Monday, July 23, 2012

Media Blackout: World’s largest public protest in Mexico 2012

Please scroll down for video

Please don't
forget to:

July 11, 2012 - The largest public protests, rallies and demonstrations that the world has ever seen are happening right now - with almost no media coverage. Not only is ... there a blackout on these events in the media, but YouTube is frequently removing footage of these mass rallies and events when requested to do so by governments:

Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/news/Media_Blackout_Worlds_largest_public_protest_in_Mexico_2012/85544#ixzz21RjzAVa6

Check that film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ski1CF1vgQw

Do some research!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eTfoVUb3pE

MEXICO IS HAVING THE LARGEST PROTEST THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN
PLEASE VIEW THE OTHER VIDEOS ON MY CHANNEL
Tens of thousands of protesters marched in Mexico City on Saturday to protest against Enrique Peña Nieto's apparent win in the country's presidential election, accusing his party of buying votes and paying TV networks for support.

Demonstrators were angered by allegations that Peña Nieto's Institutional Revolutionary party (PRI) gave out groceries, pre-paid gift cards and other goods to voters before the national elections on 1 July.

Students, unionists and leftists in Mexico City carried signs reading: "Peña, how much did it cost to become president?" and "Mexico, you pawned your future for 500 pesos."

Officials estimated about 50,000 demonstrators gathered at the central Zocalo plaza.

"The fraud was carried out before (the election), buying votes, tricking the people," said Gabriel Petatan Garcia, a geography student who carried a sign in Finnish. Protesters also carried signs in English, Japanese, French, German and other languages to call the attention of the international press.

"The PRI threatens many people and buys others with a couple of tacos," said Manuel Ocegueda, a 43-year-old shop worker at the rally.

Peña Nieto, a youthful 45-year-old married to a soap star, won last Sunday's election by 6.6 percentage points, according to the official count, bringing the PRI back to power after 12 years in opposition. The party had ruled Mexico for 71 consecutive years, with what critics say was the help of corruption, patronage and vote fraud.

PRI officials deny buying votes and say the elections were free and fair.

The final count had Peña Nieto with 38.21% support, leftist Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the Democratic Revolution party with 31.59%, and Josefina Vazquez Mota of the conservative National Action party with 25.41%. The small New Alliance Party got 2.29%.

The final count will be certified in September by the Federal Electoral Tribunal. The tribunal has declined to overturn previously contested elections, including a 2006 presidential vote that was far closer than last Sunday's.

In the weeks before the latest polls a student-led movement, Soy132, mobilised demonstrations and online protests against his links to the media giant Televisa, saying that both manipulate public opinion and state institutions in malign synergy.

A series of articles in the Guardian added to the controversy by publishing evidence that Televisa paved his path to the presidency by smearing rivals and disguising pro-Peña Nieto propaganda as news. Televisa has denied the allegations.

Accusations of vote-buying began surfacing in June, but sharpened later when people rushed to grocery stores on the outskirts of Mexico City to redeem pre-paid gift cards worth about 100 pesos (£4.50). Many said they got the cards from PRI supporters before the elections.

López Obrador said millions of voters had received either pre-paid cards, cash, groceries, construction materials or appliances.

Some demonstrators covered the heads of statues with plastic shopping bags from Soriana, the supermarket chain where the gift cards were redeemable. "We have to come out in the streets to denounce that the PRI bought votes, and there were people who sold them," said a 32-year-old psychologist, Raquel Ruiz.

Some protesters said overturning the election result would be difficult, while others thought there were judicial means to prevent Peña Nieto from assuming the presidency.

López Obrador said he would file a formal legal challenge to the vote count in electoral courts based on the allegation that PRI vote-buying influenced millions of votes.

Simply giving away such gifts is not illegal under Mexican electoral law, as long as the expense is reported to electoral authorities. Giving gifts to influence votes is a crime, though it is not generally viewed as grounds for overturning an election.

Leonardo Valdés, the president of the Federal Electoral Institute, said he did not see any grounds for overturning the results but that an investigation into the gift cards had been launched.

The PRI spokesman, Eduardo Sánchez, said last week the gift-card event had been "a theatrical representation" mounted by the left. He claimed supporters of López Obrador took hundreds of people to the shops, dressed them in PRI T-shirts, gave them gift cards, emptied shelves to create an appearance of panic buying, and brought TV cameras in to give the false impression that the PRI had given out the cards.

Cesar Yanez, the spokesman for López Obrador's campaign, denied the PRI accusations.

• This article was amended on 10 July 2012 to make clear the video is of protesters in the city of Guadalajara.

SEE THE VIDEO RESPONSE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-13ocunW64

That protest is an undisputed evidence of manipulated elections!

These numbers of protesters are saying it all!

That's a REAL election! Not a fake!

Sunday, July 8, 2012

Illuminati Exposed

?sharekey=309c42d8e603303ce62ea590dc5e5dbb5844f7ee1b...

EX-ILLUMINATI "SVALI" SPEAKS OUT SUPPORT OUR BROTHERS PART 1

EX-ILLUMINATI "SVALI" SPEAKS OUT SUPPORT OUR BROTHERS PART 2

Leo Zagami Illuminati exposed.

Leo Zagami: Illuminati Whistleblower
Part 3 of 3
Oslo, Norway, February 2008

Leo Lyon Zagami, ex-member of the Comitato Esecutivo Massonico - the Masonic Executive Committee - of Monte Carlo, was, until recently, a high level member of the Italian Illuminati. He is a 33rd degree Freemason, and a senior member of the infamous P2 Lodge. He was the 'Prince': prepared to take over after the older Illuminati 'King', Licio Gelli. He was born of a Scottish-Sicilian Illuminati aristocratic bloodline, and so has been involved in the Illuminati Order since childhood.

Disgusted with satanic black magic rituals, and with the true intentions of those who regard themselves as the elite controllers of the planet, he has now made the commitment to tell the real story of those who seek to rule us all without our consent.

Quick, intelligent, likeable, passionate, and with a huge amount of information at his fingertips about the inside workings of the Powers that Be, Leo welcomed us into his house in Oslo, Norway, where he had been living in what might be called exile.

In our two and a half hour interview we were barely able to scratch the surface of everything he knows, and what we present is a summary for those unfamiliar with the labyrinthine details of one of the most important stories of our time.

Be warned: some of the material is shocking.

Leo seems to have paid a price for talking to us on camera. Days after our interview, his wife Fatma Süslü, of Turkish descent but an aspiring Norwegian politician, left him - accusing us at Project Camelot, in the process, of being agents. Immediately after her departure he was temporarily imprisoned and his cellphone and computers were confiscated by the police. He intends to leave Norway for safer shores as soon as he can make the arrangements.

Leo is a very brave man, and we wish him well. He is determined and resilient. The information he presents is extraordinary and detailed, and much more will be found on his own http://www.illuminaticonfessions.webfriend.it website. We intend to keep in close touch with him, and will support him in whatever way we can.

Project Camelot Interviews Leo Zagami - Part 1 of 3

Project Camelot Interviews Leo Zagami - Part 2 of 3

Project Camelot Interviews Leo Zagami - Part 3 of 3

All parts are very, very interesting and IMHO very truthful!

Sunday, June 24, 2012

CANNIBALS RISING - ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE 2012

The world is getting mad!

Zombie Apocalypse 2012

Warning this video contains Graphic content

Miami Cannibal attack - Maryland Cannibal - New Jersey etc Centre for disease control and the Zombie Apocalypse 2012.

APOCALYPTIC LIKE WEATHER PHENOMENON JUNE 2012

Note this video does not imply the world is going to end in 2012 ................................................................................

APOCALYPTIC LIKE WEATHER PHENOMENON JUNE 2012
PLAGUES PESTILENCE AND BIZARRE WEATHER PHENOMENON JUNE 2012

Sunday, June 17, 2012

NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users

By Dr. Mercola - source - http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/16/emf-safety-tips.aspx?e_cid=20120616_DNL_art_1

If you think the jury's still out on whether cell phones can be dangerous to your health, then you might want to take the time to listen to this video. Dr. Devra Davis, author of the book, "The Secret History of the War on Cancer," has been researching the safety hazards of radiation emanating from your cell phone.
Like many people, Dr. Davis just didn't believe the possibility of cell phones being dangerous―until she studied it. And now, with the toxicological and epidemiological evidence to back up her claims, she's trying to get the word out that cell phone radiation is not only dangerous, but can be downright lethal.
In her lecture, Dr. Davis explains how the biological impact of your cell phone is not related to its power, which is quite weak, but rather to the erratic nature of its signal and its ability to disrupt resonance and interfere with DNA repair. This is now believed to be the most plausible theory for understanding the wide array of health impacts discovered, which includes cancer...

Can Your Cell Phone Cause Cancer?

One interesting case that can serve as an illustrative warning of the cancer-causing potential of cell phones is that of a young woman with no other predisposing risk factors for cancer who came down with multi-focal breast cancer. The case was revealed in the May issue of the Environmental Health Trust's newsletterⁱ. As it turns out, the young lady had the curious habit of tucking her cell phone into her bra...
Two cancer specialists, Robert Nagourney and John West, concluded there was only one other possibility that might have directly contributed to her breast cancer. "We connected the dots," the patient said. And the dots―quite literally the pattern of the cancer, and distribution of the cancerous cells―lined up perfectly with the shape of her cell phone.

While her doctor can't prove the cell phone caused her cancer, it should serve as a potent warning not only to other women who might tuck their phones in their bras, but also to those of you who keep your phones in your pants pocket or shirt pocket as well. As a general rule, you'll want to avoid carrying your phone anywhere on your body. Keep in mind that the most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that proximity.

Why Carrying Your Cell Phone on Your Body is a Bad Idea...

Regardless of the area exposed to the continuous radiation emitted by your cell phone, there's the potential for harm, although certain areas are clearly more vulnerable than others.
For example, research published in 2009 showed evidence that wearing a cell phone on your hip may weaken an area of your pelvisⁱⁱ. Using an X-ray technique used in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with osteoporosis, researchers measured pelvic bone density in 150 men who regularly carried their cell phones attached to their belts. The men carried their phones for an average of 15 hours each day, and had used cell phones for an average of six years. The researchers found that bone mineral density was lowered on the side of the pelvis where the mobile phones were carried, raising the possibility that bone density could be adversely affected by the electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones.
It's important to realize that as long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. So wearing a cell phone on your hip for 15 hours a day is giving that area of your body nearly continuous radiation exposure.
Previous studies have found that cell phone radiation can affect men's sperm count, and the quality and motility of their sperm, and this may be a far greater issue than its effect on bone density. One such study, published in PLoS Oneⁱⁱⁱ found that:

"RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring."

Men in particular may want to reconsider carrying their cell phones on their belts or in their pocket, in close proximity of their reproductive organs. In addition, you have a number of other sensitive organs in that general area, including liver, kidneys, colon and bladder—all of which are susceptible to radiation.

Recent Evidence Identifies Strong Cell Phone Cancer Link

Last year, an Israeli research group reported a sharp increase in the incidence of parotid gland tumors over the last 30 years, with the steepest increase happening after 2001. Your parotid gland is a type of salivary gland, located closest to your cheek—the same area where most people typically hold their cell phones. The researchers found a four-fold increase in parotid gland cancers from 1970 to 2006, while rates of other salivary gland cancers remained stable^iv.
That same year, Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, the principle investigator of a 2008 study, testified at a U.S. Senate Hearing that cell phones were identified as a contributor to salivary gland tumors. The report states that your risk of getting a parotid tumor on the same side of your head that you use for listening to the mobile phone increases by:

34 percent if you are a regular cell phone user and have used a mobile phone for 5 years.

58 percent if you had more than about 5,500 calls in your lifetime.

49 percent if you have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours during your lifetime.

World Health Organizaion Classifies Cell Phone Radiation as Class B Carcinogen

Cell phone subscriptions are now estimated at 5.9 billion globally^v—that's 87 percent of the world population! I think it's safe to say, we've already passed the point of no return when it comes to this technology. But as cell phone use continues to grow unabated, a growing body of researchers is speaking out against the technology, warning that it may have serious biological side effects that must be acknowledged and remedied.
Fortunately, their warnings are slowly but surely beginning to be heard.
On May 31, 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a report admitting cell phones might indeed cause cancer, classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Class 2B)^vi. The classification came in part in response to research showing wireless telephones increase the risk for brain cancer.
According to the press release^vii:

"Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."
"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting."

Children are at Greatest Risk—Including While in Utero

Sadly, children and teens are at greatest risk—both for parotid gland tumors and brain tumors—as their thinner skull bones allow for greater penetration of cell phone radiation. The radiation can enter all the way into their midbrain, where tumors are more deadly. In addition, children's cells reproduce more quickly, so they're more susceptible to aggressive cell growth. Children also face a far greater lifetime exposure. According to Professor Lennart Hardell of Sweden, those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have 4 to 5 times more brain cancer as young adults!
The following image, used with permission from the book Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution, clearly shows the differences in depth of penetration between adults and young children.

Pregnant women would also be wise to avoid cell phones as much as possible. In 2008, researchers analyzed data from nearly 13,000 children and found that exposure to cell phones while in the womb, and also during childhood, were linked to behavioral difficulties.^viii Using handsets just two or three times a day during pregnancy was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions, and relationships by the time they reached school age—and the risk became even greater if the children also used the phones themselves before the age of seven.
Overall, the study revealed that mothers who used mobile phones were 54 percent more likely to have children with behavioral problems. Later on, when the children began using cell phones themselves, they were:

80 percent more likely to suffer from behavioral difficulties

25 percent more at risk from emotional problems

34 percent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers

35 percent more likely to be hyperactive

49 percent more prone to problems with conduct

Experts Adamantly Claim Harmful Effects are Now Provable

Experts in the area of the biological effects of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and wireless technologies believe there's virtually no doubt that cell phones and related gadgets are capable of causing not only cancer but contributing to a wide variety of other conditions, from depression and diabetes to heart irregularities and impaired fertility. Researchers have now identified numerous mechanisms of harm, which explain how electromagnetic fields impact your cells and damages your DNA.
One such expert is Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of electromagnetic fields in the U.S. He gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org. In it, he explained why your DNA, with its 'coil of coils' structure, is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds.
As described in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, April 2011^ix, DNA possesses the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas: electronic conduction, and self-symmetry.
These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA to electromagnetic fields than other tissues, making the long-term consequences of repeated microwave exposures to our genetic material of great concern. Dr. Blank is adamant when he says that there IS evidence of harm, and that the harm can be significant. He also points out that the science showing harmful effects has been peer-reviewed, published, and that the results have been replicated, evaluated and "judged by scientists capable of judging it." I wrote an in-depth article about these findings back in January of last year. If you missed it, go ahead and review it now.
An analysis of the range of known mechanisms of action, including DNA effects, was published in November 2010 in "Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter^x." Furthermore, the mobile industry's own research in the 13-country Interphone study^xi showed a 40 percent increased risk of brain cancer from 1,640 or more hours of cell phone use, and independent Swedish research published in 2007 showed a 540 percent increased risk of brain cancer from greater than 2,000 hours of cell phone use^xii.

My Top Tips for Cell Phone Safety

It's worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is much larger than the medical industrial complex, and they have far more influence than the drug companies. They're also mirroring many of the same tactics as the tobacco industry to pedal their wares. This includes attempting to discredit researchers who publish unfavorable cell phone studies.
As Dr. Davis shows in her lecture above, the results of any study can be accurately predicted by looking at its sponsorship. According to a review by Dr. Lai in 2008, the probability that a study will find "no effect" is two to three times higher in industry-funded studies, while independently-funded studies into the health effects of mobile technology are TWICE as likely to find a positive result.
So please, be aware that there is already robust scientific evidence that cell phones and other wireless devices pose significant health risks to all of us—especially to children and pregnant women. So while such findings are not being widely publicized as of yet, it makes sense to take action now to protect yourself and your children. You can help to minimize your exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices by heeding the following advice:

Children Should Always Avoid Using Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type.

Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. If you're pregnant, avoiding or reducing your cell phone use may be especially important.

Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness. SKYPE offers a portable number via your computer that can plug into any Ethernet port while traveling.

Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them as often as you do. And most importantly, do not even consider having any electronic or wireless devices in the bedroom that will interfere with the quality of your sleep.

If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are not safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.
Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, they may not be as damaging to your health. Another option is to just simply turn the portable phone off, only using it when you specifically need the convenience of moving about while on a call.
Ideally it would be helpful to turn off your base station every night before you go to bed.
You can find RF meters as well as remediation supplies at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.

Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.

Avoid Carrying Your Phone on Your Body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.

Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another: There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone. This is particularly true for industry promoted SAR ratings, which are virtually useless in measuring the true potential biological danger as most all of the damage is not done by heat transfer, which SAR measures.

Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.

Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.
If you are using the Pong case, which redirects the cell phone radiation away from the head and successfully lowers the SAR effect, realize that in redirecting the radiation away from your head this may be intensifying the radiation in another direction, perhaps toward the person next to you, or, if in your pocket, increasing radiation intensity toward your body. Caution is always advised in dealing with any radiation-emitting device. We recommend cell phones be kept 'Off' except for emergencies.

Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain. Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.
The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.

Friday, June 8, 2012

Australians Face Huge Fines For Speaking Ill Of New Carbon Tax

The tax whose name cannot be spoken
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, May 25, 2012

Praised by Barack Obama as a model for the world, Australia’s highly unpopular carbon tax, set to take effect from July 1st, is set to be policed by laws which forbid business owners from criticizing it for causing price rises – with thought criminals who do so under threat of being hit with huge fines of over $1 million dollars.

Australians Face Huge Fines For Speaking Ill Of New Carbon Tax 15may freedom of speech

“SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact,” reports the Daily Telegraph.

According to ACCC deputy chairman Dr Michael Schaper, the warning applies, “to comments made by staff over the phone, on the shop floor or in meetings. It also covers advertising, product labels, websites, invoices, contracts and contract negotiations.”

This draconian measure will be enforced by teams of “carbon cops” who roam the streets conducting snap inspections of businesses to ensure they are not making any reference to the tax.

The characterization of dissent against the carbon tax as a criminal offense exemplifies how the measure passed last year goes way beyond merely forcing Australia’s top 500 companies to pay an extra $23.78 per each tonne of CO2 emitted. The system will be rolled into a carbon trading system by 2015.

Not only will Australians be whacked with price rises on everything from energy to food, small business owners will also be intimidated into silence when they are forced to pay out more for key supplies. Energy prices across the country have already been skyrocketing over the course of the last year.

After the carbon tax bill passed Australia’s federal parliament last year, the government set about “trying to erase any dissent against the jobs-destroying legislation,” wrote Miranda Devine.

“It’s all very Orwellian: the tax whose name cannot be spoken. We are already paying for the climate-change hysteria that has gripped Australia for a decade.”

“But no matter how Orwellian the tactics, no matter how many carbon cops are sent into hairdressing salons to interrogate barbers on the precise nature of their price rises, the truth remains: Australia has gone out on a limb, imposing a carbon tax that will send businesses to the wall, cause undue hardship to families, and tether Australians more tightly to government handouts.”
“And soon, we will send billions of dollars overseas to buy useless pieces of paper called carbon credits. Investment bankers, lawyers and carbon traders will get rich, as will all the usual spivs and scam artists ready to stick a bucket under the government spigot raining taxpayer cash.”

Although Barack Obama has largely been forced to abandon a carbon tax for Americans, instead targeting coal-fired power plants via EPA mandates, last year he praised the Australian system as being “good for the world.”

As we have documented, the entire carbon tax scam is a monumental fraud which does nothing to help the environment even if you believe in climate change hysteria, in that its primary purpose is to line the pockets of ‘carbon billionaires’ like Al Gore and Maurice Strong.

Obama’s support for Australia’s carbon tax is unsurprising given the fact that he was “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange” via millions of dollars in donations from the Joyce Foundation, with whom Obama served as a director.

Carbon trading schemes are directly connected to people in third world nations like Honduras and Uganda being brutally evicted from their land and in some cases slaughtered in cold blood. Western companies make billions from seizing land and using it to grow trees in return for lucrative carbon credits which are then sold to companies under carbon tax schemes like the one passed in Australia.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News

Don't serve carbon lies, ACCC warns

By Phil Hudson
The Daily Telegraph
May 25, 2012 9:57AM

Restaurants could face fines if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact / File

SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact.

And households are being warned to watch out for telephone scammers offering to deposit carbon tax compensation into their bank accounts.
The prices watchdog, the ACCC, will today launch its countdown to the July 1 carbon tax with a special focus on helping small businesses understand their obligations and consumers to be vigilant for false claims.

More in the link -http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/dont-serve-carbon-lies/story-e6frezc0-1226366534694

Only Giulia Lizard can lie without any penalties!

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Fukushima Radiation Hitting The Streets Of Los Angeles

Dr. Mark Sircus
Activist Post

Right after Chernobyl blew its top, Edward Teller said on the ABC Evening News in late April 1986, “The chances of a real calamity at a nuclear power station are infinitesimally small. But should it happen, the consequences are impossible to imagine.” The plume from the burning graphite at Chernobyl initially traveled in a northwest direction toward Sweden, Finland and Eastern Europe, exposing the public to levels up to 100 times the normal background radiation.

Hope Burwell wrote, “On my first trip to Chernobyl in November 2000, I spent three days touring schools in Cherikov and the even more contaminated areas of the Mogilev district. Then we traveled to children’s hospitals in Minsk. What I saw there still shows up in nightmares: children with eyes in the sides of their heads, and children with no eyes at all, children with fingers that look like toes and children whose genitals are so poorly formed one can’t determine their sex. Those nightmares are audible with infant wails like the cries of wounded wild animals.”

In her widely read essay Burwell reported that 23% of Belarus was contaminated with Chernobyl’s fallout, 32,592 square miles, more land than six eastern states combined. The average level of contamination on the polluted territories, 37 curies (Ci) per square kilometer, is notated scientifically as 37Ci/km2. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) set the “safe for residency limit” at a maximum of 5Ci/km2. Eighty-eight percent of contaminated Belarus is 111-370 times more contaminated than that.

Western predictions of Chernobyl’s consequences were based on Hiroshima-Nagasaki data, and on the then-current belief that iodine-131 had a low carcinogenic potential. But within a year after the accident, Belarusan scientists reported an increase in a rare childhood thyroid cancer to 5,000 times its spontaneous occurrence in “clean” countries.

More in the link - http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/fukushima-radiation-hitting-streets-of.html?m=1

11x above normal background.(Is this all from Fukushima?)

Top 7 Reasons to Re-Elect President Obama

Monday, May 28, 2012

Count Cameron Bans Crucifixes! Lord Monckton’s In-Studio Report

Prisonplanet.com
Thursday, May 24, 2012

Lord Monckton joins Alex in-studio today, Wednesday, May 23. Monckton is a British politician, public speaker, former newspaper editor, and a spirited critic of the globalist theory of anthropogenic global warming. Mr. Monckton is in the United States to attend the libertarian Heartland Institute’s conference in Chicago.

Watch right to the end!

Vatican does support it !!!

Government's legal fight AGAINST the right to wear a cross at work brings accusations it is 'sidelining Christianity'

The Government was last night accused of ‘sidelining’ Christianity for preparing a legal fight against believers having the right to wear the cross at work.
In a move branded ‘extraordinary’ by Christian groups, the Government was reported to be ready to argue against two British women at the European Court of Human Rights.
It is set to defend the right of employers to ban the cross as it is not a ‘requirement’ of the Christian faith to wear it. Bosses could then sack workers who insisted on wearing the symbol.
The move would potentially scupper the case being brought by two Christian women, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, who claim they were discriminated against when their employers stopped them wearing crosses.
The Ministry of Justice was last night unavailable for comment, but Christian groups expressed their astonishment at the news.
Andrea Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: ‘It is extraordinary that a Conservative Government should argue that the wearing of the cross is not a generally recognised practice of the faith.’

More...

Mrs Eweida, a former British Airways worker, and Mrs Chaplin, a nurse, are taking their case to the European court in Strasbourg after facing disciplinary action at work. Mrs Eweida’s case dates from 2006 when she was suspended for refusing to take off the cross, which her employers claimed breached BA’s uniform code.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said the reasoning is based on a wholly inappropriate judgment of matters of theology and worship about which they can claim no expertise

The 61-year-old, from Twickenham, claimed that BA allowed members of other faiths to wear religious symbols. She lost her challenge against an earlier tribunal decision at the Court of Appeal and in May 2010 was refused permission to go to the Supreme Court.
Mrs Chaplin, 56, from Exeter, complained she was barred from working on wards by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust after refusing to hide her cross, ending 31 years of nursing.
The hospital argued it was a health and safety issue.According to reports last night, the Government will argue that the two women’s application to the Strasbourg court is ‘manifestly ill-founded’.
Its submission stated: ‘In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.’
But last night, former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said: ‘The reasoning is based on a wholly inappropriate judgment of matters of theology and worship about which they can claim no expertise.’