STEPHEN HAWKING BELIEVES IN ET! THERE MAY YET BE HOPE FOR THE ATHEIST/SCIENTIST CROWD.

On "Larry King Live", Hawking made the remarks, "IF aliens ever visit us", and "IF the extraterrestrials ever visit earth." 

When Larry King questioned Hawking about banning messages into the universe for fear of attracting dangerous aliens, he replied, "It is too late. IF they are looking, they will already have detected us."

Seems like a lot of conjecture for someone likened to Einstein, but at least he's admitting the possibility ET could exist. That's far more slack than what he offers up to the Great One who had a hand in his creation.

So it didn't work out too well for him. Does he hold God responsible for being a cripple in a wheel-chair? Is that why he denies a Creator's presence? If the truth be known, Hawking's disability was likely lifestyle or doctor induced. Heavy metals and vaccines have been implicated in diseases like ALS, MS, Alzheimer's and other nervous system disorders. There's countless 'man-made' factors that can attribute to illness, and in fact, doctors have been blamed for 250,000 deaths per year due to prescribed drugs, misdiagnoses and failed surgeries. (JAMA, July 2000). Since these are only the reported figures, it's safe to say this is the tip of the iceberg. But I digress.

Hawking states that the universe is comprised of 100 billion galaxies. Though certainly not a precise figure when you're dealing in such immeasurable numbers, it's curious how he arrived at this deduction. Is the sum based upon what the world's most powerful telescopes and satellites detect, or did Hawking's "mathematical brain", as he refers to it, crunch the numbers?

I've read that new technology will give the ability to see and detect the heavens far beyond what we can presently see. Will this mean Hawking will have to re-calibrate his mathematical computation for the number of galaxies in existence?

Since Hawking's figure is just speculation anyway, a more accurate representation of the number of galaxies in our universe might be to simply equate it to the US National Debt, which now stands at over 10 trillion. The average interest rate of 4 billion a day could parallel the advancement in technology and science's ability to observe the heavens. Just think... we could probably end world hunger with the money saved on exorbitantly expensive scientific instruments and the manpower wasted to build and operate them.

Of course it's a laughable premise, but how much does it really differ from the speculation that theorizing scientists like Hawking offer?

A few years ago a scientist made the statement to the effect that "we now believe the universe extends beyond our original estimate."

So, did they previously think that the universe suddenly ended at a brick wall and that was it? Can their astrophysical and evolutionist minds even comprehend the concept of infinity? Apparently not.

I'll give credit to Hawking for at least being unique in his belief of Intelligent Design. He's the only atheist I've heard who claims to not believe in ‘a personal God’ and yet talks about ‘the mind of God’. 

In a series for the Discovery Channel Hawking said it was "perfectly rational" to assume intelligent life exists elsewhere. 



Yes Stephen, there may still be hope.

The Myth Of German Culpability

The 2nd World War: The True Sequence Of Aggression


One of the great mysteries of life is that despite the evidence to the contrary millions of otherwise intelligent people still believe that Germany was the all powerful aggressor during the 2nd World War. Nothing better than these myths illustrate the mind-bending power of propaganda.


The provable facts suggest that Germany was the victim and not the perpetrator of naked neighboring aggression. The subsequent allied military triumph was followed by the triumph of the propagandists whose pressing need was to depict the victor nations as being the victim.


"Germany is too strong. We must destroy her." -- Winston Churchill, Nov. 1936.


"In no country has the historical blackout been more intense and effective than in Great Britain. Here it has been ingeniously christened The Iron Curtain of Discreet Silence. Virtually nothing has been written to reveal the truth about British responsibility for the Second World War and its disastrous results." - Harry Elmer Barnes. American Historian


"The war was not just a matter of the elimination of Fascism in Germany, but rather of obtaining German sales markets." - Winston Churchill. March, 1946.


"Britain was taking advantage of the situation to go to war against Germany because the Reich had become too strong and had upset the European balance." - Ralph F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics


"I emphasized that the defeat of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit." - Samuel Untermeyer, The Public Years, p.347.


On September 2nd 1939 a delegate of the Labour Party met with the British Foreign Minister Halifax in the lobby of Parliament. 'Do you still have hope?'he asked. 'If you mean hope for war,' answered Halifax, 'then your hope will be fulfilled tomorrow. 'God be thanked!' replied the representative of the British Labour Party. - Professor Michael Freund.


"In Britain, Lord Halifax was reported as being 'redeemed'. He ordered beer. We laughed and joked." - H. Roth. Are We Being Lied To?


"In April, 1939, (four months before the outbreak of war) Ambassador William C. Bullitt, whom I had known for twenty years, called me to the American Embassy in Paris. The American Ambassador told me that war had been decided upon. He did not say, nor did I ask, by whom. He let me infer it. ... When I said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, the Ambassador replied: "'what of it? There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth bolshevising." - - Karl von Wiegand, April, 23rd, 1944, Chicago Herald American


"I felt sorry for the German people. We were planning - and we had the force to carry out our plans - to obliterate a once mighty nation." - Admiral Daniel Leahy; U.S Ambassador


MYTH 1. THE GERMAN NATION IS AN AGGRESSIVE NATION


The facts prove otherwise. A Study of War by Prof. Quincy Wright, shows that in the period from 1480 to 1940 there were 278 wars involving European countries whose percentage participation was as follows:


ENGLAND28%
FRANCE26%
SPAIN23%
RUSSIA22%
AUSTRIA19%
TURKEY15%
POLAND11%
SWEDEN9%
ITALY9%
NETHERLANDS8%
GERMANY (INCLUDING PRUSSIA)8%
DENMARK7%


Likewise, Pitirim Sorokin, Vol.111, Part.11, Social and Cultural Dynamics, shows that from the 12th Century to 1925 the percentage of years in which leading European powers have been at war is as follows. (p.352).


COUNTRY PERCENTAGE OF YEARS AT WAR


SPAIN67%
POLAND58%
ENGLAND56%
FRANCE50%
RUSSIA46%
HOLLAND44%
ITALY36%
GERMANY28%


Sorokin concludes therefore, "that Germany has had the smallest and Spain the largest percent of years at war." Of leading modern European states, England, France and Russia show clearly twice the aggressive tendencies of Germany.


From the years 1815 to 1907 the record stands as follows:

 

BRITAIN: 10 wars

RUSSIA: 7 wars

FRANCE: 5 wars 

AUSTRIA: 3 wars

PRUSSIA-GERMANY: 3 wars


GERMANY DID NOT WANT WAR


"I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the 'Americans' around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler's pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right." - Attorney General, Sir. Hartley Shawcross, March,16th, 1984


"The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war." - Sir. Basil Liddell Hart


"I see no reason why this war must go on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices which it will claim. I would like to avert them." - Adolf Hitler, July, 1940.


Winston Churchill agrees: "We entered the war of our own free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted." - Guild Hall Speech, July 1943.


MYTH.2 THE GERMAN ARMED FORCES
OUTNUMBERED THEIR NEIGHBOURS


POLAND


30 Active Divisions
10 Reserve Divisions
12 Large Cavalry Brigades
Poland had nearly 2,500,000 trained men available for mobilisations.


FRANCE


110 Divisions
65 were active divisions
Including 5 cavalry divisions, two mechanised divisions, one armoured division, the rest being infantry. On the German borders stood the French commandstood 85 Divisions and could mobilise 5,000,000-armed troops. These were supported backed by five British divisions.


BRITAIN


Britain's relatively small but high quality Regular Army was supported by the Territorial Army consisting of 26 Divisions with plans well in hand to boost this to 55 divisions. This of course was in turn supported by the then world's largest conscription army holding an empire 'upon which the sun never set.'


The British Empire consisted also of the former German 'empire' of New Guinea, Nauru, Western Samoa, South West Africa, Quattar, Palestine, Transjordan, Tanganyika, Iraq, Togoland and the Cameroons. These territories stolen from Germany added another 1,061,755 square miles to the British Empire, the equivalent of 35 Scotlands


GERMANY


Against these formidable forces Germany was able to mobilise just ninety-eight divisions of which only fifty-two were active (including Austrian divisions). Of the remaining 46 divisions only 10 were fit for action on mobilisation and even in these the bulk of them were raw recruits who had been serving for less than one month.


The other 36 divisions consisted mainly of Great War veterans over the age of forty who were unfamiliar with modern weapons and up to date military techniques.


THE BALANCE SHEET


On the balance sheets it can be seen that the Poles and French alone, not counting Britain and its Empire, had the equivalent of 130 divisions against a total of 98 German divisions of with 1/3rd were virtually untrained men.


In terms of trained soldiers the Germans were at an even bigger disadvantage. (Note at the outbreak of war over 50% of the German armed forces was horse drawn).


WAR IN THE AIR


"The superiority of the Luftwaffe has been greatly exaggerated to create the impression that Britain was the underdog; a David fighting Goliath. In the run up to the Battle of Britain (August 10th 194) the Luftwaffe had 929 fighters available; mostly single-engine Messerschmitt 109s. Of these 227 were twin-engine long-range Me110s which had a top speed of 350mph. Although it had a faster rate of climb it was inferior when turning or manoeuvring.


The ME109's range restricted its field of operation. Their real fields of operation ­ out and back ­ was a little over 100 miles, a flight time of barely 95 minutes and a tactical flight time of just 75 minutes. This was a sever handicap when it is considered that whereas the Luftwaffe pilots were operating scores of miles from their base, British pilots were often within sight of their own. This handicap was made more critical by the fact that downed RAF pilots could be rescued whilst Luftwaffe pilots were of course ­ if they were lucky ­ imprisoned.


The twin-engine ME110 was a slow flyer able to cruise at a little less than 300mph and was easily outpaced by the RAF's Spitfires. It was also 'sluggish in acceleration and difficult to manoeuvre.'


The greatest handicap for the Germans however was there primitive radio equipment. Unlike the British versions it was poor in air-to-air operation and could not be controlled by the ground.


On the British side a total surpassing 650 fighter aircraft had been amassed by mid-July, mostly Hurricanes and Spitfires although including nearly 100 of the older types. During that whole year Britain produced 4,238 fighters compared with a derisory 3,000 manufactured by Germany.


In terms of armaments the noted British military historian, B.H Liddell Hart noted: "What is quite clear, and became evident at the start, was that the German bombers were too poorly armed to be able to beat off the British fighters without a fighter escort of their own." ­ History of the Second World War.


GERMANY AND OTHER FREE COUNTRIES ATTACKED


Poland carried out the first acts of aggression. In March 1939 Poland, already occupying German territory 'acquired' in 1919 invaded Czechoslovakia. During the months running up to the outbreak of war Polish armed forces repeatedly violated German borders. On August 31st 1939 Polish irregular armed forces launched a full scale attack on the German border town of Gleiwitz.


Within hours Germany retaliated resulting in Britain and France's declarations of war on the German nation on 3rd Sept 1939. In Britain's case this declaration of war was constitutionally illegal. It was not as it should have been ratified by parliament.


Despite her borders being constantly attacked by the numerically superior armies of France and England, and economically strangled by world finance, Germany refused to be drawn, negotiated for peace and turned the other cheek for ten months.


Only when it accurately learned that England intended to broaden the western front by occupying the Low Countries and Norway, thus surrounding and threatening Germany's entire borders, did Germany carry out a pre-emptive strike.


Germany's defensive counter attack was launched on 10th May 1940. This resulted in the rout of 330,000 British and French troops by a significantly smaller army. It was one of the worst debacles in military history. (The British press called it 'a miracle).


Russia invaded Finland on Nov 30th 1939. Britain (not for the first time) and France invaded Norway's neutrality on 8th April 1940. To avoid attack via the Baltic Sea Germany counter-attacked. In the small battles that followed (Trondheim) 2,000 German troops routed 13,000 British troops. They were evacuated on 1st May. To save face Churchill disembarked 20,000 British troops at Narvik. They were driven out by 2,000 Austrian Alpine troops.


Canada declared war on Germany 10th Sept 1939. In June 1940 Soviet Russia invaded Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Rumania. In June 1940, Britain declared war on Finland, Rumania and Hungary whilst also occupying defenseless Iceland. All of these acts of aggression in gross violation of international law and previously signed treaties.


On May 10th 1940 in brazen defiance of international law Britain occupied Iceland. Icelanders regarded the British armed forces as an occupying force.


On 7th Dec 1941 a British backed coup overthrew the Yugoslav government. On 27th March 1941 British troops enter Greece. On 6th April 1941 Germany retaliated and Britain retreated again. In June 1940 Britain prepares to invade neutral Portugal.


The United States, supposedly neutral, consistently attacks German shipping and arrests or otherwise kidnaps German citizens, even those living in South American countries. In August 1941. Germany retaliated.


In 1940 alone Britain, supposedly standing alone and at bay, added 1.6 MILLION SQUARE MILES TO ITS WORLD EMPIRE occupying Italian and French colonies; Syria, Iraq and Persia. Britain's foremost military historian, A.J.P. Taylor conceded: "There can be no doubt that he (Hitler) broadened the war in 1941 only on preventive grounds."


Footnote on casualties: In terms of casualties the United Kingdom came in at number nine. Russia came first (official figures at 13.6 million, Germany 3.5, China 1.3, Japan 1.3, Romania 350,000, United States 252,000, Italy 279,000, UK 264,000, France 213,000, Hungary 200,000, Poland 123,000, Greece 88,000, Finland 82,000, Canada 37,000, India 24,000, Australia 23,000, Belgium 12,000, Czechoslovakia 10,000, Bulgaria 10,000, New Zealand 10,000 (another country threatened by Germany no doubt!), Netherlands 8,000, South Africa 6,000, Norway 3,000, Denmark 1,800, Brazil 943.


A FINAL EPITAPH FROM ONE OF ENGLAND'S FINEST POETS:


A curse for England, false and base,
Where nothing can prosper but disgrace,
Where crushed is each flower's tender form,
And decay and corruption feed the worm ...


... Sound familiar?




Comment
Michael Rivero


The "Clash of civilizations" is not about religion, but about banking. How Hitler rebuilt Germany's economy was simple. He abandoned the fractional reserve banking system that was crippling post-WW1 Germany and instituted a currency with a fixed unit of value. Oddly enough, it was a financial system not very different from that of the United States prior to 1913. This allowed Germany to rebuild quickly, but was of course a direct threat to the bankers who had grown rich and powerful with legalized counterfeiting. This is the reason that "war" (actually a boycott; see attached) was "declared" against Germany. The bankers feared that people everywhere would see the immediate advantages of a non- reserve monetary system and force a change in their own countries. Germany, specifically the German economy, had to be wrecked in order to preserve the fractional reserve banking system everywhere else.


Oddly enough, when Putin came to power in Russia, he did pretty much the same thing; kicking out the oligarchs and restructuring Russia's economic system, and the end result is that Russia has paid off all her debts early (while the USA, still enslaved to the Federal Reserve, sinks deep into debt every single day), and not surprisingly, enmity against Russia by nations under the control of reserve banking systems and bankers is on the increase.


The same "war of money" underlies the push for Islamophobia. It's not really about religion but about the conflict between compounded interest versus loan-plus-fixed-fee financing.
Michael Rivero
What Really Happened
wrh@whatreallyhappened.com




Comment
Adam Asperstein


What all of you don't understand is: Hitler did not want any war.
He wanted peace. The Third Reich needed peace to rebuild Germany after what the Jews, who had the upper hand in the Weimar Republic, had done to Germany.


If Hitler had wanted a war, then he would not have offered to withdraw and pay damages to Poland after The Reich defeated Poland.


Had Hitler wanted a war he would have destroyed the British Expeditionary Army at Dunkirk. He said "NO!" when General Heinz Guderian wanted to attack the British at Dunkirk.


It is high time we stop believing in the Jewish lies told about WWII and start understanding the truth. Hitler did not want a war!!!!


Who wanted war? Zionist Jews of the world.




Comment
Randulf Johan Hansen
www.thenewsturmer.com




Hess on a secret mission landed in Britain to end the war with the West that Hitler did not want. Churchill concealed the nature of his mission because Churchill was taking order from Jews (Baruch and Morganthau as well as the merchant banking houses of The City) wanted the extermination of Germans and the threat of the usury-free Nationalist Populist dynamism.




Comment
From: Dick Eastman




With the advantage of retrospect and the exposure of what really happened, I am sorry Hitler and Japan did not get a negotiated settlement (rather than a defeat) out of World War Two.


He could have done so easily. Instead of bombing London he could have bombed the mansions of the British aristocracy on their great estates, bombed them to rubble. The British elite did not care about the insufferable lower-class nobodies dying in the London Blitz. They would care about losing the family castle. And the strategy would have saved the Luftwaffe as well. The British always knew the German planes were headed straight to London and so had all of their anti-aircraft guns, barrage baloons and searchlights and RAF Spitfires there to intercept them. If they went after the gentry where they lived they would have had all Britain in which to select their targets. The RAF could not be everywhere at once. Before you know it the House of Lords would have renegged on their backing of Churchill (Baruch's pet bulldog) and his insistance upon unconditional surrender and would have settled for a negotiated peace that would have saved Europe from half-conquest by (Jewish) communism. Remember that when we are fighting the elites. Our enemy is not the stupid and depraved soldiers they send after us -- our enemy is the Money Power elite themselves.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/22069




Comment
x-915552


Munich Betrayal And Its Contemporary Lessons


Between 1932 and 1942, the USA used about 12 per cent of her gross income on military equipment. That was far above what Germany used and what Japan used. I call such high part of gross national income for propping up a country making it ready for war.




Comment


Dr. Gunther Kümel


Today it occurs to me to break with the habit to ignore your "arguments" that sound like a propaganda trumpet. However, in this contribution you are contradicting yourself to such an absurd degree that it is hard not to write a satire about it.
You have a point with mentioning General Thomas who indeed ardently insisted in preparation for a long war, total war, huge armaments, full use of the authoritarian power the German parliament had conceded to Hitler, economic mobilisation in the broadest sense, "full wartime mobilization of the economy". And as he did not get his way, tried to kill his chancellor.


And Hitler? He instructed Keitel, that he did not want war, refused to give the orders Thomas demanded. He relied on negotiations since he had the impression to deal with statesmen not insane enough to rebut a fair compromise. Have you ever read the proposals Hitler offered to Poland? No? Perhaps you should do that, it might change your fixed ideas about the evil Hitler and the poor Poles. If any chancellor or even politician in the "republic of Weimar" (that had been reigned in an authoritarian way without concessions of the parliament) had offered such a far reaching compromise, he would have lost his position within two hours. What Hitler offered to Poland can only be compared with the sacrifices of this Willy Brandt to Poland and Russia and Jugoslavia and the Cek, only that Hitler acted in favour of Germany and Willy Brandt as a servant of Allied interests (you remember he was officer of an enemy state). Hitler suggested the reunification of Danzig with the motherland and Danzig was a free state, not property of the Poles.


The (German) inhabitants of Danzig wanted fervently this reunification (as the inhabitants of Austria, Sudetenland or South Tirol). Poland should retain certain economic privileges she had been granted by the "peace makers" (war mongers) ofVersailles. Germany would not demand the very important industrial area of Upper Silesia (German inhabitated), West Prussia (to a high degree German inhabitated). And Hitler offered a peace pact for 25 years and a guaranty for the frontiers of Poland, which was more or less the promise to defend Poland against a revision by Stalin with respect to "East Poland" recently conquered by Poland and inhabitated mostly by Ukrainians. What Hitler wanted to be honoured with was not more than a highway and a railway line through the "Corridor" (German inhabitated), that separated part of Germany (East Prussia) from the main land. Really, Hitler could not demand less!


Hitler's fatal mistake was that he trusted the fairness of the British, that he did not fully recognize the threat of the "background powers". And that he tried to reach just aims by way of negotiations. General Thomas was not so naïve, and he was not so pacifistic as Hitler who allowed the British divisions to escape at Dunkirk, just for the purpose not to hurt the British sensitivity. General Thomas was aware of the firm determination of the influential circles in the world (eg the high finance) to destroy the German nation, and therefore he insisted in preparation for a long war of annihilation against the Reich.


Regards
Dr. Gunther Kümel.

2009 IN REVIEW

2009 in review: A year of FDA censorship, Big Pharma crimes and celebrity drug deaths

2009 has been a crazy year for health and medicine. It was the year that Congress rammed through a mandatory health "reform" bill that violates the U.S. Constitution in forcing all Americans to buy government-mandated products and services from greedy corporations. Although it hasn't been signed into law yet, the very fact that it has been passed by both the House and the Senate is alarming: America is just one signature away from becoming a medical dictatorship.

But that's not the only big health news that happened in 2009. In all, 2009 was a year of corruption, scientific fraud and health freedom oppression. Here are some of the highlights:

The FDA

The FDA was hit hard in 2009 was accusations of corruption and criminal behavior. In January, the FDA's own scientists accused management of committing crimes (http://www.naturalnews.com/025298_t...). And in August, the FDA abandoned even the appearance of standing up for safety by declaring that mercury fillings are safe for everyone (http://www.naturalnews.com/026822_m...).

In order to protect its authority and boost Big Pharma's sales, the FDA also went after numerous natural health companies in 2009. Stephen Heuer was arrested by the FDA in January (http://www.naturalnews.com/025347_n...), and by June, the FDA had threatened to seize all natural products that boost immune health and protect against the swine flu (http://www.naturalnews.com/026473_t...).

The FTC also joined the tyranny bandwagon, engaged in a war of threatening tactics against a ministry selling anti-cancer herbs (http://www.naturalnews.com/025303_t...) and ultimately ordering them to lie to their customers about their products (http://www.naturalnews.com/026970_t...). The FTC even went after Dr. Weil, threatening him with arrest and imprisonment for daring to accurately describe the immune boosting effects of the astragalus herb (http://www.naturalnews.com/027303_t...).

Topping off the year of tyranny and oppression, in December the FDA staged an illegal kidnapping of herbal formulator Greg Caton who was threatening the cancer industry with his anti-cancer salve products made from Ecuadorian herbs (http://www.naturalnews.com/027750_G...).

Big Pharma corruption

2009 was also a bad year for Big Pharma. All kinds of new findings came out that show the dangers of pharmaceuticals. For example, did you know that HRT drugs shrink women's brains? (http://www.naturalnews.com/025354_d...)

The drug industry was also shown to be engaged in blatant scientific fraud. AstraZeneca, for starters, taught its sales reps how to lie to doctors (http://www.naturalnews.com/025744_d...), and throughout the pharmaceutical industry, many clinical trials were exposed as being entirely fraudulent (http://www.naturalnews.com/025833_B...).

On the researcher side, Big Pharma scientist Dr. Scott Reuben was caught fabricating 21 studies (http://www.naturalnews.com/025852_a...) -- most of which were widely quoted by other doctors to push dangerous pills onto children. Also in 2009, Pfizer actually admitted to committing felony crimes over its marketing of Bextra (http://www.naturalnews.com/026963_P...).

Merck was found to have created a "hit list" of doctors targeted for destruction -- doctors who were speaking out against the safety of the company's drugs (http://www.naturalnews.com/027116_M...). The company was also busted over its hiding of data about the dangers of Vioxx (http://www.naturalnews.com/027582_M...).

Not to be out-frauded by Merck, Pfizer paid a record $1.3 billion fine in 2009 for intentionally misbranding its drugs (http://www.naturalnews.com/027276_P...).

Similarly, the Dept. of Health and Human Services was caught backing a medical device "review board" that was actually led by a dead dog (http://www.naturalnews.com/025955_h...).

Students Given Graphic Instruction In Homosexual Sex

Students Given Graphic Homophilia Training

This is a reprint of a story which broke the Fistgate scandal in the May issue of Massachusetts News. We advise caution. Even though this is what the state is teaching to children as young as 12-years of age, it is extremely offensive. Over 1,000,000 citizens have now seen this story which was written by two of the outraged parents.

 
By Brian Camenker and Scott Whiteman

"Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."

The above quotation comes from Massachusetts Department of Education employees describing the pleasures of homosexual sex to a group of high school students at a state-sponsored workshop on March 25, 2000.

On March 25, a statewide conference, called "Teach-Out," was sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. 

Among the goals were to build more Gay/Straight Alliances in Massachusetts and expand homosexual teaching into the lower grades. Scores of gay-friendly teachers and administrators attended. They received state "professional development credits." 

Teenagers and children as young as 12 were encouraged to come from around the state, and many were bussed in from their home districts. Homosexual activists from across the country were also there.

To say that the descriptions below of workshops and presentations of this state-sponsored event for educators and children are "every parent's nightmare," does not do them justice. It is beyond belief that this could be happening at all. One music teacher who attended out of curiosity said that she could not sleep for several nights afterwards and had nightmares about it. 

"Queer sex for youth, 14-21"
In one well-attended workshop, "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only, Ages 14-21," the three homosexual presenters acting in their professional capacities coaxed about 20 children into talking openly and graphically about homosexual sex. The three presenters, who described themselves as homosexual, were:

• Margot E. Abels, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education
• Julie Netherland, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education
• Michael Gaucher, Consultant, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health

The workshop syllabus included:

• "What's it like to be young, queer and beginning to date? 
• "Are lesbians at risk for HIV?

"We will address the information you want about queer sexuality and some of the politics that prevent us from getting our needs met."

The workshop opened with the three public employees asking the children "how they knew, as gay people, whether or not they've had sex." Questions were thrown around the room about whether oral sex was "sex," to which the Department of Public Health employee stated, "If that's not sex, then the number of times I've had sex has dramatically decreased, from a mountain to a valley, baby." Eventually the answer presented itself, and it was determined that whenever an orifice was filled with genitalia, then sex had occurred. The Department of Public Health employee, Michael Gaucher, had the following exchange with one student, who appeared to be about 16 years old:

Michael Gaucher: "What orifices are we talking about?"
Student: [hesitation]
Michael Gaucher: "Don't be shy, honey; you can do it."
Student: "Your mouth."
Michael Gaucher: "Okay."
Student: "Your ass."
Michael Gaucher: "There you go."
Student: "Your pussy. That kind of place."

But since sex occurred "when an orifice was filled," the next question was how lesbians could "have sex." Margot Abels discussed whether a dildo had to be involved; when it was too big or too small; and what homosexual resources students could consult to get similar questions answered.

Role playing and "carpet munching"
Then the children were asked to role-play. One student was to act the part of "a young lesbian who's really enraptured with another woman, and it's really coming down to the wire and you're thinking about having sex." The other student played the "hip GSA (gay, straight alliance) lesbian advisor, who you feel you can talk to." The "counseling" included discussions of lesbian sex, oral-vaginal contact, or "carpet munching," as one student put it. The student asked whether it would smell like fish. At that point the session turned to another subject.

"A lesson in fisting?"
There was a five minute pause so that all of the teenagers could write down questions for the homosexual presenters. The first question was read by Julie Netherland, "What's fisting?"

A student answered this question by informing the class that "fisting" is when you put your "whole hand into the ass or pussy" of another. When a few of the students winced, the Department of Public Health employee offered, "A little known fact about fisting: you don't make a fist like this. It's like this." He formed his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier.

Margot Abels told the students that "fisting" is not about forcing your hand into somebody's "hole, opening or orifice" if they don't want it there. She said that "usually" the person was very relaxed and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it is a very emotional and intense experience.

At this point, a youngster of about 16 asked why someone would want to do that. He stated that if the hand were pulled out quickly, the whole thing didn't sound very appealing to him. Margot Abels was quick to point out that although fisting "often gets a really bad rap," it usually isn't about the pain, "not that we're putting that down." Margot Abels informed him and the class that "fisting" was "an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with." When a child asked the question, "Why would someone do this?" Margot Abels provided a comfortable response to the children, in order to "put them into an exploratory mode."

"Rubbing each others' clits..."
Michael Gaucher presented the next question, "Do lesbians rub their clits together?"

Michael Gaucher and Margot Abels asked the kids if they thought it was possible and whether someone would do a "hand-diagram" for the class. No one volunteered, but a girl who looked about 15 or 16 then stepped up to the board and drew a three foot high vagina and labeled each of the labia, the clitoris, and "put up inside the 'G'-spot." While drawing, Michael Gaucher told her to use the "pink" chalk, to which Margot Abels responded, "Not everyone is pink, honey." All of the children laughed.

After the chalk vagina was complete, the children remarked on the size of the "clit," and the presenters stated that that was a gifted woman. Then Margot Abels informed all of the young girls that, indeed, you can rub your "clitori" together, either with or without clothes and "you can definitely orgasm from it." Michael Gaucher told the kids that "there is a name for this: tribadism," which he wrote on the board and told one girl who looked about 14 to "bring that vocabulary word back to Bedford." Julie Netherland informed the children that it wasn't too difficult because, "When you are sexually aroused, your clit gets bigger."

"Should you spit after you suck another boy (or a man)?"
Michael Gaucher read the following from a card: "Cum and calories: Spit versus swallow and the health concerns." Gaucher informed the children that although he didn't know the calorie count of male ejaculation, he has "heard that it's sweeter if people eat celery." He then asked the boys, "Is it rude not to swallow?" Many of the high school boys mumbled "No," but one about the age of 16 said emphatically, "Oh no!" One boy, again about the age of 16, offered his advice on avoiding HIV/AIDS transmission while giving oral sex by not brushing your teeth or eating course food for four hours before you "go down on a guy," "because then you probably don't want to be swallowing cum."

Another question asked was whether oral sex was better with tongue rings. A 16-year-old student murmured, "Yes," to which all of the children laughed. Michael Gaucher said, "There you have it" and stated something to the effect that the debate has ended. 

Use a condom? It's your decision, really.

One often hears that there is an aggressive HIV/AIDS prevention campaign, but the session ran 55 minutes before the first mention of "protection" and safer sex came. In the context of the "safer sex" discussion, however, it was pointed out that these children could make an "informed decision" not to use a condom. Outside in the conference hall, the children could easily obtain as many condoms, vaginal condoms and other contraceptive devices as they wished from various organizations which distribute such. 

Well, yes...it really is about sex!
Another popular session was presented by the same three public employees in their professional capacity and was called, "Putting the 'Sex' Back Into Sexual Orientation: Classroom Strategies for Health & Sexuality Educators."

The workshop included:
What does it mean to say "being gay, lesbian and bisexual isn't about sex?...How can we deny that sexuality is central for all of us? How do we learn to address the unique concerns of queer youth?...This workshop is for educators to examine strategies for integrating sexuality education and HIV prevention content specific to gay, lesbian and bisexual students into the classroom and GSA's....additional strategies will be discussed."
The three presenters now assumed the task of teaching teachers how to facilitate discussions about "queer sex" with their students.

Tired of denying it
Margot Abels opened by telling the room full of teachers (and two high school students), "We always feel like we are fighting against people who deny publicly, who say privately, that being queer is not at all about sex... We believe otherwise. We think that sex is central to every single one of us and particularly queer youth."
Margot Abels, Julie Netherland and Michael Gaucher reviewed a few "campaigns" that have been used to demonstrate to queer youth how to best "be safe" while still enjoying homosexual sex.

The campaign, "Respect yourself, protect yourself," was thought to be good in getting the message to kids that they should use protection, but since it made children who didn't protect themselves feel bad, it ultimately was a poor message. Michael Gaucher pointed out that children "with an older partner that they are not feeling they can discuss things with, does that mean that they don't respect themselves?" 
The campaign, "No sex, no problem," was ridiculed, as the campaign assumed that children could opt not to have sex. Additionally, the campaign made those children who had already had sex feel bad or think they had a problem, since they had had sex.

After reviewing a few of the campaigns, Margot Abels described the project she works on. The "Gay/Straight Alliance HIV Education Project" goes to five different schools each year conducting up to eight "HIV prevention sessions" in that school's gay club. These same presenters who just told a group of children how to properly position their hands for "fisting" were now telling a room full of educators that they would visit their schools and conduct the same workshops for their students.

An enormous amount of very disturbing material was distributed at the conference. Much of it encourages young children to become actively engaged in homosexual activities. The Sidney Borum Community Health Center table was giving out a cassette sized "pocket sex" kit, which included two condoms, two antiseptic "moist" towelettes, and six bandages, which were for "when the sex got really rough," according to the high school volunteer behind the desk. There was a supply of condoms supplied by both Sidney Borum and Planned Parenthood, all of which were for the taking. Children as young as 12 or 13 participating and receiving "information" and materials.

But most shocking of all was that there was an eerie sense of solidarity in the air, against "those bigots who would stop our progress."

Fistgate Scandal In A Nutshell Since most citizens still do not understand the significance of the Fistgate scandal, here it is in a nutshell. 

• Should the schools be encouraging teenagers to be sexually active as they did at Fistgate?
• Has the homosexual community violated our trust? Do they take money that is supposed to be for violence and HIV prevention and use it instead to promote sexual activity by teenagers?
• Is the teacher, Margot E. Abels (who was terminated by the state as a result of the scandal) correct when she told the Boston Globe that she was only a scapegoat? She said that what was done at Fistgate (by her and other homosexual activists) is "absolutely sanctioned by the department [of education]." She said, "It's standard....The department has always given us its full support - until now."

See also: Fistgate in a Nutshell

Thousands of Americans Died From H1N1 Even After Receiving Vaccine

 

Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots

  The CDC is engaged in a very clever, statistically devious spin campaign, and nearly every journalist in the mainstream media has fallen for its ploy. No one has yet reported what I'm about to reveal here.

It all started with the CDC's recent release of new statistics about swine flu fatalities, infection rates and vaccination rates. According to the CDC:

• 61 million Americans were vaccinated against swine flu (about 20% of the U.S. population). The CDC calls this a "success" even though it means 4 out of 5 people rejected the vaccines.

• 55 million people "became ill" from swine flu infections.

• 246,000 Americans were hospitalized due to swine flu infections.

• 11,160 Americans died from the swine flu.

Base on these statistics, the CDC is now desperately urging people to get vaccinated because they claim the pandemic might come back and vaccines are the best defense.

But here's the part you're NOT being told.

The CDC statistics lie by omission. They do not reveal the single most important piece of information about H1N1 vaccines: How many of the people who died from the swine flu had already been vaccinated?

Many who died had already been vaccinated

The CDC is intentionally not tracking how many of the dead were previously vaccinated. They want you (and mainstream media journalists) to mistakenly believe that ZERO deaths occurred in those who were vaccinated. But this is blatantly false. Being vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu offers absolutely no reduction in mortality from swine flu infections.

And that means roughly 20% of the 11,160 Americans who died from the swine flu were probably already vaccinated against swine flu. That comes to around 2,200 deaths in people who were vaccinated!

How do I know that swine flu vaccines don't reduce infection mortality? Because I've looked through all the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that have ever been conducted on H1N1 vaccines. It didn't take me very long, because the number of such clinical trials is ZERO.

That's right: There is not a single shred of evidence in existence today that scientifically supports the myth that H1N1 vaccines reduce mortality from H1N1 infections. The best evidence I can find on vaccines that target seasonal flu indicates a maximum mortality reduction effect of somewhere around 1% of those who are vaccinated. The other 99% have the same mortality rate as people who were not vaccinated.

So let's give the recent H1N1 vaccines the benefit of the doubt and let's imagine that they work just as well as other flu vaccines. That means they would reduce the mortality rate by 1%. So out of the 2,200 deaths that took place in 2009 in people who were already vaccinated, the vaccine potentially may have saved 22 people. 

61 million injections add up to bad public health policy

So let's see: 61 million people are injected with a potentially dangerous vaccine, and the actual number "saved" from the pandemic is conceivably just 22. Meanwhile, the number of people harmed by the vaccine is almost certainly much, much higher than 22. These vaccines contain nervous system disruptors and inflammatory chemicals that can cause serious health problems. Some of those problems won't be evident for years to come... future Alzheimer's victims, for example, will almost certainly those who received regular vaccines, I predict.

Injecting 61 million people with a chemical that threatens the nervous system in order to avoid 22 deaths -- and that's the best case! -- is an idiotic public health stance. America would have been better off doing nothing rather than hyping up a pandemic in order to sell more vaccines to people who don't need them.

Better yet, what the USA could have done that would have been more effective is handing out bottles of Vitamin D to 61 million people. At no more cost than the vaccines, the bottles of vitamin D supplements would have saved thousands of lives and offered tremendously importantly additional benefits such as preventing cancer and depression, too.

The one question the CDC does not want you to ask

Through its release of misleading statistics, the CDC wants everyone to believe that all of the people who died from H1N1 never received the H1N1 vaccine. That's the implied mythology behind the release of their statistics. And yet they never come right out and say it, do they? They never say, "None of these deaths occurred in patients who had been vaccinated against H1N1."

They can't say that because it's simply not true. It would be a lie. And if that lie were exposed, people might begin to ask questions like, "Well gee, if some of the people who were killed by the swine flu were already vaccinated against swine flu, then doesn't that mean the vaccine doesn't protect us from dying?"

That's the number one question that the CDC absolutely, positively does not want people to start asking.

So they just gloss over the point and imply that vaccines offer absolute protection against H1N1 infections. But even the CDC's own scientists know that's complete bunk. Outright quackery. No vaccine is 100% effective. In fact, when it comes to influenza, no vaccine is even 10% effective at reducing mortality. There's not even a vaccine that's 5% effective. And there's never been a single shred of credible scientific information that says a flu vaccine is even 1% effective.

So how effective are these vaccines, really? There are a couple thousand vaccinated dead people whose own deaths help answer that question: They're not nearly as effective as you've been led to believe.

They may not be effective at all

Crunching the numbers: Why vaccines just don't add up.

Think about this: 80% of Americans refused to get vaccinated against swine flu. That's roughly 240 million people.

Most of those 240 million people were probably exposed to the H1N1 virus at some point over the last six months because the virus was so widespread.

How many of those 240 million people were actually killed by H1N1? Given the CDC's claimed total of deaths at 11,160, if you take 80% of that (because that's the percentage who refused to be vaccinated), you arrive at 8,928. So roughly 8,900 people died out of 240 million. That's a death rate among the un-vaccinated population of .0000372

With a death rate of .0000372, the swine flu killed roughly 1 out of every 26,700 people who were NOT vaccinated. So even if you skipped the vaccine, you had a 26,699 out of 26,700 chance of surviving.

Those are pretty good odds. Ridiculously good. You have a 700% greater chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime, by the way.

What it all means is that NOT getting vaccinated against the swine flu is actually a very reasonable, intelligent strategy for protecting your health. Mathematically, it is the smarter play.

Because, remember: Some of the dead victims of H1N1 got vaccinated. In fact, I personally challenge the CDC to release statistics detailing what percentage of the dead people had previously received such vaccines.

The headline to this article, "Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots" is a direct challenge to the CDC, actually. If the CDC believes this headline is wrong -- and that the number of vaccinated Americans who died from H1N1 is zero -- then why don't they say so on the record?

The answer? Because they'd be laughed right out of the room. Everybody who has been following this with any degree of intelligence knows that the H1N1 vaccine was a medical joke from the start. There is no doubt that many of those who died from H1N1 were previously vaccinated. The CDC just doesn't want you to know how many (and they hope you'll assume it's zero).

Where are all the real journalists?

I find it especially fascinating that the simple question of "How many of the dead were previously vaccinated?" has never been asked in print by a single journalist in any mainstream newspaper or media outline across the country. Not the NY Times, not WashingtonPost.com, not the WSJ, LA Times or USA Today. (At least, not that I'm aware of. If you find one that does, let me know and I'll link to their article!)

Isn't there a single journalist in the entire industry that has the journalistic courage to ask this simple question of the CDC? Why do these mainstream journalists just reprint the CDC's statistics without asking a single intelligent question about them?

Why is all the intelligent, skeptical reporting about H1N1 found only in the alternative press or independent media sites?

You already know the answer, but I'll say it anyway: Because most mainstream media journalists are just part of the propaganda machine, blindly reprinting distorted statistics from "authorities" without ever stopping to question those authorities.

The MSM today, in other words, is often quite pathetic. Far from the independent media mindset that used to break big stories like Watergate, today's mainstream media is little more than a mouthpiece for the corporatocracy that runs our nation. The MSM serves the financial interests of the corporations, just as the CDC and WHO do. That's why they're all spouting the same propaganda with their distorted stories about H1N1 swine flu.

But those who are intelligent enough to ask skeptical questions about H1N1 already realize what an enormous con the pandemic was. In the end, it turned out to be a near-harmless virus that was hyped up by the CDC, WHO and drug companies in order to sell hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines that are now about to be dumped down the drain as useless.

 

        New Turkish Film On Israeli War Crimes

A damning Turkish motion picture, aimed at depicting the “Israeli crimes against humanity,” is set to further alienate Ankara from Tel Aviv.

The movie would “depict Israel as it is – with bloody hands, merciless… flouting all human values,” against a backdrop of the Palestinian suffering in the blockaded Gaza Strip, the national daily Vatan quoted Turkish scriptwriter Bahadir Ozdener as saying, according to an AFP report.

“What we do is fiction,” said Ozdener. “But what about what they do, their crimes against humanity? They are real.”

Tel Aviv took issue with Ankara over the “Valley of the Wolves” – the TV series boasting Ozdener’s contribution which, besides other patriotic depictions, featured the emancipation of a Turkish boy captured by the Israeli intelligence apparatus, Mossad.

Reacting to the series, Israel called Turkish ambassador Oguz Celikkol to account, seating him on a low couch and removing the Turkish flag from the table of discussion. Celikkol was later quoted by the Anatolia news agency as denouncing the humiliating treatment as one “that will go down in the books of diplomatic history,” AFP added.

Downplaying the Israeli ire at the matter, Ozdener said, “It is Israel who must show remorse…. If they cannot see themselves in the mirror, we know how to hold the mirror to their face.”

Northwest Flight 253 - Another Classic False Flag Operation

Body scanners would have missed the "underwear bomb", so of course Homeland Insecurity will buy thousands of them.  To meet an imaginary threat, we have imaginary protection. That is the grim truth behind "aviation security" in the 21st century.

According to the official story from the Obama administration and regurgitated by the managed media, the various components of the US national homeland security that costs taxpayers $75 billion to employ was incapable of bringing together the following known facts:

* In May, the British government withdrew its student visa for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a young Nigerian who had studied at University College, London, and placed him on a watch list, barring him from re-entering the country.

* In August, US intelligence agencies learned of Al Qaeda discussions of an operation against a US target to be organized from Yemen, using a "Nigerian."

* On November 19, the father of Abdulmutallab, a prominent Nigerian banker, visited the US embassy in Abuja and told State Department and CIA personnel that his son had fallen under the influence of radical Islamists, gone to join them in Yemen, and broken off contact with his family.

* Based on the father's report, State Department and CIA officer sat the embassy informed Washington on November 20 and a security file was opened on Abdulmutallab at the National Counter-Terrorism Center, the main Washington clearinghouse for terrorism information.

* On December 16, Abdulmutallab visited a ticket office in Ghana and paid $2,831 in cash for a ticket on a Northwest Airlines flight from Lagos through Amsterdam to Detroit, landing on Christmas Day.

* On December 25, Abdulmutallab boarded the flight in Amsterdam with only a carry-on bag for a trans-Atlantic journey ending in Detroit. Following standard procedure, the US Department of Homeland Security was notified at least an hour before departure that he was a passenger on the flight.

The claim that US intelligence agencies were unable to detect the bomb plot, despite so many warnings months in advance, is simply not credible.

The official discussion repeats the same rhetorical trope employed to cover up the role of US intelligence agencies before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001... that they failed to "connect the dots." This metaphor suggests a highly abstruse process in which many small details, each seemingly innocent in itself, are correlated through sophisticated analysis by experts familiar with the patterns of terrorist operations.

No such operation was required to detect the Northwest Airlines bomb plot. The facts listed above were a series of fire alarms, each sufficient in itself to give the alert. To stop Abdulmuttalab from boarding the US-bound jetliner was a routine police matter, one that would ordinarily be executed without difficulty by the government of any middle-sized country, let alone by the most powerful military/intelligence apparatus on the planet.

If the Nigerian was allowed to board the jet in Amsterdam, it was because at some level within the US military/intelligence apparatus, the decision was made to allow him to do so.

The real failure to "connect the dots" is the refusal to draw any conclusions from the inaction of the US/Israeli intelligence. 

• Who made the decision not to act?
  

• Why did they make this decision? 

• Was the intention that the would-be bomber succeed or fail? 

• Was it a deliberate attempt to undermine the Obama administration? Was it a deliberate attempt to provide a pretext for further US military action in the Middle East? 

• Why isn't there an investigation into ICTS, the Israeli owned security company that's supposed to protect passengers at airports from such events? 

• How did a sand-monkey with an explosive used since WWI bypass a $75 billion dollar high-security fortification, and why do we never hear about these breaches of security at Israel airports? According to Israeli leaders, many would like to wipe their country off the face of the map, so it's not as if there isn't a motive against the state.

In the world's major intelligence agencies - the Russian FSB, the British MI-5, the French SGDN, China's Second Intelligence Department - these are the questions that are being asked, along with a further question: Is the Obama administration in control of its own national security department? These agencies undoubtedly dismiss the official US account of the abortive Christmas Day bombing for what it is: disinformation generated to delude American public opinion.

If these legitimate concerns are ruled out in advance, as is the case now in the American media, the result must inevitably be a whitewash, as with the official "investigations" into the 9/11 attacks.

Typical in this respect is the editorial published Saturday in the New York Times, under the headline, "Why Didn't They See It?" The editorial swallows whole the claim of a failure on the part of the intelligence and homeland security bureaucracy to put together the information about Abdulmutallab.

"No doubt sorting through heaps of information and determining what is urgent or even worthy of follow-up is daunting," the Times commented. "Still, it is incredible, and frightening, that the government cannot do at least as good a job at swiftly updating and correlating information as Google."

Actually, it is literally "incredible," i.e., not credible. And it is doubtful that even the editors of the Times believe it, although they are constrained from saying so by the informal but virtually complete self-censorship of the American capitalist media.

There have also been reports that the father supplied US representatives with the number of his son's Nigerian passport, which was communicated to the National Counter-Terrorism Center. However, neither the State Department nor the NCTC checked whether the younger Abdulmutallab had a valid US visa-a fact readily determined from internal US government databases - or made any effort to rescind it.

US officials had warning a month ahead of time about the specific target of attack.

Time magazine, citing a "source close to the family" of the bomber, wrote that "it was an alleged threat to blow up an American plane that apparently alarmed his parents and supposedly resulted in his father going to warn the US embassy." 

Newsweek magazine reported that the Saudi counter-terrorism chief, Muhammad bin Nayaf, gave a briefing to Brennan in the White House sometime last fall about the specific technique used by the Northwest bomber, concealing PETN explosive in his undergarments, which was used in a failed Al Qaeda attempt to assassinate bin Nayaf himself.

As in the case of the 9/11 attacks, no confidence can be placed in any agency of the US government or in the American media to provide an honest or probing account of what has taken place. This fact testifies to the continued erosion of democratic rights in the United States, and the enormous danger this represents to the American people and the people of the world.

Noam Chomsky has stated that the US is ruled by a "Fascism Lite" form of government. That regime is slowly turning into something more closely resembling true Fascism as described by Mussolini. It's the elites ultimate goal -- create a Fascist oligarchy that controls almost all aspects of every beings’ life.  

click for full story   Body Scanners a Danger to Health

 
       There could be other complications as well...

click for full story  ISRAEL SECURITY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING TERRORIST ACTS INCLUDING 9/11