Bush's Martial Law Plan Is So Shocking, Even Congress Can't See it

Executive über alles as member of Homeland Security Committee barred from viewing post-terror attack provisions

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, July 23, 2007

President Bush's post-terror attack martial law plan is so shocking that even sitting members of Congress and Homeland Security officials are barred from viewing it, another example of executive über alles and a chilling portent of what is to come as constant reminders of the inevitability of terror attacks reverberate.

Congressman Peter DeFazio (D - OR) was asked by his constituents to see what was contained within the classified portion of the White House's plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

Since DeFazio also sits on the Homeland Security Committee and has clearance to view classified material, the request would have appeared to be routine, but the Congressman was unceremoniously denied all access to view the documents, and the White House wouldn't even give an excuse as to why he was barred.

"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack," DeFazio told the Oregonian on Friday.

"We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America," DeFazio says. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee."

"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right," DeFazio concluded.

The article also quotes Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who told the paper he "cannot think of one good reason" to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee.

"I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual, knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House," Ornstein said.

The only plausible reason DeFazio was barred access to the documents is that the plans for a post-terror attack continuity of government scenario are so abhorrent that to reveal their true nature would cause a public outcry and lead to a major repeal of what is contained in the documents.

Congressman Peter DeFazio (D - OR)

What we already about Bush's recent spate of executive orders, and in particular PDD 51 , is bad enough - the provisions outline preparations for the implementation of open martial law in the event of a declared national emergency.

New legislation signed on May 9, 2007 , declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

It is important to understand that, although these powers have been on the books for previous presidents, Bush is the first to openly brag of the fact that he will utilize them and officially become the supreme emperor of the United States in the aftermath of a catastrophe that the government itself has said will happen on innumerable occasions.

According to columnist and author Jerome Corsi , the power grab assures that "The president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over."

Also in May, it was reported that a high-level group of government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program named "The Day After," which would effectively end civil liberties and implement a system of martial law in the event of a catastrophic attack on a U.S. city.

Last year we also exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation.

The documents that Congressman DeFazio was blocked from seeing likely interlock with both these programs and detail the overarching agenda to effectively nullify what's left of the U.S. Constitution and firmly ensconce George W. Bush as a supreme dictator.

Only by putting enough pressure on the media and in turn the White House to be transparent about what the secret martial law provisions are can we lead an effort to repeal them before the next terror attack, whether real or manufactured, takes place.

We Reap What We Sow: The Tragic Decline of America and the Western World

By Christopher Mark
In this article, although it is certainly not my intention, it is possible some may find my thoughts offensive. Yet, please consider the words of Thomas Paine, who observed “He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” The purpose of my article this week is to present a blunt wake-up call, particularly to America, and to the whole of the Western World. Why is it that we are facing an infinite variety of troubles? What is the root of our endless travails? What, indeed?Well, if one should study the history of civilizations for the past few thousand years and one believes in a Higher Power (as do I), then perhaps you already know the answer: We asked for it. You may be wondering “...how so?” First of all, there is not a nation upon the planet that currently exists, or that has ever existed, that does not have the exact government that its people deserves. This phrase or a variation thereof has been oft-repeated, many, many times for hundreds of years. “Oh, what a callous thought...” you may say to yourself. I do not believe so. Think of America, back when it was merely a series of English colonies. The people were unwilling to fight for their rights—unwilling to fight for liberty. But, in time, a minority of men convinced the population that revolution was the only solution.

These “radical, right-wing, revolutionaries,” such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere, John Jay, and so many others led the majority, who were opposed to any open revolt, that it must be so. The rest is history. The freedoms we have enjoyed, indeed, have toyed with in modern times, were so very dearly paid for, with the blood of countless men and women. Thus, a Republic, based on human liberty and a belief in God was born. Do you doubt this?

Perhaps you recognize these words: “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Surely, you recognize this portion of the Declaration of Independence. But who is this “Creator?”

After the American Revolution, another “radical” man by the name of Patrick Henry said “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations.” Indeed, this author shares the opinion of Patrick Henry. It is God who presides over the destinies of nations; it is God who is our Creator. Many also believe God presides over the destinies of every individual upon the face of the earth. What does that mean? It does not mean that we are without choice in our individual lives. Not at all.

It is our great privilege, and challenge, to choose good or evil. That having been said, God does indeed have a plan for the destiny of all of earth. As individuals who comprise the whole of a nation, at a minimum we have a choice as to how we behave and how we impact the course of history. We have seen time and again what happens to nations who have discarded God, denied God, offended God at length, or otherwise displeased the Creator. We had/have a choice as to our form of government. In 1905, Mark Twain wrote “In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”

Anyone who is not brain-dead knows good and well that the form of government established by our Constitution and Bill of Rights is under full-scale attack. Folks, I have probably watched about six hours of TV in the past year. I simply cannot bear the overwhelming intellectual assault which television broadcasting represents to me. It is an anathema to a sound mind. Furthermore, in my opinion, TV is to a mature, intelligent adult as Gerber baby food is to an infant. Truly there is a war on for your mind, as Alex Jones is fond of noting, and if you are regularly watching TV...guess who is winning?

Famous American newspaperman, Henry Louis (H.L.) Menken (http://www.io.com/~gibbonsb/mencken.html) noted “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence, clamorous to be led to safety—by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Now take a look at a “typical” everyday story in America, courtesy of Fox News at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78978,00.html and draw your own conclusions.

Forget about the so-called War on Terror, for a moment. Unfortunately, it may be true that there are indeed hobgoblins out there. However, many have put forth ample evidence to suggest we, ourselves, have created these “hobgoblins” in the quest for ultimate hegemony and fear-based government. (For more information on this, please see http://www.prisonplanet/911.html and http://www.infowars.com/resources.html.) In reality, is it not all simply “practical politics” and a purposeful distraction from the real war: The War on The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. The War on Your God-Given Rights. The War on Your Liberty!

Therefore, as individuals, we must make a choice to seek the truth. As families, we must make a choice. In sum, individuals and families comprise a nation. Just as is the case with individual lives, even if God knows ahead of time the choices we are to make, the very destiny of our nation may ultimately be based upon the choices we individually make. What kind of choices have we been making in America and the Western World? For example, what do you think of when you hear people say things like “If there were a God, how could He let such terrible things happen, such as 9-11...”

Although I feel nothing but horror for the tragic incidents of that day, I can only sit back in disdain when I hear such comments. Why? Because we have forsaken our Creator. We have told Him to leave! Leave our schools! Leave our courtrooms! Leave our government! Leave! We have made it perfectly legal to murder His unborn children—30 to 40 million in America, alone, and counting. What do we expect? Our Creator is known for His patience. But we have forsaken Him and His patience can only be tried for so long. So said William Penn “Those who will not be governed by God, will be ruled by tyrants.” So, why cry in amazement at the events of our days? It is to be expected, as both here and throughout the Western World, for all practical purposes, we have given God the boot.

This is far worse than rejecting your own parents who have lovingly raised you from the womb to where you are today. For we are nothing more than children of our Creator and He is a father to us all. How do you treat your Father? Do you even talk to Him? Is He even a small part of your life? If you are an American, do you give thanks for the gifts of liberty that you enjoy each day under The Constitution and The Bill of Rights? Do you care that your way of life is under vicious, relentless attack? Or is your only concern that you have a job, a nice car to drive, a place to call home, a grocery store nearby, a TV, and a cold six-pack? If you fall into this last category, please awaken, my fellow American, to the cold, hard reality of the transformation, now considerably progressed, of our entire society into something quite different than what the Founding Fathers envisioned, not only for the sake of America, but for that of the whole Western World and beyond.

But you say “I am tired...I have to work 40 hours a week...I can barely pay my bills...and life is hard.” I know. We have all been there. However, I also learned that with God all things are possible. You can quite rapidly change your life with faith, even if your faith is only as small as a mustard seed. Change your priorities. Consider carefully the choices you make. Consider carefully the people with whom you choose to regularly associate. Make a plan for your life—and things will change and you will no longer have an excuse to sit on the sidelines. Consider the words of Samuel Adams, who said “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” These are strong words, from a highly dignified and intelligent man who fought and believed in liberty.

While God has a plan for the world, do you have a plan for your life? I am continually dumbfounded by the pleasure-oriented nature of the average American who spends more time planning the one or two weeks of vacation time one may have from their job each year, than one devotes to planning an entire life—the Gift of all gifts. Consider this analogy. I want you to picture a big building, say, The Empire State Building. Let me ask you a simple question. What happened before a single piece of dirt was overturned to begin that project? Hmm...that is correct: The plans were ever so carefully prepared. Along the way those plans were altered as needed, if obstacles appeared or unforeseen events occurred. Let me ask you another question. Is not every single human life more valuable than any building out there? Of course! Then let me ask you this: Why do you not have a written plan for your life? Why do you not turn to your Father, our Creator, and ask for regular guidance as you execute daily your personal plan to the best of your ability? I guarantee you this, if you have, you already know the power of the results. If you have not, please carefully consider doing so.

For just as individuals who run their lives as a ship on an ocean with no rudder surely will crash into the rocks of despair, drug usage, divorce, criminal behavior, deviancy and more, so will a nation...so will the collective values of a greater Western World run into the larger rocks of God’s judgment. These are the times we live in my friends. So go to the mirror and look at yourself and ask: Who am I? You truly are a free person, no matter where you live, particularly if you are so fortunate as to be an American—as long as you are willing to endure the struggle to fight for or maintain your liberty, not merely for yourself, but for the sake of your children’s children, and so on. Thomas Paine stated “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

In closing, please consider words from those who have gone before us, and of those still among us. Plato wrote “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Sitting member of the House of Representatives, Ron Paul noted back in April 2002, “Let us be convinced that there is not enough hate or anger to silence the cries for liberty or to extinguish the flame of justice and truth. We must have faith that those who now are apathetic, anxious for security at all costs, forgetful of the true spirit of American liberty, and neglectful of the Constitution, will rise to the task and respond accordingly.” General George Patton said “If everyone is thinking alike then somebody isn't thinking.”

Are we thinking now? Do you think you can admit that when we live in an essentially Godless society full of the worst possible behavior; that when this behavior is reinforced daily through TV and video games; that when this behavior is reinforced in our schools; that when this behavior is seen in our pubic leaders and other “role models,”; that, as a whole, when the value of human life is diminished...that there can be any doubt as to why we find ourselves in the state of affairs in which we presently exist? I do not choose to embrace the present Tragic Decline of America and the Western World. Nor should we seek to impose our values on the rest of the world, but only to act honorably, as individuals and as nations, to take action with great vigor towards the preservation of liberty for future generations, and to conduct our affairs with prejudice and malice towards none, save for those who would threaten to undo our way of life.

A final quote from The Holy Bible, Proverbs, Chapter 2, Moral Benefits of Wisdom, Verses 12-15: “Wisdom will save you from the wicked ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse, who leave the straight paths to walk in dark ways, who delight in doing wrong and rejoice in the perverseness of evil, whose paths are crooked and who are devious in their ways.”

I pray we find wisdom, as individuals, as a nation, as a culture, wisdom above all else, to address the root of the vast problems confronting us, each and every day. Otherwise, our decline will only accelerate at a frightening pace. Start by making a difference in your personal life, in your community, and do not be afraid to speak your mind. Just start!

The Limits to Growth

The Club of Rome's depopulation agenda exposed by their own documents
Abstract established by Eduard Pestel. A Report to The Club of Rome (1972),
by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis l. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, William W. Behrens III Short Version of the Limits to Growth

Short Version of the Limits to Growth

Our world model was built specifically to investigate five major trends of global concern � accelerating industrialization, rapid population growth, widespread malnutrition, depletion of nonrenewable resources, and a deteriorating environment.

The model we have constructed is, like every model, imperfect, oversimplified, and unfinished.

In spite of the preliminary state of our work, we believe it is important to publish the model and our findings now. (...) We feel that the model described here is already sufficiently developed to be of some use to decision-makers. Furthermore, the basic behavior modes we have already observed in this model appear to be so fundamental and general that we do not expect our broad conclusions to be substantially altered by further revisions.
Our conclusions are :

1. If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

2. It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability
that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic
material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his
individual human potential.

If the world's people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first, the sooner they begin
working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of success.

All five elements basic to the study reported here--population, food production, and consumption of
nonrenewable natural resources--are increasing. The amount of their increase each year follows a pattern
that mathematicians call exponential growth.

A quantity exhibits exponential growth when it increases by a constant percentage of the whole in a
constant time period.

Such exponential growth is a common process in biological, financial, and many other systems of the
world.

Exponential growth is a dynamic phenomenon, which means that it involves elements that change over time.
(...) When many different quantities are growing simultaneously in a system, however, and when all the
quantities are interrelated in a complicated way, analysis of the causes of growth and of the future behavior
of the system becomes very difficult indeed.

Over the course of the last 30 years there has evolved at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology a new
method for understanding the dynamic behavior of complex systems. The method is called System
Dynamics. The basis of the method is the recongnition that the structure of any system--the many circular,
interlocking, sometimes time-delayed relationships among its components--is often just as important in
determining its behavior as the individual components themselves. The world model described in this book is
a System Dynamics model

Extrapolation of present trends is a time-honored way of looking into the future, especially the very near
future, and especially if the quantity being considered is not much influenced by other trends that are
occuring elsewhere in the system. Of course, none of the five factors we are examining here is independent.
Each interacts constantly with all the others. We have already mentioned some of these interactions.
Population cannot grow without food, food production is increased by growth of capital, more capital
requires more resources, discarded resources become pollution, pollution interferes with the growth of both
population and food.

Furthermore, over long time periods each of these factors also feeds back to influence itself.

In this first simple world model, we are interested only in the broad behavior modes of the population-capital
system. By behavior modes we mean the tendencies of the variables in the system (population or pollution,
for example) to change as time progresses.

A major purpose in constructing the world model has been to determine which, if any, of these behavior
modes will be most characteristic of the world system as it reaches the limits to growth. This process of
determining behavior modes is "prediction" only in the most limited sense of the word.

Because we are interested at this point only in broad behavior modes, this first world model needs not be
extremely detailed. We thus consider only one general population, a population that statistically reflects the
average characteristics of the global population. We include only one class of pollutants--the long-lived,
globally distributed family of pollutants, such as lead, mercury, asbestos, and stable pesticides and
radioisotopes--whose dynamic behavior in the ecosystem we are beginning to understand. We plot one
generalized resource that represents the combined reserves of all nonrenewable resourCes, although we
know that each separate resource will follow the general dynamic pattern at its own specific level and rate.

This high level of aggregation is necessary at this point to keep the model understandable. At the same time
it limits the information we can expect to gain from the model.

Can anything be learned from such a highly aggregated model? Can its output be considered meaningful? In
terms of exact predictions, the output is not meaningful.

On the other hand it is vitally important to gain some understanding of the causes of growth in human
society, the limits to growth, and the behavior of our socio-economic systems when the limits are reached.

All levels in the model (population, capital, pollution, etc.) begin with 1900 values. From 1900 to 1970 the
variables agree generally with their historical value to the extent that we know them. Population rises from
1.6 billion in 1900 to 3.5 billion in 1970. Although the birth rate declines gradually, the death rate falls more
quickly, especially after 1940, and the rate of population growth increases. Industrial output, food and
services per capita increase exponentially. The resource base in 1970 is still about 95 percent of its 1900
value, but it declines dramatically thereafter, as population and industrial output continue to grow.

The behavior mode of the system is that of overshoot and collapse. In this run the collapse occurs because
of nonrenewable resource depletion. The industrial capital stock grows to a level that requires an enormous
input of resources. In the very process of that growth it depletes a large fraction of the resource reserves
available. As resource prices rise and mines are depleted, more and more capital must be used for obtaining
resources, leaving less to be invested for future growth. Finally investment cannot keep up with
depreciation, and the industrial base collapses, taking with it the service and agricultural systems, which
have become dependent on industrial inputs (such as fertilizers, pesticides, hospital laboratories, computers,
and especially energy for mechanization). For a short time the situation is especially serious because
population, with the delays inherent in the age structure and the process of social adjustment, keeps rising.
Population finally decreases when the death rate is driven upward by lack of food and health services. The
exact timing of these events is not meaningful, given the great aggregation and many uncertainties in the
model. It is significant, however, that growth is stopped well before the year 2100. We have tried in every
doubtful case to make the most optimistic estimate of unknown quantities, and we have also ignored
discontinuous events such as wars or epidemics, which might act to bring an end to growth even sooner
than our model would indicate. In other words, the model is biased to allow growth to continue longer than
it probably can continue in the real world. We can thus say with some confidence that, under the
assumption of no major change in the present system, population and industrial growth will certainly stop
within th next century, at the latest.
To test the model assumption about available resources, we doubled the resource reserves in 1900, keeping
all other assumptions identical to those in the standard run. Now industrialization can reach a higher level
since resources are not so quickly depleted. The larger industrial plant releases pollution at such a rate,
however, that the environmental pollution absorption mechanisms become saturated. Pollution rises very
rapidly, causing an immediate increase in the death rate and a decline in food production. At the end of the
run resources are severely depleted in spite of the doubled amount initially available.

Is the future of the world system bound to be growth and then collapse into a dismal, depleted existence?
Only if we make the initial assumption that our present way of doing things will not change. We have ample
evidence of mankind's ingenuity and social flexibility. There are, of course, many likely changes in the
system, some of which are already taking place. The Green Revolution is raising agricultural yields in non
industrialized countries. Knowledge about modern methods of birth control is spreading rapidly.

Although the history of human effort contains numerous incidents of mankind's failure to live within
physical limits, it is success in overcoming limits that forms the cultural tradition of many dominant people
in today's world. Over the past three hundred years, mankind has compiled an impressive record of pushing
back the apparent limits to population and economic growth by a series of spectacular technological
advances. Since the recent history of a large part of human society has been so continuously successful, it
is quite natural that many people expect technological breakthrough to go on raising physical ceilings
indefinitely.
Will new technologies alter the tendency of the world system to grow and collapse?

Let us assume, however, that the technological optimists are correct and that nuclear energy will solve the
resource problems of the world.

Let us also assume a reduction in pollution generation all sources by a factor of four, starting in 1975.

Let us also assume that the normal yield per hectare of all the world's land can be further increased by a
factor of two.Besides we assume perfect birth control, practiced voluntarily, starting in 1975.

All this means we are utilizing a technological policy in every sector of the world model to circumvent in
some way the various limits to growth. The model system is producing nuclear power, recycling resources,
and mining the most remote reserves; withholding as many pollutants as possible; pushing yields from the
land to undreamed-of heights; and producing only children who are actively wanted by their parents. The
result is still an end to growth before the year 2100.

Because of three siumultaneous crises. Overuse of land leads to erosion, and food production drops.
Resources are severly depleted by a prosperous world population (but not as prosperous as the present US
population). Pollution rises, drops, and then rises again dramatically, causing a further decrease in food
production and a sudden rise in the death rate. The application of technological solutions alone has
prolonged the period of population and industrial growth, but it has not removed the ultimate limits to that
growth.

Given the many approximations and limitations of the world model, there is no point in dwelling glumly on
the series of catastrophes it tends to generate. We shall emphasize just one more time that none of these
computer outputs is a prediction. We would not expect the real world to behave like the world model in any
of the graphs we have shown, especially in the collapse modes. The model contains dynamic statements
about only the physical aspects of man's activities. It assumes that social variables--income distribution,
attitudes about family size, choices among goods, services, and food--will continue to follow the same
patterns they have followed throughout the world in recent history. These patterns, and the human value
they represent, were all established in the growth phase of our civilization. They would certainly be greatly
revised as population and income began to decrease. Since we find it difficult to imagine what new forms of
human societal behavior might emerge and how quickly they would emerge under collapse conditions, we
have not attempted to model such social changes. What validity our model has holds up only to the point in
each output graph at which growth comes to an end and collapse begins.

The unspoken assumption behind all of the model runs we have presented in this chapter is that population
and capital growth should be allowed to continue until they reach some "natural" limit. This assumption also
appears to be a basic part of the human value system currently operational in the real world. Given that first
assumption, that population and capital growth should not be deliberately limited but should be left to "seek
their own levels", we have not been able to find a set of policies that avoids the collapse mode of behavior.

The hopes of the technological optimists center on the ability of technology to remove or extend the limits to
growth of population and capital. We have shown that in the world model the application of technology to
apparent problems of resource depletion or pollution or food shortage has no impact on the essential
problem, which is exponential growth in a finite and complex system. Our attempts to use even the most
optimistic estimates of the benefits of technology in the model did not prevent the ultimate decline of
population and industry, and in fact did not in any case postpone the collapse beyond the year 2100.

Unfortunately the model does not indicate, at this stage, the social side-effects of new technologies. These
effects are often the most important in terms of the influence of a technology on people's lives.

Social side-effects must be anticipated and forestalled before the large-scale introduction of a new
technology.

While technology can change rapidly, political and social, insitutions generally change very slowly.
Furthermore, they almost never change in anticipation of social need, but only in response to one.

We must also keep in mind the presence of social delays--the delays necessary to allow society to absorb or
to prepare for a change. Most delays, physical or social reduce the stability of the world system and
increase the likelihood of the overshoot mode. The social delays, like the physical ones, are becoming
increasingly more critical because the processes of exponential growth are creating additional pressures at a
faster and faster rate. Although the rate of technological change has so far managed to keep up with this
accelerated pace, mankind has made virtually no new discoveries to increase the rate of social, political,
ethical, and cultural change.

Even if society's technological progress fulfills all expectations, it may very well be a problem with no
technical solution, or the interaction of several such problems, that finally brings an end to population and
capital growth.

Applying technology to the natural pressures that the environment exerts against any growth process has
been so successful in the past that a whole culture has evolved around the principle of fighting against limits
rather than learning to live with them.

Is it better to try to live within that limit by accepting a self-imposed restriction on growth? Or is it
preferable to go on growing until some other natural limit arises, in the hope that at that time another
technological leap will allow growth to continue still longer? For the last several hundred years human
society has followed the second course so consistently and successfully that the first choice has been all but
forgotten.

There may be much disagreement with the statement that population and capital growth must stop soon. But
virtually no one will argue that material growth on this planet can go on forever. At this point in man's
history, the choice posed above is still available in almost every sphere of human activity. Man can still
choose his limits and stops when he pleases by weakening some of the strong pressures that cause capital
and population growth, or by instituting counterpressures, or both. Such counterpresures will probably not
be entirely pleasant. They will certainly involve profund changes in the social and economic structures that
have been deeply impressed into human culture by centuries of growth. The alternative is to wait until the
price of technology becomes more than society can pay, or until the side-effects of technology suppress
growth themselves, or until problems arise that have no technical solutions. At any of those points the
choice of limits will be gone.

Faith in technology as the ultimate solution to all problems can thus divert our attention from the most
fundamental problem--the problem of growth in a finite system--and prevent us from taking effective action
to solve it.

On the other hand, our intent is certainly not to brand technology as evil or futile or unnecessary. We
strongly believe that many of the technological developments mentioned here--recycling, pollution-control
devices, contraceptives--will be absolutely vital to the future of human society if they are combined with
deliberate checks on growth. We would deplore an unreasoned rejection of the benefit of technology as
strongly as we argue here against an unreasoned acceptance of them. Perhaps the best summary of our
position is the motto of the Sierra Club : "Not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress".

We would hope that society will receive each technological advance by establishing the answers to three
questions before the technology is widely adopted. The questions are:

- What will be the side-effects, both physical and social, if this development is introduced on a large scale?

- What social changes will be necessary before this development can be implemented properly, and how
long will it take to achieve them ?

- If the development is fully successful and removes some natural limits to growth, what limit will the
growing system meet next? Will society prefer its pressures to the ones this development is designed to
remove?

We are searching for a model that represents a world system that is:

1. sustainable without sudden and uncontrollable collapse; and

2. capable of satisfying the basic material requirements of all of its people

The overwhelming growth in world population caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent
phenomenon, a result of mankind's very successful reduction of worldwide mortality. The controlling
negative feedback loop has been weakened, allowing the positive loop to operate virtually without constraint.
There are only two ways to restore the resulting imbalance. Either the birth rate must be brought down to
equal the new, lower death rate, or the death rate must rise again. All of the "natural" constraints to
population growth operate in the second way--they raise the death. Any society wishing to avoid that result
must take deliberate action to control the positive feedback loop--to reduce the birth rate.

But stabilizing population alone is not sufficient to prevent overshoot and collapse; a similar run with
constant capital and rising population shows that stabilizing capital alone is also not sufficient. What happens
if we bring both positive feedback loops under control simultaneously? We can stabilize the capital stock in
the model by requiring that the investment rate equal the depreciation rate, with an additional model link
exactly analogous to the population-stabilizing one.

The result of stopping population growth in 1975 and industrial capital growth in 1985 with no other
changes is that population and capital reach constant values at a relatively high level of food, industrial
output and services per person. Eventually, however, resource shortages reduce industrial output and the
temporily stable state degenerates. However, we can improve the model behavior greatly by conbining
technological changes with value changes that reduce the growth tendencies of the system.

Then the stable world population is only slightly larger than the population today. There is more than twice
as much food per person as the average value in 1970, and world average lifetime is nearly 70 years. The
average industrial output per capita is well above today's level, and services per capita have tripled. Total
average income per capita (industrial output, food, and services combined) is about half the present average
US income, equal to the present average European income, and three times the present average world
income. Resources are still being gradually depleted, as they must be under any realistic assumption, but the
rate of depletion is so slow that there is time for technology and industry to adjust to changes in resource
availability.

If we relax our most unrealistic assumption--that we can suddenly and absolutely stabilize population and
capital, replacing them with the following:

1. The population has access to 100 percent effective birth control.

2. The average desired family size is two children.

3. The economic system endeavors to maintain average industrial output per capita at about the 1975 level.
Excess industrial capability is employed for producing consumption goods rather than increasing the
industrial capital investment rate above the depreciation rate.

We do not suppose that any single one of the policies necessary to attain system stability in the model can or
should be suddenly introduced in the world by 1975. A society choosing stability as a goal certainly must
approach that goal gradually. It is important to realize, however, that the longer exponential growth is
allowed to continue, the fewer possibilities remain for the final stable rate.

Many people will think that the changes we have introduced into the model to avoid the growth-and collapse
behavior mode are not only impossible, but unpleasant, dangerous, even disastrous in themselves. Such
policies as reducing the birth rate and diverting capital from production of material goods, by whatever
means they might be implemented, seem unnatural and unimaginable, because they have not, in most
people's experience, been tried, or even seriously suggested. Indeed there would be little point even in
discussing such fundamental changes in the functioning of modern society if we felt that the present pattern
of unrestricted growth were sustainable into the future. All the evidence available to us, however, suggests
that of the three alternatives--unrestricted growth, a self-imposed limitation to growth, or a nature-imposed
limitation to growth--only the last two are actually possible.

Achieving a self-imposed limitation to growth would require much effort. It would involve learning to do
many things in new ways. It would tax the ingenuity, the flexibility, and the self-discipline of the human
race. Bringing a deliberate, controlled end to growth is a tremendous challenge, not easiliy met. Would the
final result be worth the effort? What would humanity gain by siuuch a transition, and what would it,lose?
Let us consider in more detail what a world of nongrowth might be like.

We have after much discussion, decided to call the state of constant population and capital, by the term
"equilibrium". Equilibrium means a state of balance or equality between opposing forces. In the dynamic
terms of the world model, the opposing forces are those causing population and capital stock to increase
(high desired family size, low birth control effectivness, high rate of capital investment) and those causing
population and capital stock to decrease (lack of food, pollution, high rate of depreciation or obsolescence).
The word "capital" should be understood to mean service, industrial, and agricultural capital combined. Thus
the most basic definition of the state of global equilibrium is that population and capital are essentially stable,
with the forces tending to increase or decrease them in a carefully controlled balance.

There is much room for variation within that definition. We have only specified that the stocks of capital
and population remain constant, but they might theoretically be constant at a high level or a low level--or one
might be high and the other low. The longer a society prefers to maintain the state of equilibrium, the lower
the rates and levels must be.

By choosing a fairly long time horizon for its existence, and a long average lifetime as a desirable goal, we
have now arrived at a minimum set of requirements for the state of global equilibrium. They are:

1. The capital plant and the population are constant in size.The birth rate equals the death rate and the capital
investment rate equals the depreciation rate.

2. All input and output rates--birth, death, investment, and depreciation--are kept to a minimum.

3. The levels of capital and population and the ratio of the two are set in accordance with the values of the
society.They may be deliberately revised and slowly adjusted as the advance of technology creates new
options.

An equilibrium defined in this way does not mean stagnation. Within the first two guidelines above,
corporations could expand or fail, local populations could increase or decrease income could become more
or less evenly distributed. Technological advance would permit the services provided by a constant stock of
capital to increase slowly. Within the third guideline, any country could change its average standard of living
by altering the balance between its population and its capital. Furthermore, a society could adjust to
changing internal or external factors by raising or lowering the population or capital stocks, or both, slowly
and in a controlled fashion, with a predetermined goal in mind. The three points above define a dynamic
equilibrium, which need not and probably would not "freeze" the world into the population

Capital configuration that happens to exist at present time. The object in accepting the above three
statements is to create freedom for society, not to impose a straitjacket.

What would life be like in such an equilibrium state? Would innovation be stifled? Would society be locked
into the patterns of inequality and injustice we see in the world today? Discussion of these questions must
proceed on the basis of mental models, for there is no formal model of social conditions in the equilibrium
state. No one can predict what sort of institutions mankind might develop under these new conditions.
There is, of course, no guarantee that the new society would be much better or even much different from
that which exists today. It seems possible, however, that a society released from struggling with the many
problems caused by growth may have more energy and ingenuity available for solving other problems. In
fact, we believe, that the evolution of a society that favors innovation and technological development, a
society based on equality and justice, is far more likely to evolve in a state of global equilibrium than it is in
the state of growth we are experiencing today

Population and capital are the only quantities that need be constant in the equilibrium state. Any human
activity that does not require a large flow of irreplaceable resources or produce severe environmental
degradation might continue to grow indefinitely. In particular, those pursuits that many people would list as
the most desirable and satisfying activities of man--education, art, music, religion, basic scientific research,
athletics, and social interactions--could flourish.

All of the activities listed above depend very strongly on two factors. First, they depend upon the availability
of some surplus production after the basixc human needs of fod and shelter have been met. Second, they
require leisure time. In any equilibrium state the relative levels of capital and population could be adjusted to
assure that human material needs are fulfilled at any desired level. Since the amount of material production
would be essentially fixed, every improvement in production methods could result in increased leisure for
the population--leisure that could be devoted to any activity that is relatively nonconSuming and
nonpolluting, such as those listed above

Technological advance would be both necessary and welcome in the equilibrium state. The picture of the
equilibrium state we have drawn here is idealized, to be sure. It may be impossible to achieve in the form
desribed here, and it may not be the form most people on earth would choose. The only purpose in
describing it at all is to emphasize that global equilibrium need not mean an end to progress or human
development. The possibilities within an equilibrium state are almost endless.

An equilibrium state would not be free of pressures, since no society can be free of pressure. Equilibrium
would require trading certain human freedoms, such as producing unlimited numbers of children or
consuming uncontrolled amounts of resources, for other freedoms, such as relief from pollution and
crowding and the threat of collapse of the world system. is possible that new freedoms might also
arise--universal and unlimited education, leisure for creativity and inventiveness, and, most important of all,
the freedom from hunger and poverty enjoyed by such a small fraction of the world's people today.

We can say very little at this point about the practical, day by-day steps that might be taken to reach a
desirable, sustainable state of global equilibrium. Neither the world model nor our own thoughts have been
developed in sufficient detail to understand all the implications of the transition from growth to equilibrium.
Before any part of the world's society embarks deliberately on such a transition, there must be much more
discussion, more extensive analysis, and many new ideas contributed by many different people.

The equilibrium society will have to weigh the trade-offs engendered by a finite earth not only with
consideration of present human values but also with consideration of future generations. long-term goals
must be specified and short term goals made consistent with them.

We end on a note of urgency. We have repeatedly emphasized the importance of the natural delays in the
population-capital system of the world. These delays mean, for example, that if Mexico's birth rate gradually
declined from its present value to an exact replacement value by the year 2000, the country's population
would continue to grow until the year 2060. During that time the population would grow from 50 million to
130 million. We cannot say with certainty how much longer mankind can postpone initiating deliberate
control of its growth before it will have lost the chance for control. We suspect on the basis of present
knowledge of the physical constraints of the planet that the growth phase cannot continue for another one
hundred years. Again, because of the delays in the system, if the global society waits until those constraints
are unmistakably apparent, it will have waited too long.

If there is cause for deep concern, there is also cause for hope. Deliberately limiting growth would be
difficult, but not impossible. The way to proceed is clear, and the necessary steps, although they are new
ones for human society, are well within human capabilities. Man possesses, for a small moment in his
history, the most powerful combination of knowledge, tools, and resources the world has ever known. He
has all that is physically necessary to create a totally new form of human society--one that would be built to
last for generations. The two missing ingredients are a realistic, long-term goal that can guide mankind to
the equilibrium society and the human will to achieve that goal. Without such a goal and a commitment to

it, short-term concerns will generate the exponential growth that drives the world system toward the limits
of the earth and ultimate collapse. With that goal and that commitment, mankind would be ready now to
begin a controlled, orderly transition from growth to global equilibrium.

The Club of Rome - Official Website
The Club of Rome: the global conscience.(informal organization aimed at informing the world of the impact of globalization)
AIDS Is Man Made !
The Club of Rome - report 'Limits To Growth'
The Club of Rome - 'Limits To Growth'
WORLD DEPOPULATION IS TOP NSA AGENDA: CLUB OF ROME
Club of Rome (Committee of 300 subversive body)
U.S. Assn. for The Club of Rome. Membership List. 1983-10-25
Initial Membership List of the Club of Rome
Prince Hassan named head of Club of Rome

BILL GATES' PLANNED-PARENTHOOD-PRESIDENT DAD INSPIRED PRO-ABORT FUNDING

NEW YORK, May 9, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a lengthy interview with Bill Moyers released today, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates reveals the inspiration for his funding of pro-abortion population control measures. Responding to a question by Moyers on how he came to fund "reproductive issues" Gates answered, "When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it's fascinating. At the dinner table my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that."

In the interview Gates says he is moved by measurable progress and on "safe birth reproductive family planning issues" he says, "There's a measurable impact when you can go in and educate families, but primarily women, about their different choices. There's real impact that you can have in this area. Anything to do with reproductive health."

Although prodded more than once by Moyers, Gates refused a direct attack on President Bush's pro-life measures such as promotion of abstinence prior to marriage.

He admits that he was at one time a convinced Malthusian. "You know I thought it was.before I learned about it, I thought it was paradoxical. Well if you improve health, aren't you just dooming people to deal with such a lack of resources where they won't be educated or they won't have enough food? You know, sort of a Malthusian view of what would take place."

However, he claims he has seen beyond Malthusian conceptions of useless eaters since, he says, he has seen that by improving health and education population decreases as parents decide to have less children. Despite all his distancing from Malthus, Gates remains steadfast to the unfounded Malthusian fear of overpopulation.

See the transcript of the interview with Gates at:
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gates.html
See The Quiz Gates Failed
http://www.all.org/gates/index.htm
UN POPULATION FUND RECEIVES $57 MIL FROM GATES
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/apr/00040504.html

Big Bucks Ban Births - philanthropists, such as Bill Gates and Ted Turner, are donating a portion of their money to help curb world population

Insight on the News, May 3, 1999 by Jennifer Kabbany

Philanthropists, some with large families, give billions to curb population growth.
News of their announcement electrified the world-population forum in The Hague: Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, were giving billions of dollars to curb world population. The Gateses join some of the world's richest people, including media mogul Ted Turner and investor Warren Buffett, who are investing heavily in population control.
Not everyone is impressed. "You have wealthy white men spending hundreds of millions of dollars to contraceptualize, sterilize and abort poor brown, yellow and black women in the developing world" says Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute. "That's a scary thought."Interpretations of the trend aside, there is no doubt that wealthy Westerners are donating big bucks to slow population growth:
* The William H. Gates Foundation, which recently received $2.2 billion in Microsoft stock, plans to give the majority to Planned Parenthood and other population-control agencies, including a $1.7 million pledge during the next three years to the U.N. Population Fund.
* The Buffett Foundation gave more than $3 million to family planning and population control in 1994 and more than $4.5 million in 1996, and plans to lavish the majority of its annual $100 million in grants on population programs after Buffett dies.
* The David and Lucille Packard Foundation has pledged $9 billion toward population-control programs, including safe-sex campaigns and abortion clinics.* The U.N. Foundation will administer Turner's pledged $1 billion toward population-control efforts and health and environmental issues.
Turner's involvement in the campaign against overpopulation has drawn attention because of the CNN founder's knack for outrageous quotes: "If everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years" the world could reduce its population by about 3 billion, he said recently. The fact is, Turner has fathered five children. David Packard has four children, Buffett has three and the Gateses are expecting their second.
Gates, the most recent arrival on the world-population scene, is close friends with Buffett, and they reportedly have discussed philanthropic ideas. Buffet's foundation has given $2 million to fund research on RU486, the "abortion pill" a two-stage drug that causes women to miscarry; another $8 million went to family planning and population-control efforts in 1997, according to Barron's magazine. Buffett Foundation grant recipients include:
* Catholics for a Free Choice -- $100,000 in 1996;
* The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy -- $500,000 in 1996; and
* Planned Parenthood -- about $1.3 million in 1996.
"Certainly I consider population and reproductive rights to be important issues," Buffett told Barron's. "But ... I don't want to comment on the question or become a spokesman." The magazine reported that Buffett "has made no secret of the fact that he considers overpopulation to be a serious threat to the future of the world."
Billionaire Packard, who died in 1996, had a long track record of similar giving. The Packard Foundation, the third wealthiest, donated $240,000 toward abortion training for doctors in Ethiopia and Uganda and $100,000 for contraceptives in Vietnam. This year, the Packard Foundation plans on spending as much as $70 million on population-control causes, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Mosher and other experts disagree that global overpopulation is a looming crisis. "This movement has outlived whatever life it had," says Mosher. "The exaggerated predictions of the population doom and gloom types will never materialize."
According to Ben Wattenberg, author of The Birth Dearth, U.N. predictions about global-population figures have been inaccurate by as many as 1 billion people. "In the last 15 years, there have been population decreases" he says. Large foundations want to perpetuate their influence, so "they've set up this huge infrastructure. But as the nature of the problem changed, it was in the best interests of these foundations to continue the crisis."
Population Action International qualifies that statement. "Although human growth rates are slowing, human numbers are still increasing" the organization claims on its Website, www.populationaction.org. "More family planning is needed" to slow population growth rates, the group says.
Rose Berg, Gates' spokeswoman, puts the population question in a whole different context. "It's an access and equity issue" says Berg. "Grants from the William H. Gates Foundation are made to women's reproductive health whether we can agree on the exact trends or not."
Overpopulation became a concern of the rich after World War II, when wealthy philanthropists such as John D. Rockefeller III and Clarence Gamble took up the cause. "The earlier millionaires brought with them a eugenics concern" says Donald Critchlow, author of Intended Consequences, which chronicles the history of population control. Today's philanthropists have a genuine belief that they can solve the world's problems -- war, pollution, poverty, disease -- through population control. "It's a humanitarian concern," Critchlow says. "Yet at the same time they want to contribute something to the world, and something like controlling world population is ambitious enough for them."Perhaps, but Mosher sees "hidden undertones" of racism in population control. "After all, it began as hysterical reactions to the fact that the population of Latin America, Africa and Asia were growing much more rapidly than North America and Europe," he says.

MIND CONTROL/ HAARP/DR.NICK BEGICH/WEATHER MANIPULATION

Alex jones interviews Dr. Nick Begich



http://www.earthpulse.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.mindcontrol-victims.eu/


Cutting Edge Show 73 Dr. Nick Begich - Mind Control


Dr. Nick Begich on the power hour-mind control


HAARP/Chemtrails & Freeman

Electromagnetic frequencies unite with clouds of death. Is there a nefarious plan of genocide? Freeman combines HAARP technology with magic and sub-terranian worlds in his award-winning documentary. Your world will shift as the surreal nature of chemtrails and HAARP comes into view.


HAARP

This is Freeman's award-winning documentary on HARRP. The U.S. Government has a new ground-based "Star Wars" weapon which can change weather patterns, jam all global communications, unnaturally impact the earth's upper atmosphere, and negatively




Angels Dont Play This HAARP weather manipulation


Earth Rising - HAARP - Update.

The patents described below were the package of ideas which were originally controlled by ARCO Power Technologies Incorporated (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Company, one of the biggest oil companies in the world. APTI was the contractor that built the HAARP facility. ARCO sold this subsidiary, the patents and the second phase construction contract to E-Systems in June 1994. E-Systems is one of the biggest intelligence contractors in the world -- doing work for the CIA, defense intelligence organizations and others. $1.8 billion of their annual sales are to these organizations, with $800 million for black projects -- projects so secret that even the United States Congress isn't told how the money is being spent. E-Systems was bought out by Raytheon, which is one of the largest defense contractors in the world. In 1994 Raytheon was listed as number forty-two on the Fortune 500 list of companies. Raytheon has thousands of patents, some of which will be valuable in the HAARP project. The twelve patents below are the backbone of the HAARP project, and are now buried among the thousands of others held in the name of Raytheon. Bernard J. Eastlund's U.S. Patent # 4,686,605, "Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere; and/or Magnetosphere," was sealed for a year under a government Secrecy Order

HAARP hole in heaven

Bush To Veto Ban On Mercury In Vaccines

Clear links to neurological disorders ignored, removed from animal vaccines but fine for babies
Infowars.net | July 20, 2007
Steve Watson
President Bush is to veto a bill that would ban mercury in flu vaccines for children despite its known links to autism and other neurological disorders and despite the fact that he pledged in 2004 to support such a move when campaigning for re-election.

The White House stated on Tuesday that President Bush would veto the FY 2008 HHS-Labor-Education Appropriations Bill because of the cost and "objectionable provisions" such as a measure to ban the use of childhood flu vaccines that contain thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, a press release from Autism advocacy group Safe Minds on the PRNewswire-USNewswire states.

Bush is calling for an amendment that would remove the children's safety provision from the bill.

Safe Minds warns:

"Under the current administration, mercury has been and will continue to be knowingly injected into the youngest of American citizens. The controversial mercury-containing preservative thimerosal has been linked by thousands of parents as being the cause of their children's mercury poisoning and autism."

The flu vaccine, which continues to be manufactured with mercury, is recommended for all pregnant women, infants and children despite the fact that the Institute of Medicine in 2001 recommended against the policy of
exposing these same sensitive groups to thimerosal containing vaccines.

Mercury is the second most toxic metal known to man behind Uranium. Thimerosal is used in vaccines not because it is good for you, but purely because it prevents vaccine contamination. Yet some have questioned why thimerosal is even considered for vaccines because there are obviously safer alternatives to preventing contamination. Questions also remain about how pharmaceutical companies conduct vaccine research and how the government regulates those companies.Despite these facts, sickening reports such as the one below continue to make out that injecting the second most poisonous substance in the world into babies is actually GOOD for their health:

During Bush's reelection campaign in 2004 he stated:

"I support the removal of Thimerosal from vaccines on the childhood national vaccine schedule. During a second term as President, I will continue to support increased funding to support a wide variety of research initiatives aimed at seeking definitive causes and/or triggers of autism. It is important to note that while there are many possible theories about causes or triggers of autism, no one material has been definitely included or excluded."

Despite this he now plans to veto a bill that would remove Thimerosal because of "costs". What costs would these be? Do the costs of big pharmaceutical companies and fat government kickbacks outweigh the costs of the healthy brains of every child in America? Seemingly so.

Furthermore, though Bush stated that the evidence for links between mercury laden vaccines and autism are not concrete, there are scores of studies and testimony from credible figures asserting the exact opposite.

Starting in the early nineties, government regulators dramatically increased the amount of Thimerosal exposure to babies by adding two new vaccines to the roster of mandatory immunizations children must have before enrolling in school. The combination of the Hepatitis B vaccine and the HiB vaccine more than doubled the amount of mercury children.

Mercury expert Dr. Boyd Haley of the University of Kentucky has testified before Congress and the Pentagon as well as the FDA as one of the nation's leading experts on Thimerosal and mercury poisoning, revealing that his research leads him to believe that some children are genetically predisposed to storing mercury in their brains, leading to neurological disorders, including autism.
The combination of the Hepatitis B vaccine and the HiB vaccine more than doubled the amount of mercury children in the 90s. "If you take a ten-pound baby in, and it gets four shots on that one day, which is a common practice - that's equivalent to giving a 100-pound person forty shots in one day," said Haley.

Haley has also proposed that Thimerosal in infant vaccines was also the most likely toxic agent involved in Gulf War syndrome and autistic spectrum disorders. Think about this, they are injecting into babies something that is breaking down the bodies of full grown combat veterans.

While the FDA questioned thimerosal's safety in the 80s, noting that it was "not safe for 'over-the-counter' topical use because of its potential for cell damage", and while it was removed from animal vaccines for the same reason, the government regulatory committees did nothing to question its use in childhood vaccines.

It's too dangerous for cats and dogs but the government is happy for our babies to be pumped full of the stuff on a regular basis.

Dr Haley has also pointed out that it is also well known by any good biochemist that thimerosal and aluminum react dangerously when combined together. Given that Aluminum is a compound added to many vaccines as a catalyst you would think the government would have heeded this warning, yet it has still done nothing.

Despite the continued reports doubting the link between Thimerosal and autism, more studies have continued to verify the link. As reported in the Capitol Times recently:
A study done at the University of Washington in 2006 showed that baby primates exposed to injected thimerosal (50 percent mercury), at a rate equal to the 1990s childhood vaccine schedule, retained twice as much inorganic mercury in their brains as primates exposed to equal amounts of ingested methylmercury. We know from autometallographic determination that inorganic mercury present in the brain, following the dealkylation of organic mercury, is the toxic agent responsible for changes in the microglial population and leads to neuroinflammation.

In other words thimerosal, inorganic mercury, leads to neuroinflammatory disease which is proven to be the underlying medical condition of autism.

Furthermore In a study done at the University of Arkansas last year, autistic children were found to have significantly lower levels of the antioxidant glutathione. Glutathione is the major antioxidant needed for the elimination of mercury at the cellular level.

Moreover, Professor Philippe Grandjean, from Harvard University and the University of Southern Denmark, considered the foremost scientific authority on the development of children's brains, has recently claimed that the average human IQ is plummeting primarily due to IQ points in the population being chemically destroyed via low level mercury exposure in children.

The links between the ingestion of mercury and neurological breakdown are clear and proven. Professors all over the world are telling us outright that it is literally destroying people's brains. Even if you choose to believe, in the face of all the evidence, that the links are still somewhat questionable, the solution is still obvious. GET IT OUT OF THE VACCINES NOW.

Safe Minds also point out that according to the EPA, one in every six women of childbearing age already has blood levels of mercury high enough to cause neurological damage to their unborn children due to environmental exposures alone.
"Injecting even more mercury into the bodies of pregnant women, infants and children when it is not a necessary component of vaccines is just bad medicine," said Lyn Redwood, president of Safe Minds and parent of a mercury-injured child. "It defies logic that a flu vaccine must be disposed of as a hazardous waste if it is not used, but somehow injecting the same mercury-containing vaccine into a baby is safe."

Yes it defies logic to someone who believes in the unabated progression of the entirety of the human race, however, to an elite devoid of all morality and interested only in the endgame pursuit of their own biological, spiritual and financial monopoly over the whole planet, it makes perfect sense.
Related Video: Mercury, Autism and the Global Vaccine Agenda

Related Audio: Alex Jones on the Mercury in Vaccines

Prison Planet Data Page: Vaccines The Deadly Cure

Michael Tsarion

The Origins Of Evil

Ever asked yourself where all injustice and cruelty in the world comes from? Michael Tsarion brings insight to the world we are living in. a must see!


Michael Tsarion about Israel
Michael Tsarion about Israel

Add to My Profile | More Videos



Michael Tsarion on elite rulers
Michael Tsarion on elite rulers

Add to My Profile | More Videos


2012 - The Future of Mankind



The Destruction Of Atlantis

iPhone has a built-in spyware module?

VS iPhone
Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Today an underground hacker team "web-Hack" from Russia released a white paper with results of iPhone firmware research. They reverse- engineered some functions and published this information.

Results of a research shocked community. Russian hackers found a built-in function which sends all data from an iPhone to a specified web-server. Contacts from a phonebook, SMS, recent calls, history of Safari browser - all your personal information can be stolen.

At present there is no additional information about this issue. Researches assume that this function either a debug feature or a built-in back door module for some governmental structures. Anyways this function can be used by a Trojan-developers or activated by the AT&T.

We will monitor all information about this accident and will publish it immediately.

Hillary Clinton Shuns Fox Debates, But Pockets Murdochs' Money

The Huffington Post | July 17, 2007
Thomas B. Edsall

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards may not want to participate in debates sponsored by FOX News, but they like taking cash from officials of the company considered an arm of the conservative movement by many liberal Democrats.

In April, Edwards led the charge in refusing to participate in a Fox-sponsored debate. His deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, told AP: "We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective."

Within days, Clinton followed suit. Unlike Edwards, Clinton did not directly attack Fox in announcing her decision.

"We're going to participate in the D.N.C. [Democratic National Committee]-sanctioned debates only. We've previously committed to participating in the South Carolina and Tavis Smiley debates," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. The Fox debate was not DNC-approved.

Obama joined in with Clinton. Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, said a CNN-sponsored debate would be a more "appropriate venue."

But in her most recent filing at the FEC, Hillary Clinton reported two large donations from the very top of the Fox corporate structure.

On June 5, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the News Corporation, gave her presidential bid $2,300. A few weeks later, his son, James R. Murdoch, chief executive of British Sky Broadcasting in London, gave $3,400. Altogether, NewsCorp/Fox executives gave at least $40,000 to the Clinton campaign.

In July 2006, the elder Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Clinton's Senate re-election campaign, raising many eyebrows among Democrats. The Financial Times, which first disclosed the event, noted that Murdoch was a part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" named by Hillary Clinton as determined to destroy her husband's presidency.

She explained her willingness then to accept Murdoch's support to the FT: "He's my constituent and I'm very gratified that he thinks I'm doing a good job."

Asked about the Murdoch contributions to Clinton's presidential bid, Howard Wolfson, director of communications, said he had no comment.

Obama has taken more $14,000 from NewsCorp/Fox executives, although none came from the Murdochs themselves. In the broad network of NewsCorp/Fox holdings, with many Hollywood and entertainment entities, there are a substantial number of Democrats on the payroll.

Obama's contributions from NewsCorp/Fox executives included $2,300 each from Daniel Fawcett and Donna Isaacson; $1,000 each from Carla Hacken and Jospeh Hartwick; and a number of donations from other NewsCorp/Fox officials and employees. No comment from the campaign was immediately available.

Edwards received substantially less than Clinton or Obama. His contributions from NewsCorp/Fox executives Louis Supowitz, Jonathan Sarrow, Sean A. Riley, and Jonathan Sarrow total just under $1,000. There was no immediate comment from the Edwards campaign.