa, Ghadafi and Libya were lobbying the African Union to abandon the CFA treaties with France, and to establish a Pan-African, gold backed currency, which would end the usury, the robbery of African nations ressources, and the enslavement of an entire continents population. The Libyan arguments were persuasive. Libya had the highest per capita GDP, the highest standard of living, social services, wages, job security, education program, litteracy rate, and countless other “firsts” among African Nations. After Ghadafi´s and Libya´s out right rejection of the Mediterranean Alliance (ibid.) and success at lobbying for a Pan-African currency, with among other Laurent Gbagbo from Ivory Coast meant, that the USA and Europe had only one option left, to topple the Libyan Government by any means necessary.

Read the article titled ” Neo-Colonialism, Subversion in Africa and Global Conflict”, and get some clues as to what is going on in the world around us.

Related articles
Posted in Civil Liberties, Conspiracies, Human Behaviour, Inhumanity, Justice, Libya | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Donna Laframboise’s new exposé book on the IPCC

Posted on October 15, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

From WUWT this very interesting review of a book exposing much that condemns the IPCC for what it obviously is. A politically motivated and funded tool to facilitate government and financial control.

This is a welcome adjunct to this blog and sits comfortably into the theme headed “Carbon Attack’. I haven’t followed up the IPCC chapter yet, but much of the ‘Motivation‘ section is in step with Donna’s book. Feeling good in joining in the promotion.

All the details here.

Author’s blog on WUWT sidebar links. copied here.

Related articles
Posted in climate change, Conspiracies, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Justice, New World Order | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

No Spin News –

Posted on October 15, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Greater Middle East

Image via Wikipedia

I have often posted articles from Christof Lehmann’s website ‘NSNBC’. They generally relate to publishing truthful accounts of what goes on in the general areas of Africa and the Middle East.

Exposing the spin, rhetoric, mis-reporting, under-reporting found in the mainstream press. Clarifying the distortions and lies about insurgencies and counter-insugencies and other interferences  in Libya,  Syria, Turkey, Palestine, Somalia, Pakistan. Revealing the truths about Al Qaeda.

What with the latest intrusion by Obama on peace in Uganda, the whole scenario is becoming more than a major world upheaval. Within the aims of this blog to foster awareness of injustices etc., it seems reasonable to create a more direct link to the sources of relevant information. So, I refer you to a new Link Category “World Issues” (right sidebar) which begins with ‘No Spin News’.

Building on this and publishing regular pointers to issues considered important, will simplify this blog and avoid much duplication and blogging time, at the same time achieving exposure via this site.

Check out their latest post –  ‘Obama betrays Palestinians, stepping deeper into Zionist trap.‘ refer http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/2789/.

Related articles
Posted in Atrocities, Civil Liberties, Inhumanity, Justice, Media, united states | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vaccine industry receives government financial bailouts

Posted on October 14, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

:Original raster version: :Image:Food and Drug...

Image via Wikipedia

Aah, it’s all too much! But I am a glutton for punishment and respond without hesitation.

Natural News again posts significant information about the fraud associated with Vaccine-pushing Drug companies.

Titled “Vaccine industry receives government financial bailouts via Vaccine Injury Compensation Program” and  written by PF Louis, it reveals the government (US) connivance with the vaccine industry, and its obvious knowledge of the inefficacy and dangers of some vaccines.

(NaturalNews)
Ever wonder why vaccine related injuries reported by parents get so little mass media attention? It’s easy to understand when you realize that although a federally decreed reporting system does exist for vaccine injuries, the agency itself simply stores them in a data base that doesn’t influence most medical
professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and mainstream media.

Understanding VAERS

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
was established as part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986. VAERS is sponsored by the CDC and FDA, both vaccine friendly government agencies. Another part of the NCVIA is the establishment of a federal “no fault”
compensation program for parents of vaccine injured or killed
children.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) was set up to award claims to parents through the US Court of Federal Claims. Of course, claimants had to establish a causal connection with their child’s issues from recent vaccinations.

The compensations vary from $250,000 for the death of a child, or a life time of medical coverage for a brain damaged child.
The awards are federally funded, “bailing out” vaccine manufacturers from financial liability. The fact that over $1 billion has been paid out since 1986 is the government’s secret admission of vaccine dangers.

As in most settlements, awarded parents are gagged from talking of their case by the risk of losing their “hush money” covering lifetime medical expenses.

Many parents are still programmed to believe their child’s sudden mental or physical health downturn had nothing to do with all those vaccinations they allowed their pediatrician to deliver. And less naive parents don’t even know about VAERS or the compensation program, which are as unwieldy and bureaucratic as government systems can be.

It’s estimated that as low as one or two percent with no
more than 10% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Although doctors are legally obliged to report adverse vaccine reactions to VAERS, most don’t. The FDA admits that probably 90% of doctors simply don’t report adverse vaccine reactions. Yet even with this denial and resistance, up to 20,000 adverse vaccine reactions are reported annually.

Keep in mind that VAERS officially states their data base file of adverse reports does not make causal connections to vaccines. Those non-reporting MDs usually dismiss serious reactions as unrelated to vaccines. Or worse yet, they blame the parents and accuse them of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS).

Blaming the victims

Some parents have been imprisoned for trying to resuscitate their babies or rush them into emergency rooms upon noticing sudden dire symptoms. Usually those babies died.

SBS symptoms can resemble adverse vaccine reactions, but convicted parents were never allowed the reasonable doubt that would arise from real vaccine injury knowledge. This rush to judgment reflects widespread denial.

In many cases, those infants had just received multiple shots of vaccines pushed by their pediatricians. Are those records considered without bias in the courts where accused parents stand?
But local media and press cover these incidents to trump up lurid crime attention, yet they won’t mention vaccinations. That’s taboo.

Another rising syndrome masking vaccine injuries is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), or crib death. These infants suddenly die for apparently no cause. Often they had recently been vaccinated. But let’s not look into that. Better to consider SIDS a strangely mysterious epidemic among newborns and get more money for more research.

Perhaps October’s vaccine awareness month should focus more on reporting adverse events to reach a tipping point against the resistance of vaccine truth. Otherwise the Medical Mafia will continue jabbing children to oblivion.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.thinktwice.com/secret.ht…

http://vaers.hhs.gov/index

http://medalerts.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccin…

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/scandal.htm

http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/

http://www.vaclib.org/

http://www.naturalnews.com/030025_v…

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/10…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033868_vaccine_injuries_compensation.html#ixzz1akKZFO56

Related articles
Posted in Cover-ups, HEALTH, Inhumanity, Justice, Media, medical, vaccines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments