George Clooney: "We bought the rights to it, and we're going to make a movie. Look, movies take a while, and you gotta have a story. So we're going to work on the script and we're going to figure it out." Yeah George I hope you "figure it out" before you instigate MORE UNJUST WAR and/or make a huge MANIPULATED FOOL out of yourself. Give up on this misguided project please and focus on properly educating your children about false propaganda. www.usmagazine.com/stylish/news/amal-clooney-wears-floralsto-the-white-helmets-screening-w460398
Was going to comment on Variety.com but thankfully I don't need to because wow look at all those informed citizens! http://variety.com/2016/film/news/george-clooney-white-helmets-rescuers-syria-1201945608/#respond
2017-01-10: George Clooney comes out in support of ISIS-Al-Qaeda terrorist organization The White Helmets, calls them “heroes”
2016-12-10: White Helmets ‘President’ Raed Saleh’s Terrorist Connections http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/12/10/exclusive-president-raed-salehs-terrorist-connections-within-white-helmet-leadership/
2015-10-02: ‘Humanitarian’ Propaganda War Against Syria - Led by Avaaz and The White Helmets http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/10/02/humanitarian-propaganda-war-against-syria-led-by-avaaz-and-the-white-helmets/
"Yesterday like HRW before them they were exposed to be the fabricators and deceivers they really are. Anyone can make a mistake I hear you say, yes sure, one mistake is acceptable, 2 is questionable but a consistent conveyor belt of misleading, perception altering, “nudging” images ceases to be innocent and enters the realm of manipulation on a terrifying scale with horrifying ramifications for the people of Syria who so far, have resisted their country being plunged into the same abyss as Libya or Iraq."
black lives matter interrupts bernie and critiques his platform
white people mad
but bernie expands platform to include their issues
peace advocate creates dank meme
attempting to have same effect on bernie's contradictory war policies
dank meme group mad
peace advocate accused of trolling despite the obvious dankness of meme
dank meme gets deleted by one of group's 28 admins (which one? and why?)
bernie still encouraging more war vs syria via usa-war-proxy nations saudi arabia and turkey
does not talk about long record of human rights abuses by those nations
diplomacy result of "getting their hands dirty"? no, threat of death by ground troops and death by air
bernie propagates obama/bush/etc myth of "just war" (hey it's just war get over it)
doesn't reveal how isis and other terrorist groups created/supported by usa national "security" covert ops
doesn't reveal how destablization of mid east was pentagon's by-design-on-purpose plan *before* 9/11
has stated he will not end the drone "program"
supports zionist colonization of palestine
doesn't want constituents to know about his military contracts in vermont
sheepdog for dem side of oligarchy's political monopoly
the job description for the empire's commmander-in-thief did not change with obama
anyone who aspires to be that person deserves our fullest scrutiny
anyone who ignores endless unjust war for political gain is intellectually dishonest
This meme was created in response to a post on Facebook where Keanu is quoted. It appears to be legit and has already been shared by many. My meme is intended to be received with the sense of humor that I know he has! It was pretty obvious to me what was the root cause of his depression, further confirmed by this interview. It's the same root cause we all face. Simply acknowledging that can ironically make us feel better, knowing that we're not the only ones who feel this way. The winter holiday season is an especially depressing time of year for many, so the timing on this couldn't be more appropriate. Don't forget your vitamin D supplements and hey cheer up because the days get longer after winter solstice!
So I got an AMBER ALERT on my Android today. Seems pretty useless since it's a 6+ hour drive from Altura, CA to Portland. I also read about people in NYC getting scared shitless at 4am. While researching how to disable these alerts I discovered there are 3 other alert types: Imminent severe alert, Imminent extreme alert, and PRESIDENTIAL ALERT. The checkbox for the latter is on by default and NOT OPTIONAL. Of course there's a hack to nearly everything (google is your friend), but now I'm curious to know what messages might be sent in the future (with a healthy dose of skepticism). These alerts are all part of the Commercial Mobile Alert System brought to you by ATIS, TIA, FEMA, and DHS. I feel so much safer now.
UPDATE: Just for the record, I'm not insensitive to the kids. I mean I've never been abducted but after my parents divorced when I was 12 my mom had a mental breakdown, got arrested, and the police took my sister and I to a foster home, so I *sort of* understand what that feels like. And even without that personal experience of course I have empathy. And after reading some of the details just now I see that it is relevant to my location after all because of the direction they're headed. They probably didn't alert the entire country. OTOH since the man and girl were spotted "camping" together in Idaho it's possible that they're both trying to escape together as opposed to it being an abduction. But either way the mere fact that they were spotted by civilians is proof that the Amber Alert system is effective, as long as they don't have any more middle of the night alerts because that will only result in more people choosing to disable. Actually I'm surprised the alerts aren't more frequent because there are 115 "stereotypical kidnappings" (quoting Slate.com) per year. Still, the "conspiracy theorist" in me is reminded of Minority Report, the fictional book/film in which the gov't abused their security system for the purpose of tracking down an innocent man. Having weighed all the above issues, I have decided to re-enable the Amber Alerts on my phone. BUT I'm still highly skeptical of the Presidential Alerts.
It's been 15 months since I posted the following screen cap:
I was curious what the results are now and wow its changed a lot!
I'm looking forward to when it finally says:
conspiracy theorists oh shit they actually got it right we are sooooooo screwed if we don't get off our asses and actually do something!
At the BullRunWaiver.org town hall meeting this week, Scott Fernandez mentioned how Portland breweries don't want all the chemicals that are slated to be added to our public water if we don't defend it. I was reminded of what I heard about NYC pizza when I lived there years ago, that the dough is so great because of the water. Well it turns out both cities should be eligible for waivers from the EPA LT2 rule.
There's a dental health crisis in Portland! Our children are in pain!
Actually the untreated dental decay rate you're referencing applies to the average of the entire state of Oregon. Portland's 21% rate is significantly below the national average of 29%. In rural Oregon the rate is 44%, but those people would not "benefit" from Portland fluoridation. You can verify the stats by looking them up in the Oregon Smile Survey which you yourself have referenced as "proof" that there's a dental health crisis in Portland.
(UPDATE: Oregon Smile Survey 2012 shows dental health improvements across the state since 2007 and an analysis by KATU news reveals only about 1% less decay in fluoridated areas, which is statistically insignificant and at the very least demonstrates that fluoridation is NOT cost effective, and once again the % is even lower in NON-fluoridated Portland.)
But there's still a crisis here because fluoridated Seattle and Vancouver across the Columbia river both have lower rates!
Close examination of the Smile Surveys from both reveals that the poor kids in those fluoridated areas still have significantly higher decay rates than the not poor kids, which indicates that fluoridation makes little if any difference. In Vancouver the average decay rates improved over a 5 year period even though the water fluoridation level did not change, but the poor kids still have higher rates. The factors indicated for the differences were race, immigration status, and socioeconomic. Fluoride was not indicated as a factor at all. Keep in mind we're talking about untreated decay, so the factor we should be looking at is what % of Washingtonians vs Oregonians have dental insurance (see below).
The Pro-Fluoride campaign justifies its advocacy by contrasting Portland and Seattle, but they're not only comparing apples and oranges, but conveniently leaving out a myriad of other variables that play into community health:
Either way, there's still no crisis in Portland. Comparisons to Seattle and Vancouver are cherry-picking compared to the entire country. Many of our nation's fluoridated cities such as Chicago still have rampant decay.
Whatever, fluoride prevents cavities and it's cost-effective so we should do it anyways!
Fluoride targets the pineal gland, where the levels (up to 21,000 ppm) are by far higher than any other part of the body, including teeth and bone.
Now quoting from the National Research Council's 2006 Consensus Report pg 214 (with my emphasis in ALL CAPS):
"Whether fluoride exposure causes decreased nocturnal melatonin production or altered circadian rhythm of melatonin production in humans HAS NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED. As described above, fluoride is LIKELY to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans. Actual effects in any individual depend on age, sex, and probably other factors, although at present the mechanisms are not fully understood."
Notice they didn't say anything about "optimal levels" of water fluoridation, only that effects have not yet been investigated but are anticipated. And yet those who propose fluoridating our clean Portland water have presented us with a fraudulent "dental health crisis" in order to fast track it for industry profits before we even know what it does to our pineal glands and other soft tissues, enzymes, etc. Does this seem reasonable to you?
If the fluoridation vote passes it would be very difficult to reverse that decision. Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to wait for the studies that the NRC highly recommended?
"The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) 1981 position paper on fluoridation has recently been challenged by a lawyer, an individual with public health training, and an academic dentist, who all oppose water fluoridation. The statement from that position paper regarding insufficient evidence to recommend fluoride-free drinking water for the susceptible kidney disease population has drawn the most criticism. The availability of new information published after 1981, particularly the National Research Council’s (NRC) report on fluoridation of March 2006 is an additional critique. A recently published review by Kidney Health Australia also suggested the NKF position statement is outdated. Lastly, the American Dental Association’s listing of the National Kidney Foundation as an organization that recognizes the public health benefits of water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay has been questioned."
The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, though they erroneously describe fluoride as safe, "does not support the use of prenatal fluoride supplements".
What is our government's official tolerable level for an average human fetus? Refer to the last page of the Institute of Medicine's Dietary Reference Intake tables and you'll see IT'S NOT DEFINED. Fluoridation supporters would have us believe it's the same 10mg as for the mother, but that would mean the fetus is getting up to 7.5mg (infant serum fluoride levels at birth are approximately 75% of maternal levels) which is far more than the 0.7mg max for babies less than 6 months old. And what is the tolerable level during the first trimester? It appears that NOBODY KNOWS! But how could it possibly be 7.5mg or even 0.7mg for that matter when the fetus at that point of development is so much smaller? Do these people not understand the fundamental concept of DOSAGE BY WEIGHT?
DO WE REALLY NEED TO CONTINUE? We could also talk about the Harvard osteosarcoma coverup, additional complications for those with kidney disease, hypothyroidism, MS, fluoride allergies, etc. Or look into the public statements of the NRC panel members, including their chair person, instead of making your own biased interpretations of their 2006 report.
If we lived in a city where the water is already fluoridated and half the city's voters say, hey we want to stop the fluoridation! According to the Precautionary Principle it would be their responsibility to prove that the alleged side effects outweigh the benefits. But we don't live in that city. We live in a city that has already voted down fluoridation three times. This is our status quo. So, if you want to fluoridate the water, it's your responsibility to prove that the alleged negative side effects don't exist, or that the alleged benefits would significantly outweight the risks.
The National Research Council in 2006 indicated many serious anticipated effects even at 0.7 ppm or lower fluoride concentrations, and recommended further studies to confirm those effects and also testing on silicofluorides. We do not yet have official National Academies top-level scientific consensus on the negative effects. That is still a work in progress, which means for now you cannot prove that 0.7 ppm silico-fluoridation is safe.
The Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an act.
This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.
In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement.
We need to make it the law here, too! But for now at least we have both statutory law and legal precedent:
CITY OF PORTLAND SUSTAINABLE PROCUREMENT POLICY
In accordance with the City of Portland Sustainable City Principles  the City of Portland [the City] recognizes its responsibility to minimize negative impacts on human health and the environment while supporting a diverse, equitable, and vibrant community and economy. The City recognizes that the types of products and services the City buys have inherent social, human health, environmental and economic impacts, and that the City should make procurement decisions that embody the City’s commitment to sustainability
2.4 Toxics in Products and Services
City employees will utilize the framework of the Precautionary Principle as a guide when evaluating the comparative toxicity of products and services.
2008 Sancho vs. U.S. Department of Energy
"A plaintiff alleging a procedural injury, such as Wagner, must still establish injury in fact. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t. of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003). Injury in fact requires some “credible threat of harm.” Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 950 (9th Cir. 2002)."
Credible threat of harm from water fluoridation has been more than well enough established by the National Research Council in 2006 plus all the additional peer-reviewed studies that have been published since then as well as from the majority of public health authority decisions worldwide.
Enough already! Fluoride has been used since 1945 so it has to be safe! And too many children are suffering from rampant tooth decay and ending up in hospitals for emergency operations so we just have to do something to help the poor childrenses!!!
Wow you conspiracy theorists just don't ever quit!
We COLLUSION ANALYSTS will quit when you stop telling lies and changing the subject every time we prove you wrong and stop trying to put toxic fluoridation chemicals into our clean Portland water!
Don't care about the actual science of water fluoridation?
Well then let's look at the water fluoridation cost/benefit meta-analysis covering the entire world. Oh wait, there doesn't seem to be one. The only relevant item I've found so far in my search for that unicorn is this research article which seems to be asking the right questions:
Is caries prevention cost-effective? Does anybody care?
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, Publisher: Informa, Publication history: 1939–present, Impact factor: 1.412 (2009)
1998, , Vol. 56, No. 3 , Pages 187-192 (doi:10.1080/000163598422965)
Eli Schwarz, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China
"The main arguments of the discussion are that caries prevention is not uniformly defined by the profession, that dental research is casting doubt on the effectiveness of traditionally accepted preventive measures, that political pressures on health care are motivated by economic pressures, but that traditional cost-benefit/effectiveness analyses have not been able to help the decision-makers choose wisely. Often the time perspective for the real effects of prevention lies beyond the interests of decision-makers. Although caries prevention may be viewed as an investment in health by the profession, this contention may not be acceptable to a society with very short-term perspectives."
Here's another great question from a professional:
"Why are we paying $5 million dollars to save poor families $25 dollars per year (cash price) on something their Oregon Health Plan covers for free already anyways? These 'for the poor kids' arguments are 100% invalid and can be proven by a 5 minute call to your favorite pharmacy/dentist/insurance provider."
–Leigh Olson, Senior Certified Pharmacy Technician at Walgreens, Portland, OR
And furthermore, the alleged savings in dental healthcare costs for the city of Portland are offset by the $5 MILLION setup + $500K annual cost of fluoridation plus the increase in your water bill plus the eventual long-term healthcare costs from the negative side effects. People who suffer from diabetes, kidney disease, or hypothyroidism, and children with iodine deficiencies (12%), and others who simply refuse to ingest fluoride are forced to consume toxic fluoridation chemicals or -- IF they can afford it -- buy expensive bottled water or install PoE filters in their homes ($300 minimum). And that still doesn't solve the problem of fluorosilicic acid (no you're not getting natural calcium fluoride) contaminating our food, water fountains in schools, dispersal throughout our environment, etc. And I'm not sure how one estimates the probable zombification of society from the cumulative lifetime effects on the all-important pineal gland *regardless of dosage*, but I say that's priceless.
Basically it's a hidden tax disguised as public health program and a convenient way for industry to get rid of a toxic substance that otherwise would be very expensive for them to dispose of. Yes, they actually convert an expense into a profit
Fucking GENIUS. Where do I sign up?
Are children in pain or sometimes even dying because of lack of fluoride? No, their poor dental health is from inadequate dental hygiene and consuming too much sugar, plus the ADA does everything in its power fighting against tax-funded dental healthcare and mid-level practitioners. This investigation reveals how the ADA maintains its exemption from Medicare and also how -- and why -- they enforce water fluoridation (because they profit from it!), not just at the federal level but also in each state, trickling down to Portland's own "Healthy Kids Healthy Portland".
“The No. 1 obstacle has been organized dentistry.”
Nowadays, there are a lot of seals on products. Everyone from the American Academy of Dermatology to the American Cancer Society seems to offer some sort of seal for products you buy every day. Obviously, the manufacturers love it because they hope it leads to increased sales. Did you know, however, that many of the approving organizations are paid for their seals? In many cases, there are no independent tests performed and the consumers are sort of left wondering what it all means.
Yes I am on a Star Wars kick lately, but these are fun to make!
In honor of the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr, today I am volunteering to shoot the fuck out of some paper targets with high-powered firearms. I wish I had a Malcolm X t-shirt.
The following ebook was originally published by Brother Jonathan Gazette (brojon.org). That website no longer exists. It is archived at archive.org, but since there is no guarantee it will remain there (don't be surprised if that entire site eventually gets shut down for "copyright infringement") I have decided to reprint here as well. It's always good to have multiple backups, and this is a story that everyone needs to know. Of course there's no guarantee it will remain here either, so print it out and save to your own computer!
It is problematic that there are no references included and I have not been able to find support for some of the specific claims (particularly Herbert Hoover's alleged discovery of oil off the coast of Vietnam). I would prefer more substantiation, but it hardly sounds like the incoherent ramblings of a madman. Relative to everything else we know, the motives for war outlined here are more logical than any other theories, and far more so than what our government and mass media would have us believe.
BLACK GOLD HOT GOLD
The Rise of Fascism in the American Energy Business
by Marshall Douglas Smith
May 7th, 2001
The Hidden History of the International Corporations which Created and Controlled the Events of the 20th Century. As We Enter the 21st Century "... The new Empire of Energy was just scant years away from complete world domination." Price rises and world oil wars were the payoff.
Chapter 5: WTC, Towers of Siloam
Chapter 5 was never published and Marshall Douglas Smith seems to have disappeared off the face of the Internet. Hmmm.
BONUS: War in Gaza = War Over Natural Gas?
In context of all the above, this makes perfect sense now, too:
What more logical reason could Israel have for coveting such a small strip of land?
What is often called the German or Italian form of Fascism had its roots in America. Both Hitler and Mussolini were funded and brought into power in the 1920's and '30s by international bankers, including the 12 banks which now make up the American Federal Reserve System. But I get ahead of myself.
Beginning in the late 1800's, John D. Rockefeller, by means of a deception, using a ploy with his Union Tanker Car Company was able to control or "corner" the oil market. In this scheme, he owned the company which had the design patent for the all-metal sealed oil tanker railroad car. The same type of tanker cars are still in use today. Rockefeller, through Union Tanker Car, leased tanker cars by the hundreds to the owners of newly discovered oil fields so they could ship the crude to the refiners. This often included kickbacks from the railroad for increasing the profitable traffic on their rails.
In the late 1800's, prior to the design of the tanker railroad car, petroleum was shipped to the refiner in open wooden barrels on flatbed cars. Some of the oil was lost as it sloshed out whenever the train stopped or started or went around corners. Much of the valuable part of the crude oil simply evaporated from the open barrels before it got to the refiner, often leaving only a heavy black tar. The wooden barrels were difficult and time consuming to fill and drain.
The closed metal tanker car was a boon to the new petroleum business. After several months of oil field development and shipments from the numerous wells being sunk in the ground, and after the refiner had built new facilities to handle the increased flow of crude, Union Tanker broke the lease and took back all of its tanker cars.
Since there was no other source for the tanker cars, both the oil field developer and the refiner began to lose money caused by the instantaneous stoppage of the oil flow from field to refinery. Within months the oil producer and the refiner, after making large investments, were now on the verge of bankruptcy. Then John Rockefeller, through his holding company, Standard Oil, simply walked in and purchased both the oil fields and the refinery at pennies on the dollar. He usually also ended up with the railroad in between.
Despite his reputation as an oil magnate, John D himself was not really an oilman. He had little experience as either an oil driller or refiner. He simply leased oil tanker cars and made money buying oil fields and refineries at "distressed" prices. To run his oil fields and refineries, Rockefeller often hired the very same entrepreneurs whom he had just defrauded. They now worked for him. Only many decades later was it discovered who caused the "distress." And any Rockefeller today will point out, "...but it was not illegal."
In the period of 1900 to 1910 this conspiracy was repeated numerous times and Standard Oil then owned almost all the oil fields in California, Texas, Arkansas, New Jersey and Ohio, and several other states. Thus John D. Rockefeller either owned or controlled about 90% of what we now call the energy business. At that time, research shows, not many people knew that Rockefeller owned the Union Tanker Car Company. Otherwise, very few oilmen would have signed bogus leases for the cars if they had known that John D. and Standard Oil owned all the tanker cars.
Many "muckraker" authors of the early 1900's, such as Ida Tarbell, exposed the predatory monopolist marketing practice of Standard Oil. But the Rockefeller connection with Union Tanker, and how Standard came into being, was not discovered until many decades later. And it still is not in the history books. And most of those few books which did show the connection between John Rockefeller and the Union Tanker Car Company have somehow mysteriously disappeared, but not all.
In 1911, the US government brought charges of monopoly against John D. and Standard Oil, and the company was broken apart. The many new companies all had names which were variations of the initials S.O., such as SOHIO in Ohio, SOCONY in New York, ESSO ("S.O.") which later became EXXON, etc. The splitting of the company was a mere inconvenience for Rockefeller. In retaliation, John D. made a vow. He vowed he would put his company back together. He also vowed in turn he would "break apart" the United States. He and his sons and grandsons and their companies have accomplished both. It was completed about 8 years ago. Again, I get ahead of myself.
In the period of 1910 to 1914 there were only three major oil companies in the world, (1) Standard Oil in America and its many "mini-S.O.-standards" after the 1911 breakup, (2) the British-Persian Petroleum Company, which controlled the large oilfields in Persia (now Iran), roughly extending up into southern Russia, and (3) Royal Dutch Shell which controlled the vast oil fields in the old Dutch East Indies Colonies in Indonesia and southeast Asia. John D. resolved to take over control of both the British-Persian Petroleum company and Royal Dutch Shell.
Rockefeller believed the world would be better served if all nasty corporate competition were eliminated. Then he could make the decisions to market petroleum like an efficient, smooth running, well oiled machine. It was simply a continuation of his business practice in the US for the previous 10 years. In several inter-corporate meetings around 1910 this was almost accomplished. He was distracted when the US government broke apart his oil holdings, but he was not deterred.
The big three oil companies agreed, instead, to act jointly as if they were one company, the first oil cartel. They settled on one world price for oil, which from 1910 to about 1975 was the world pegged price of "West Texas Sweet Crude." The law of "supply-and-demand" had been subverted. It was as if everyone bought their oil in Texas from Standard Oil regardless of from where in the world the oil came. They also agreed to divide up the world into three oil zones to match their local oil supplies and markets. To accomplish this they would need to eliminate or take over control of all other smaller local national ownerships of crude oil, or even the colonial ownership of any oil fields, such as in the old colonies of France, Germany, Spain and Portugal.
This was the purpose of World War I from 1914 to 1918, though few people realized it. The elimination of most of the colonialism of the 1800's and the carving up of the world was completed with the Treaty of Versailles. The arbitrary carving of the world into three primary areas is well documented in history books. Until recently, whose hands were behind the carving had not been disclosed.
For Standard Oil to participate in the drawing up of the Treaty of Versailles, the United States would need to participate in WWI. Although the US entered the conflict belatedly and actually had a minimal affect on the outcome of the European war, the US was in on the negotiations and a signatory to the treaty. All went well, but, there was a fly in the ointment. In 1917, Russia did not go along with the plan to steal their huge oilfields. Russia had pulled out of WWI and did not participate in the Treaty of Versailles. The Bolsheviks, after several years of revolution, now had the world's largest supply of oil in southern Russia. Those vast oil fields were not under the control of either Standard, British Petroleum or Royal Dutch.
Prior to World War I, the most common use for petroleum was to make kerosene, a cheap replacement for the smelly whale oil or smoky coal oil in lamps for homes or businesses. Before the general use of electric light bulbs, kerosene was a product which was highly desirable, with a world-wide market. During WWI, it was discovered that petroleum could also be easily refined to make gasoline or diesel fuel for the internal combustion engines that were in the new airplanes, trucks, ships, submarines and tanks developed during the war.
Thus it became clear after 1918, ownership of oil was not only highly profitable but could now determine who won or lost a war. No longer would empires be built on, nor wars fought in the search for and conquest of gold. Gold had been superseded as the means to obtain political power. The internal combustion engine had replaced the war horse. In a period of only several years, a sudden shift in the geopolitics of the world had just occurred. And most people never noticed. He who has the most oil rules. Oil, black gold, became the fuel for the engines of war. A new world empire was about to be created. A new empire, not based on countries or nations, but of private corporations.
The arbitrary carving of the world into three pieces by the Big 3 oil companies in 1918, as determined by the Treaty of Versailles, was one of the reasons why Adolf Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews. John D. Rockefeller, whose family name had originally been something like the Germanic Rogenfelder, was considered Jewish by most Europeans. Since Germany had just lost all its colonies with their oil fields under the arbitrary carving of national boundaries along oil market lines by the Versailles Treaty, Hitler blamed the "Jews" for all of Germany's problems. Hitler believed those whose hands had done the carving were all Jewish. That's right out of Hitler's book.
For John Rockefeller to overcome the problem of his oil holdings being broken apart by the US government in 1911, he created another stratagem even larger than the Union Tanker Car Company. He took his vast wealth and created 12 large holding banks we now know as the private Federal Reserve. The plot was to somehow sell his banks to the US Congress. He succeeded two years later in 1913.
All federal taxes collected since 1913 go through the private Federal Reserve System banks, whether they are gas taxes, import excise taxes or income taxes. You file your tax return with the Internal Revenue Service, but all the tax money withheld by your employer is sent to a Federal Reserve Bank. At the end of the fiscal year, the government IRS reports to the private Federal Reserve Banks how much income tax is reported on tax returns and then that amount should be transferred to the Federal government. The private Federal Reserve then pays that amount, but does not report or pay the interest earned on that money during the year. That is profit to the Federal Reserve Banks. This is now true of the so-called "central banks" of most nations, which were chartered along the same lines as the American Federal Reserve banks.
That is why they want you to "overpay" your taxes, and then at the end of the year, when you file your return with the IRS, you get back a refund, not from the Fed Banks, but with a check from the US Treasury. The private Fed earns interest on the amount you overpay, but the government Treasury loses the amount you get refunded. The private Federal Reserve pays no taxes and reports to no one. Thus, John Rockefeller and his heirs and assigns, have a cash flow each year equal to a good percentage of the American gross national product and that would be enough to buy out British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, even if Standard Oil was broken into smaller pieces.
Thus financially armed, the very next year, Standard Oil, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch set out to carve up the world into three markets in 1914, in what we call World War I. But ended up with the lion's share of the world's oil still in the hands of the Bolsheviks, later ignominiously called "communists." The Socialists wanted the Russian state to control the national resources such as oil, and not private profit making companies like Standard, British Petroleum or Royal Dutch.
It would be hard for the Big 3 to corner and control the world oil market if the Russians still had the lion's share. To counter the Russian socialists, the Big 3 created and supported numerous "anti-communist" movements, which we now call Fascist. In Fascism, private profit-making corporations work hand-in-hand with governments, as opposed to Socialism where private companies are eliminated, and the country's resources and means of production are controlled by the government, usually a dictator, and the people. The profit from the sale of resources or goods produced goes to the people of the country, not some private corporation.
It was John D. Rockefeller who called the shots at the early Big 3 oil company meetings, even though he could not yet buy out his competitors, the British and the Dutch companies. Thus, as I said previously, Fascism, as a counter to Russian "communism," came right from the US. The Bolsheviks, Marxists and Leninists had long called themselves "socialists." The USSR was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. They never called themselves "communists." It was John D. and the Big 3 who coined the word and branded them "communists." This was because the Russian Socialists held the oil fields as "community property" and did not allow private corporations like Standard to come in and privately own or steal the oil resources.
Fascism grew out of the attempt of the Big 3 oil companies to form a world cartel to control the world's supply of petroleum and eliminate any other competitors which they branded as "communists." Thus at the end of WWI, after the Treaty of Versailles, and the take over of the large oil fields in southern Russia by the socialists, came the creation of both "communism" and "fascism." Both were constructs, inventions and ploys of the Big 3: Standard Oil, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. It was a deception which would lead to world empire.
In the 1920's and '30s the Big 3 decided on a plan to eliminate Russian control of oil by "hiring" the small "fascist" movements in Germany and Japan to attack and take over Russia and thus eliminate any state control of oil fields. Most historians would blame large international bankers for funding the rise of fascism. But the bankers had no motivation and fringe fascists parties in Germany, Italy and Japan did not look like good financial risks. But for the Big 3 Oil companies there was a strong motivation to use the "fascists" to defeat the "communists" in Russia and take over the world oil market. And the vast oil wealth which they stored in their international banks provided them with the means. In the 1920's the opportunity was ripe.
Thus the small fascist political parties in Germany, Japan and Italy were given massive Big 3 financial backing to help those minor political parties come to power and build up their military. But things did not go quite as they had planned. The aging John D. had died and his son and four grandsons had decided they would carve up the world along different lines, and at the same time eliminate their competitors, the British and Dutch oil companies.
In 1939 and '40, the Germans did not attack Russia as the Big 3 had expected. Instead German General Rommel went rushing across north Africa to grab the Suez Canal and control all oil shipping through the canal. He then planned to continue on to Persia and toss out the British from the British-Persian oil fields. Also in 1939 the Japanese, after a short abortive attack on Russia in which they were driven out, instead went through southeast Asia and grabbed up all the oil holdings of Royal Dutch Shell. Most of those Royal Dutch fields at the end of the WWII came under the control of Standard Oil.
The British and Dutch companies probably knew in 1939 that their "fascist oil" plan to grab the fields in southern "communist" Russia had gone astray when both the Germans and the Japanese signed non-aggression pacts with Russia, and instead went after the Persian and East Indies oil fields. The grandsons of John D. were as sneaky and devious as their grandfather, but that's the competitive nature of the oil business in the new empire of energy.
The new Standard Oil plan was to have Germany and Japan attack and control Russia and its oil, along with the fields in Persia and Indonesia, then the US would attack and defeat Germany and Japan, thus leaving all the Russian oil in the hands of Standard Oil. And at the same time the holdings of British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell would then be taken from the Germans and Japanese, which would then also be controlled by Standard. And no one would be the wiser, since the British and Dutch fields would then just be the spoils of war.
When it became clear that neither the Japanese nor Germans "fascists" could complete the jobs for which they were "hired," the American people were tricked into supplying the man-power by entering WWII after the Pearl Harbor incident. In 1941, while nobody seems to have been watching, the Japanese had become a very powerful militaristic nation, well endowed with foreign funding from the Big 3, but they had no energy or oil supply of their own. They relied on the supply of oil for their new planes, ships, tanks and trucks coming from the Royal Dutch fields in nearby Indonesia.
In July 1941, President Roosevelt signed an embargo to stop all shipping to Japan, presumably in retaliation for the recent Japanese invasion of French Indo-china. The Roosevelts and the Rockefellers had long had friendly family ties. Roosevelt's US embargo cut off the Japanese oil supply, which would have quickly shut down Japan, with the obvious result. In late November 1941 the Japanese sent a written "war warning" through diplomatic channels to Washington, declaring the embargo should be stopped, or else many American sites in the Pacific would be attacked in retaliation. That formal diplomatic warning was ignored and the US sent back no reply. Just two weeks later the Japanese broke the embargo, by bombing the American embargo ships parked in Pearl Harbor.
It was no surprise attack. The Japanese had formally announced it two weeks before. It was only the obvious result of the American strangulation of the oil flow to Japan, and a clearly stated Japanese warning which had been received and ignored. The American public had been fooled into thinking it was a sneak surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Since Franklin Roosevelt said so, it must be true. The Pacific war turned out to be a prolonged aircraft carrier war. Strangely, the US aircraft carriers in the Pacific Fleet had been sent on maneuvers just several days before the attack and none were in Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. Coincidence?
And it must also be by some strange logic, if Japan attacks the US, then the US also declares war on Germany. Unless, of course, there is some other larger plan afoot. The historical record shows Germany had not attacked nor engaged the US in conflict, so why did Roosevelt declare war on Germany in December 1941?
Records now show, that Hitler's plan had been to first capture the oilfields in Romania by 1939 so Germany would have its own supply of oil. This was accomplished. Then Rommel would capture the oilfields in Persia by 1941, then capture the oilfields in Russia in 1942, and only then would Hitler have sufficient fuel for prosecuting a war with the United States. But the Japanese, on December 11, 1941, less than a week after the Pearl Harbor incident, convinced Hitler to also declare war on the United States. Hitler agreed only if the Japanese would attack Russia, since the fascists were now bogged down in Russia and Hitler would be helped if the Russians had to defend themselves from Japan. But the Japanese did not attack Russia. Hitler was driven out of Russia and now was without a fuel source. Was this the war plan of the new Empire of Energy?
The Romanian oilfields in Ploesti were insufficient for Germany to carry on a war on two fronts. With American assistance going to Stalin to protect his southern Russian oilfields and with Rommel stopped in Africa so he could not reach the Persian oilfields, it was only a matter of time until Germany's war engines would run out of fuel. By the time of the Allied invasion of Europe on June 6, 1944, Germany was running on fumes. The last major German attack against the Allied invasion force was the Battle of the Bulge. Hitler had intended for Rommel to attack the invading allies with his tanks, then capture the fuel dumps which the allies had amassed. This would stop the American and British forces, and obtain needed fuel.
But when German General Rommel got to the fuel dumps he found American General Eisenhower had ordered them burned. No, the Allies did not win the Battle of the Bulge. It was Rommel and Hitler who lost. Rommel's panzer tanks simply ran out of gas. The German army abandoned their tanks right where they had quit. After that it was a rather swift footrace with the Allies chasing the Germans in a fast retreat back to Berlin. Is there something wrong with this picture? Yes. Its not the one you were taught in school. You were taught the story about the horrors of "fascism" and "communism" but you weren't taught about how black gold had now become the motive and the means for war. He who owns the oil rules. World War II was a demonstration of both, and the new power of the Empire of Energy.
So the Japanese, the Germans and even the Americans were deceived into fighting the "enemy." But in fact, at the end of the war in 1945, it was Standard Oil who won the war in the Pacific and had taken control of most of the oil fields in the Pacific area from Royal Dutch Shell. All that was left was to acquire the oil fields in Persia and Russia. The new Empire of Energy was just scant years away from complete world domination.
Following World War II, the British-Persian Oil Company still controlled the vast oil fields in Iran. The Persians had already shown they were aligned with Adolf Hitler's fascist "Aryan Race" movement and were fully expecting German General Rommel to come rushing across Africa and "free" them from the British. They showed this by even changing the name of their country from Persia to "Aryan," or "Iran" in the Farsi language. But the Germans failed to arrive.
After the war, British control of the Persian oilfields was soon easily eliminated. In 1954 Kermit Roosevelt, nephew of Franklin, led an American CIA coup to wrest control of Iran and placed in power the American-backed Shah of Iran. The Shah drove out the British. Standard Oil now had control of the British-Persian petroleum fields.
But what of the still vaster oil fields in southern Russia? Also in 1954, with negotiations made through Occidental Petroleum's Armand Hammer, a deal was made with Russian dictator Nikita Khruschev. The arrangement was to buy his oil, actually steal it from the Russian people, and sell it on the world market at a much higher price than Khruschev could get by selling it himself. Khruschev was no oil marketer. Few countries would be willing to deal with or buy oil from Khruschev, thus there was almost no market for the Russian oil.
The simple but devious method was to build two large pipelines, which still exist today, going from the Russian oil fields down along both sides of the Caspian Sea and then terminate in the old British-Persian oil fields in Iran, which by then were controlled by Standard Oil. Was Russia selling oil to oil-rich Iran? Or Iran selling to oil-rich Russia? There would seem no logical reason for building those two huge pipe lines simply going from one oil field to another.
For over 45 years, Russia has been sneaking its oil out through those pipe lines and selling its oil on the world market at the "West Texas Crude" price by calling it Iranian oil. Its what most Americans have been putting in their cars for almost 50 years. This is made evident by the fact that most large American oil refineries which produce gasoline from crude oil are located at large sea ports like San Francisco, Houston or Los Angeles, and not near any of the large American oil fields. Oil is mostly shipped in oil tankers, not explosive flammable gasoline, so those large American refinery-ports are only for the import of crude oil, not for the export of refined gasoline. Thus there is a simple one-way massive flow of oil from Russian fields, through Iran to large super oil tanker ships, to American refineries, and then into American cars.
Many times, since 1973, whenever the price of gasoline skyrockets, American's are told its their own fault, since they are relying on using too much expensive foreign oil. When was the last time you went to the gas station to fill your tank and were given a choice of pumping either the American gas or the expensive foreign gas, and you decided, "Hmm, I think I'll buy the foreign gas." It turns out somebody else has already chosen for you. Guess who?
Standard now had almost complete control of the world market for energy. To make this scheme work, both Khruschev in Russia and the Shah in Iran had to be paid handsomely. But buying off the leaders of dictatorships is easy when money is no object. The problem is maintaining the dictators in power, especially when the local populace learns their natural resources are being stolen.
In 1979, when the Standard Oil-backed Shah of Iran was thrown out by his own people as a harsh iron-fisted "profiteering" dictator and the nationalist Ayatollah took over, the flow of Russian oil through Iran suddenly stopped. Other pipelines were constructed through Iraq and Turkey. The Russian oil was now called OPEC Arabian-Middle Eastern oil and marketed at the even higher "spot market" price. This accounts for the gas shortages and the rise of the price of gasoline in 1979.
On November 4, 1979 the Iranian “revolutionaries” captured and held hostage 65 Americans. The very next day Iran canceled all treaties with the US and USSR, which meant the oil flow had been stopped. In response, President Carter froze the Iranian “assets” in the US. Why would the US have nearly $8 billion in Iranian assets? Were those the regular payments which were to be made to the Shah for covering up the Russian oil transfer? Did the new Iranian government want the money which was due and payable or else they would expose the oil scheme? The lengthy Iran-Iraq war had just started and Iran needed the money.
Most Americans and historians believe somehow the election of President Reagan was the reason for holding the remaining 52 American hostages until the very day when Reagan was inaugurated. Most people are not aware the hostages were actually released only moments after the year-long negotiations and the complex electronic transfer was completed of 7.9 billion dollars from US accounts to the Iranian accounts on January 20, 1981. Carter had announced the day before on January 19th that the arrangements had been made, but the news media paid little attention. It was Standard Oil, not the United States, which was being “blackmailed” by the Iranians. President Carter had “frozen” the Iranian accounts, but that was not US money. It was oil money, and Ronald Reagan was not a player in that game.
Also in 1979 an attempt to secure an alternate short safe oil pipeline route from Russia through neighboring Afghanistan only resulted in a prolonged war and that project was dropped. Sometimes you can fool some of the people, but not always.
Another, safer and more profitable oil route was desperately needed which would not be open to revolution and warfare. Both of which could affect the flow of oil. For over 25 years, it appears the new method has been to transfer oil through the long Trans-Siberian pipeline stretching from the southern Russian oilfields to the Arctic Sea in eastern Siberia. Then the Russian oil is brought down through the Alaska Pipe line and marketed as North Slope American oil. All during this time something called the “anti-communist” Cold War was occurring, but in the larger Empire of Energy, such things do not exist.
In early 1990, the USSR announced through the TASS news service that the Trans-Siberian Pipeline would need extended maintenance and for about a year would be reducing their oil output by 25%. Four days later the Alaska Pipeline company, announced they would be doing extended maintenance and for about a year would be reducing their oil output by 25%. Coincidence? Those two stories were both reported by the Associated Press several days apart in 1990, but nobody seems to have put them together. The Arctic Sea is a navigational "no-mans" land and only "military" ships are allowed there, so any transfer is easily hidden.
OPEC itself is another Standard Oil scheme which, by arbitrarily withholding supplies of oil, can drive up the price. This is reminiscent of the old Union Tanker Car Company method of getting the customer to start the oil flow going, then arbitrarily cutting off the supply in order to "corner" the market, drive out competitors, and raise the prices. OPEC should not really have any affect on the world price of oil since it controls only about 10 percent of the total world supply, unless one wants to believe all American oil comes from Arabia. Which it doesn't, since most world oil comes from the vastly larger oil fields in Russia. And it is Standard and its spin-offs which control most of the Russian and Arabian oil.
You probably think most of what I said here doesn't make sense. How could Rockefeller's Standard Oil be doing all that? You probably think, wait a minute, where is Standard Oil? I never even hear about them anymore. Does it still exist? Yes. In the Wednesday January 27, 1988, Wall Street Journal, in a full two-page double-truck ad, it was announced that little Standard Oil was merging with big brother British Petroleum. Could this be true? British Petroleum then had very few productive holdings compared to Standard Oil which controlled much of the world market.
The scheme was, when they announced the merger, actually finally a Standard Oil buyout of British Petroleum, the name of the new merged company was BP-America. In other words, BP is Standard Oil. Standard Oil simply took over the assets and the name of British Petroleum. The name was chosen to hide that fact. Seemingly, all fears and worries about the world-wide predatory marketing practices of Standard Oil have now been allayed and put to rest -- since the name Standard Oil is never mentioned again.
In the last 12 years, during a period of many large companies merging, such as AOL-Time-Warner, etc., BP-America has also merged again and again and changed its name. It is now known as BP-AMOCO but it has in fact bought up, merged with, or controls all of the old Standard Oil "mini-companies" which came from the original breakup by the US government way back in 1911.
Thus, John D. Rockefeller's vow of recombining his original Standard Oil Company has been accomplished, even though it was done by his grandsons and their progeny. BP-AMOCO recently took over control of the Alaska Pipeline. There may appear to be several companies like Texaco or Mobil all drilling on the north slope of Alaska, but it's John D's offspring who now control the price at the spigot in Valdez Harbor. And of course, it's that spigot which is at the end of a very long pipeline stretching all the way to the world's largest oil source in southern Russia. The Empire of Energy now seemed to only have one obstacle left in its way.
In 1945, at the end of WWII, when the Japanese surrendered, General Douglas MacArthur became the military Governor of Japan. MacArthur's assistant was Laurence Rockefeller, one of John D's four grandsons. Just before the Japanese surrendered, the US had been preparing for a massive invasion of the Japanese home islands and had stockpiled vast supplies of weapons and munitions on the island of Okinawa. Enough weaponry to invade Japan. What ever happened to all those military supplies?
With Vice-governor Laurence Rockefeller's assistance most of them were sold to the leader of Viet Nam, Ho Chi Minh, for something like one US dollar and Ho’s "goodwill." Why would Laurence do that? That was US taxpayer property. Ho Chi Minh had been an ally to help fight the Japanese during the war. But the Chinese had been an even greater ally, so why didn’t the weapons go to China? Those weapons might have prevented Mao Tse Tung from taking over China just four years later if they had been given to China. But that wasn’t the plan. From where did Mao get his weapons?
In the 1920's an insider secret became known to a few people. It was published in an exhaustive world resources survey book written by a renowned world-traveling geologist named Hoover, who later became a US President. Not many copies were printed and few people read the book. The secret was that one of the world's largest potential oil fields ran along the coast of the South China Sea right off French Indo-China, now known as Viet Nam. But in the 1920's the method of deep sea oil drilling had not yet been developed. In 1945, the French still held small oil-poor Viet Nam as a colony. Laurence knew about Hoover’s book and the off shore oilfields. The French could be driven out if the Vietnamese nationals, lead by Ho Chi Minh, could be supplied with weapons. Did the French know about this?
Laurence Rockefeller thought he could trick Ho Chi Minh by offering him the weapons to drive out the French and then in return Standard would take over the as yet undeveloped offshore fields. But in 1954 when Vietnamese General Giap finally defeated and drove out the French at Dien Bien Phu, Ho reneged on the deal. Since by then, everybody including the French, the Vietnamese, the Japanese and the Chinese had all read the same Hoover resource book and knew there was a vast supply of oil off the Vietnamese coast. Many people have wondered why the French have been so recalcitrant toward the US ever since French President Charles DeGaul wanted to pull out of NATO in the mid-1950's.
Ho Chi Minh would not let Standard Oil simply walk in and walk off with all the Vietnamese oil. So as before, any country which owns the oil is branded as "communist" since they hold the oil as "community property" and won't allow private corporations, like Standard, to develop the fields and steal the oil. In this case, young American's themselves where "hired" directly to be the "fascists" to go fight the Vietnamese "communists."
The whole 20 year Viet Nam “war” from 1955 to 1975 was an oil scam. And all during the "war," Vietnamese General Giap fought the Americans with weapons he got from Laurence for a dollar. Did you ever wonder why the US, despite, greatly superior weapons, and the loss of 57,000 Americans and half a million Vietnamese, never won the "war?" Ever wonder why the US President issued such strange “rules of engagement” for the American troops that made sure they didn’t win? Ever wonder why Henry Kissinger, a personal assistant to Nelson Rockefeller spent so much time in the Viet Nam/Paris Peace talks which never went anywhere but simply dragged on for years. Maybe winning the “war” wasn’t part of the plan of the Empire of Energy. Maybe the timing of the “war” was more important.
In the 1950's a method of undersea oil exploration was perfected which used small explosions deep in the water and then recorded the sound echos bouncing off the various layers of rock below. The surveyor could then determine the exact location of the arched salt domes which hold the accumulated oil beneath them. But if this method were used off the Viet Nam coast on property Standard didn't own or have the rights to, the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Japanese and probably even the French would quickly run to the United Nations and complain that America was stealing the oil, and that would shut down the operation.
In 1964, after Viet Nam was divided into North and South, and the contrived Gulf of Tonkin incident, several US aircraft carriers were stationed offshore of Viet Nam and the "war" was started. Every day jet planes would take off from the carriers, bomb locations in North and South Vietnam, and then using normal military procedure when returning would dump their unsafe or unused bombs in the ocean before landing back on the carriers. Safe ordnance drop zones were designated for this purpose away from the carriers.
Even close-up observers would only notice many small explosions occurring daily in the waters of the South China Sea and thought it was only part of the "war." The US Navy carriers had begun Operation Linebacker One, and Standard Oil had begun its ten year oil survey of the seabed off of Viet Nam. And the Vietnamese, Chinese and everybody else around, including the Americans, were none the wiser. The oil survey hardly cost Standard Oil a nickel, the US taxpayers paid for it.
In 1995, in a multi-hour BBC TV documentary broadcast about the oil industry, the president of one of the oil companies, a spin-off of Standard, stated, ".. It was quite a coincidence, that we finished our offshore oil survey on the very last day of the war, just as the last helicopter was leaving the roof of the embassy in Saigon." A coincidence?
Fifteen years later, after North and South Viet Nam were unified and all the dust settled and most people had forgotten about the "war," the Vietnamese decided they needed some cash and would allow offshore oil exploration. They divided up their coastal area into many oil lots and let foreign companies bid on the lots, with the proviso that Viet Nam got a cut of the action.
Oil companies from 12 countries put in bids. Norway's Statoil, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, even Russia, Germany and Australia all put in bids. But when those countries drilled in their oil lots they all came up with dry holes. Only the "American" company had gushers and since 1990 has pulled billions of dollars out of their Golden Dragon, Blue Lotus, and White Tiger oil fields in the South China Sea off Viet Nam. Coincidence? Were they just lucky? Or did they know something those other oil companies didn’t?
In order to cover for the fact that the Viet Nam “war” was a "phoney" war with the Vietnamese branded as "communists," and the US as a country having no intention of winning, the US would need to withdraw as soon as the oil survey was done. A reason would be needed to explain the withdrawal. In the late 1960's Standard recruited large numbers of idealistic youth who were against the war and the military draft. The oil companies supplied them with monetary assistance and organization.
Those oil-backed and organized youth became the large anti-war demonstrations of the 60's and 70's. Almost none of the demonstrators knew they were being used. Most people still believe the “war” ended because of the strong US sentiment against the “war,” and President Nixon's withdrawal plan was a reaction to the demonstrators. There is too much information which explains the strange relationship between Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller, the Nixon withdrawal plan and the resulting Watergate incident and Nelson's rise to power to become Vice President after Nixon resigned, so I will explain that later.
So it appears there are many oil companies but they are, in fact, all under one controlling marketeer, BP also known as Standard Oil, which sets the world price of energy. Ever wonder why President G.W. Bush wanted to open up new drilling in Alaska? There is a vast new undeveloped oil field discovered in 1989 around and under the Caspian Sea in central southern Russia. This one oil field is larger than any other field ever discovered. This oil could be sent out through the Siberian Pipeline to the Arctic Sea, then down the Alaska Pipeline, as is the Black Sea oil. Something would need to account for the greatly increased and continuous flow of oil in the Alaska pipeline.
New drilling in Alaska, whether oil is found or not, could be used to explain why so much oil is still coming from the Alaska pipeline. Nobody ever mentioned that the North Slope Alaska oil fields, around the Duck Island Western Facility, operated by BP, were running dry and that was the reason why new drilling was needed. Maybe because its not true. Nobody ever mentioned that the Prudhoe Bay Eastern Facility, just a mile or so east of Duck Island, also operated by BP, at the very top of the Alaska Pipeline is a harbor. Maybe nobody wanted you to know.
And exactly where is this new freshly discovered mother of all oil fields in southern Russia? In a province called Chechnya. Is it any wonder the Chechens wanted to become an independent state? Is it any wonder there had been an ongoing ten year war between the Russian and Chechen troops. Did the Russians “brand” the Chechen rebels as “communists” because they want to keep their own oil? Most Russian mothers have no clue why their sons were sent to die in Chechnya. The same was true of the many Russian mothers whose sons died in Afghanistan. And also the very same is true of many American mothers whose sons died in Viet Nam.
The vast new oilfield under Chechnya, by itself, could meet the world’s needs for energy for several hundred years. This new oil supply was far more than could be handled by the aging Trans-Siberia and Alaska pipelines. With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the Russian oil could then be marketed directly. A new overland transport method needed to be built. An obvious and short method would be to build a pipeline westward from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea and then existing oil tanker ships could take the oil across the Black Sea, through the narrow Bosporus channel at Istanbul, Turkey to the Mediterranean Sea and then on to the rest of the world.
There was only one problem with that route. The older Russian oil fields around the Black Sea still produced enough oil to create a daily traffic jam of tanker ships through the narrow Bosporus channel. That long channel is barely wide enough in some places for two ships to pass each other. The Turks live in constant fear of an ecological disaster caused by an oil tanker accident on the very doorstep of Istanbul, which surrounds the channel.
The Bosporus Channel was already beyond the safe limit for tanker traffic so the massive supply of new Chechen oil could not be shipped that way. Seven other long pipeline routes had been proposed in the 1990's. All of them required reaching the Mediterranean Sea by going through politically unstable regions such as eastern Turkey, Syria or Lebanon, all of which are areas of unrest and open to terrorist attack. None of those routes were viable.
In 1995 a seemingly safe and short alternative route was discovered to get around the unsafe overloaded Bosporus Channel in Turkey. The oil tankers on the Black Sea, instead of going south through the narrow Bosporus, would turn northward up the wide Danube River toward Europe. But then at Belgrade, in Serbian Yugoslavia the tankers would make a quick left turn up a tributary river, unload the oil, and with only a short 50 mile pipeline could reach the large Mediterranean seaport of Tirana, Albania and then on to the world. It looked cheap and easy. And where would that short pipeline be built? Across a small province called Kosovo. If only Kosovo could be placed under some international control to eliminate terrorist attacks and ensure a safe pipeline.
The US Air Force tried to put Serbia and Kosovo under NATO control in 1999. It almost worked. But, Albania was unlike all the other old Yugoslavian ethnic states which had been client states of the USSR under the dictator Tito. Albania, alone in that region, had been a client state of China since 1949. The Chinese had long used Tirana, Albania as a European opium and heroin shipping point, in an operation far larger than the “French Connection” in Marseilles. The Albanians still maintain ties with China.
The Chinese, did not want to see large amounts of new energy supplies flowing to the west under BP-Standard control. The Chinese supported and used the “ethnic-Albanian rebels," since the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990's, to ensure continuous unrest in the whole region around Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia, and thus no pipeline. Ever wonder why the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was "accidently" bombed and obliterated in 1999? The US Air Force claimed the old street maps their pilots were reading didn't show the Chinese Embassy. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not always. Within a year the Empire of Energy would find an alternative. To most Americans and to the rest of the world that alternative would look like a very strange Presidential election.
About the same time as the beginning of the Viet Nam war there arose another large threat to Standard Oil control of the world's energy supply. And that was the development of nuclear energy. The ability and knowledge to extract uranium ore from the ground and turn it into a cheap, clean non-polluting energy source had been developed during WWII. Unlike all carbon- based petroleum products, which when burned or oxidized emit carbon dioxide, along with other contaminates into the atmosphere, nuclear fuel in a properly sealed reactor has no emissions.
For reasons of national security, all supplies of uranium ore were placed under strict national control of primarily the governments of the US and the USSR. Private ownership or control of uranium and plutonium as an energy source was not allowed. The new concept of taking another natural resource and turning it into energy with enough supply already currently mined and available to supply the world's energy needs for the next 500 years, would have put all oil companies, including Standard, quickly out of business. Something needed to be done to counter that and fast.
Using the same technique as setting up and organizing the anti- war demonstrators to cover for the Vietnamese offshore oil surveys and blaming the "war" on the "military-industrial- complex" -- Standard organized the "environmentalist" movements to shut down the development of nuclear power plants. But there was a slight difference. In the case where countries owned the oil fields, the countries could be branded as "communists" since they held the oil as community property and then "fascists" could be "hired" to go fight the "communists" to allow the private companies to come in and take over the fields.
In many countries of the world, this process of allowing private corporations to take over the natural resources in a country is often called capitalism, free-enterprise, or even just democracy, though none of those has anything to do with the outright theft of natural resources. It is more properly defined as fascism.
Ever since, Rachael Carson's book "Silent Spring," written in the mid-1960's, people have become aware of how we can unintentionally pollute large areas. A new word was coined in the 60's called "ecology." Everybody is against pollution and everybody wants a clean environment. In that sense, we are all "environmentalists." But the words have become twisted and morphed into grotesque new meanings.
The purpose of the organized environmentalist movements was to be a cover for the oil company stoppage of the building of nuclear power plants. Thus, instead of branding the country which owned the nuclear fuel as "communist," since it was the US which owned most of the fuel, the uranium and plutonium fuel itself needed to be "branded" as the worst mass killer since Stalin, Hitler and Foo Manchu.
The new "phoney" environmentalists would point out Hiroshima, Nagasaki and even Chernobyl as proof of the dangers of nuclear energy. But if you explain that Chernobyl was never built to be a safe nuclear power plant, but was an old Soviet bomb factory for quickly converting raw uranium into plutonium for making nuclear bombs. And, if you further explain that it did produce electricity as a byproduct but it was not designed to be a safe power plant, the average environmentalist only stares blankly. And no nuclear reactors like Chernobyl, without any safety-sealed containment vessel, have been built for over 50 years. But that wasn't in any "environmentalist movement" handout literature they read.
Are nuclear reactors safe, clean and reliable? Go ask the US Navy. They have been running hundreds of nuclear reactors for over 40 years in their ships, submarines and aircraft carriers. Not one accident or radiation leak. When it comes time to change the used nuclear fuel, after the old fuel is removed and they wait two days for the short-term radiation components in the core container to fade away, the nuclear swabbies actually enter the reactor core, and do their regular maintenance work.
Often the Navy nuclear technicians sit for several days right on the reactor core with their tools and instruments during the maintenance procedure. The dosimeters they wear measure the amount of radiation they are getting. The dosimeters always show the total radiation they get while sitting in the reactor core during maintenance is much less radiation than the average web- surfer gets from sitting in front of a color VGA computer monitor while surfing the web for an hour. What? That wasn't in the "phoney environmentalist" handouts?
The US Navy runs more nuclear reactors than anybody else in the world. The radiation output from a fully operating sealed and shielded Navy nuclear reactor is zero. If you want proof of that, go ask the Navy, especially the thousands of Navy-trained nuclear technicians and engineers who work on those reactors. And go ask the Navy submariners who may spend up to six months of sea duty within feet of an operating nuclear reactor. They should know. And they will all tell you the same thing.
And if you point out that hundreds of times more people have been killed and maimed with Napalm, a simple half-and-half jelly mixture of gasoline and coconut palm oil, than were ever killed in both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions. Specifically, the massive firestorm bombing of most of Tokyo and several other large Japanese cities, and even German cities, near the end of WWII were all the result of Napalm. Again a blank stare. All petroleum products can be turned into Napalm, or even now the very large gas-air explosive devices, almost rivaling nuclear weapons in destructive power. Why don't we also outlaw and prevent the production of energy using dangerous petroleum?
Then it becomes obvious. Most of the "environmentalist" movements are really being directed by the petroleum industry to shut down nuclear energy in order to keep the huge profits flowing into the oil companies, until the time comes when the energy companies can also take control of nuclear fuel.
The purpose of the Kyoto Treaty was to sharply limit the emissions of carbon dioxide, branded as a dangerous greenhouse gas. The only way the US could comply with the treaty was either (1) sharply limit the generation of electrical energy from carbon-based petroleum and thus shut down the US, or (2) switch over to nuclear-based electrical generation by allowing the energy companies to own and use nuclear fuel. This switchover has been done in France, Germany and Japan and other countries that don't have their own supply of oil and find nuclear fuel is much cheaper and cleaner than oil. Of course, they all agree with the Kyoto accords.
Thus the "phoney environmentalists," who are still clamoring for the US to enact the Kyoto accords, are both in favor of the switchover to nuclear generated energy, and at the same time are opposed to building new nuclear plants in the US. I will leave it to the "environmentalists" to figure out the illogic of that position.
This is sad, since most of the people in the environmental groups are truly concerned about pollution and are simply unaware they are being misdirected and misused by the oil companies, specifically BP-Standard Oil. If you visit the national headquarters of the environmental groups, like Earth First, Natural Resources Defense Council or the Sierra Club, you won't find a grass roots people operation. Instead you will see vast, palatial, well-appointed suites of offices only rivaled by the corporate headquarters of the oil companies for which they front.
This will soon become obvious when the environmental groups, to help solve the impending energy shortages, as in California and soon to be coming to a neighborhood near you, actually make recommendations to build more power plants using natural gas or clean oil, but never recommend nuclear energy plants. The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council will probably be the first, and then all the other groups will follow.
Within several years, when the US laws prohibiting nuclear waste recycling are dropped, the "environmentalists" will become the strongest advocates of clean nuclear energy. They will point out that nuclear fuel is recyclable with no emissions, while that nasty petroleum fuel is not recyclable and has terrible emissions dangerous to health and the planet. But before that happens the "environmentalists" must complete their current project of changing the US laws prohibiting recycling and private ownership of nuclear fuels.
Thus fascism in America is not only alive and well, but is a thriving mainstream growth industry. It has been entrenched in the center of the US Federal government since the founding of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 and controls the US economy. With the creation of the US Department of Education in the 1970's, instruction in the "fascist oil company plan" has taken over all state and local education systems and reached its goal about 15 years ago with the introduction of what is called the "Goals 2000" program. Ever wonder why it was called "Goals 2000"?
That program was produced and pushed through congress by something called the General Education Board. The plan of the Goals 2000 program is to divide children from parents, prevent any reasonable education that would produce children who might ask who really runs the world, and foment division among racial groups through diversity training, along with a healthy dose of oil company environmentalism. This almost exact same education plan was used by Adolf Hitler in the 1930's and 40's in his Hitler Youth movement. It later was adopted by Stalin in the 1950's and Fidel Castro in the ‘60s. It can now be found in many countries.
The Diversity training in the new curriculum is similar to the German "racial hygiene," or awareness of racial differences, which was based on the earlier "eugenics" movement that started in the US and was made into law in most of the states starting with South Dakota in the 1920's.
And from where did Adolph Hitler get his education plan? And where did Stalin and Castro get their education plans? And now even the education plans being sent worldwide by the United Nations through UNICEF and UNESCO? They all got them from the working papers written by the General Education Board, founded in 1905 by John D. Rockefeller. Almost all textbooks in American schools now say at the bottom of the inside cover, "Approved by the General Education Board." Now you know who they are and what has happened to the American education system.
The federal government through the Department of Education, which provides no education nor instruction, has done nothing in the last 30 years to improve education in the US. Multiple billions of US dollars have been spent, not to improve academic achievement, which has seriously declined, but to ensure the complete and proper implementation of the fascist oil General Education Plan in every state and local school district throughout the nation. Most of the money is spent on overcoming the great resistance of both teachers and parents who don't like what they see in the Goals 2000 plan. John D. Rockefeller would be proud of his achievement, and it didn't cost him a nickel. He got the taxpayers to pay for it.
There are numerous other examples in American life and culture where the clear hand of Oil Company Fascism has taken complete control in the last 20 to 25 years. So it would not be correct to say there is a growing movement of fascism in the world. It has been here for over 80 years and anything which does not fit into the framework of Oil Company Fascism is branded as polluting, dangerous to health, or communist. And soon even the need for that will be superfluous and then you are only left with the worldwide Hi-test ethyl-supreme Fascism of the Empire of Energy. Can you say "New World Order?"
In the early days of the discovery of large oil fields, the first being in Arkansas, followed quickly by discoveries in Texas and California, all three of those states were swiftly made "safe" for the oil business. All of the candidates for legislators and governors were bribed with handsome political campaign war chests filled brimming with oil profits. In those three states the only way to get into state office was to buddy up with the oil companies and then make sure all the laws you passed were kindly to your benefactors.
Thus Arkansas, Texas and California have been "Oil Company States" since about 1920. Did you notice in the last 21 years, all the Presidents of the US were governors or senators from Arkansas, Texas or California? And before that, "Viet Nam War" Johnson was a Texas oilman, and "Viet Nam War" Nixon was a California oil senator. Just a coincidence? The oil business is non-partisan. It makes no difference whether a Republican or Democrat wins an election. Just as when you go to fill up your tank at the gas station, somebody else has already chosen for you whether you buy foreign or American gas. Likewise, who you select on the voting ballot doesn't matter. Somebody else has already chosen for you. The Fascist Oil Party always wins either way.
Thus for the last 38 years, all the presidents have been Standard Oil men from Oil Company states, except for Georgia's Jimmy Carter. And in 1977, it was ex-Navy nuclear engineer, President Carter, who signed a law which forbade the recycling of used nuclear material through reprocessed fuel as is done throughout the rest of the world as in Japan, France and Germany. This produced, only in America, a vast nuclear waste dump problem which effectively shut down any new nuclear plants in the US. There is no waste problem in other countries, where the waste is all continuously recycled as enriched uranium fuel. There is virtually no waste. But, of course, that is not in the "phoney environmentalist" handouts.
The Big Four Rockefeller Brothers, the grandsons of John D, each took a different slice of the world pie. Laurence Rockefeller took the Asian region as assistant regent of Japan under General MacArthur after WWII, which lead to the Vietnam "war" and the vast oil profits there.
Nelson Rockefeller became governor of New York, based on his childhood home on the vast Rockefeller estate in Terrytown on the Hudson, just north or Rye. Nelson had his eyes on stealing his way into the presidency, not by election, but by simple appointment using something he created, and slammed through Congress in 1967 in a matter of weeks. It was called the "Rockefeller Amendment," also known as the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. It happened so fast, most people never even noticed. And the source of that amendment is not taught in schools.
The 25th Amendment allows any person, qualified or not, to become president of the US, by simple appointment, not by election. And which Nelson Rockefeller used to become vice president only 7 years later. But he had hoped to be appointed 4 years earlier by an agreement with Richard Nixon. But Nixon reneged, which lead to Nelson getting rid of Richard through the Watergate scandal set up by Nelson. Ever wonder who the deep-throated gravely voice belonged to, who spoon fed the Watergate information against Nixon to Woodward and Bernstein in the darkly lit underground garages? Go ask Woodward, he knows. But he's not telling. Ever wonder what happened to the American press?
The baby brother of the Big Four, David Rockefeller, set himself up as the monetary head of the world, using his control of the monetary system in the US through the Federal Reserve System, and then later expanded around the world by using the newly created World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to control the central banks and economies of most, and now all, nations. And what of the fourth grandson, Winthrop? Winthrop and his vast inherited wealth and power only took over a state. The state of Arkansas. Winthrop owned Arkansas and everything in it. But it was such a minor state, with many uneducated people and who would want such a puny job? Winthrop did. Winthrop owned Arkansas.
In 1973 during the Watergate Scandal hearings, Nixon was being maneuvered out of the Oval Office and a Rockefeller friend, Jerry Ford who had been "appointed" by Nixon, was being maneuvered into office as interim president. Then using the Rockefeller 25th Amendment, Jerry in turn "appointed" Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President. This would seem a rather strange game of Rockefeller musical chairs, and even more strangely the American press and the public never even noticed.
The press was too busy with the "leaked" Nixon Watergate scandals to notice what was happening just behind the scenery. The fascist energy empire was learning how to use outrageous scandal as a cover for the next phase of political activity. Even though the political activity is in plain sight for all to see, it simply is not reported by the press, therefore it disappears.
It was a young Hillary Rodham Clinton, as one of the lead congressional law counsels during the Watergate hearings, who helped put Nelson Rockefeller in position. As payback, Hillary's husband would be made Governor of Arkansas, with the assistance of Winthrop Rockefeller, who owned Arkansas.
That deal was a slam dunk and William Clinton became Arkansas governor. But Bill Clinton was such a scandalous ruffian, even the simple folk of Arkansas wanted to quickly impeach him and toss him out of office. So Winthrop had to save the day and step in for a while as interim Governor of Arkansas until the scandals quieted down. Then Clinton returned for a second term as governor. And why would Winthrop do all that? Because Rockefeller-BP-Standard was grooming "scandalous" Bill Clinton to take over as their man in the Presidency. Bill Clinton had been a Rockefeller oil man ever since his college days as a Rhodes scholar, and his trip to visit the oil men in the USSR back in the 1960's.
With eight years of Bill Clinton in office as President of the US, his many wild and continuous scandals would cover up the workings behind the scene as the oil company fascists took over control of the federal government and the press. That process was completed and proven when even a scandalized publicly self-admitted perjurer like Bill Clinton, could not be impeached and convicted by the US congressmen -- because BP-Standard now owned them all. In accord with John D. Rockefeller's vow 90 years before, the takeover of the American government by the fascist oil empire was now complete, thanks to Winthrop Rockefeller, who owned Arkansas. The next and final scene of world domination by the New Empire of Energy was now only one short step away. Enter George W. Bush stage right.
[Intolerable editor's note: Fukushima has since highlighted the fact that nuclear energy is indeed dangerous on a potentially global scale, but that doesn't negate the notion that oil companies feared that nuclear energy would put them out of business, and therefore may have been responsible for demoninzing it and covertly manipulating environmentalists to do their PR work.]
(a) legislates/executes/advocates against a woman's reproductive rights
(b) legislates/executes/advocates against non-heterosexual rights and lifestyles
(c) legislates/executes/advocates against civil rights
(d) legislates/executes/advocates against civil liberties
(e) legislates/executes/advocates economic policies that mostly benefit the plutocracy
(f) invades, occupies, terrorizes, and pillages foreign nations and lies about the reasons for doing so
(g) pretends that we can't afford social services due to (f)
(h) crushes dissent from anyone who dares to question any of the above
Any single one of these is a deal breaker for me.
How about you?
Woke up. Fell out of bed. Dragged a comb across my ... oh wait I'm bald. Dragged a brush across my beard? But I did read the news today. Oh boy! And the NY Times headline on my BlackBerry sez: "U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks". And I'm all like ... whaaa??? But then the "cynic" in me says, wait for the details. And sure enough: "Helene Cooper and Mark Landler, citing Obama administration officials, write that Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election so that they know which American president they would be dealing with."
OR it could be yet another lie from yet another lying administration solely for the purpose of getting those VOTES. Gee I wonder how those alleged talks will go *after* the election ...
Was I born a cynic? Hell no I was a blank slate, then my mom filled me with such optimism. I believed in God and Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy just like everybody else. So how did I get to the point where I tend to question everything our so-called "leaders" tell us? Was it because I found gifts from Santa Claus in my parents' closet 2 weeks before Christmas? No. Maybe it's because of all the *lies* that have been uncovered over the decades since I've actually been paying attention, especially the last 10 or so years when I really started digging into the rabbit hole.
When I found things like this: http://youtu.be/w7qNBmwX1tM
And this: http://youtu.be/jTWY14eyMFg
And it's still happening but of course they've gotten a hell of a lot more sophisticated about it. Obama is a prime example of the Sophisticated Liar. He is SO much more talented than Bush was. Did he follow through on his Iraq promises? Did his words match up with his actions there? Read on my fellow brave Americans (keeping in mind Glenn Greenwald is as thorough, intelligent, and unbiased as they come):
So, am I really a cynic? Or am I realist who's been influenced by his environment? Could it possibly be all the lies that have made me suspicious? And whose fault is that?
The Oregonian claims big-money marijuana legalization advocates like George Soros aren't funding Oregon Measure 80 because the polls aren't high enough like they are in Washington and Colorado, but could the real reason be that it doesn't give them as much potential return on their investment?
Yeah I know what some of you are thinking now but bear with me for just a minute!
The polls show the numbers are actually very close: 41% for 37% against and a whopping 22% undecided, maybe because at the time of the poll they hadn't even seen the text of the measure! That's exactly when private mega-funding makes the most difference, so that excuse doesn't make any sense.
OTOH, Soros has a huge stake in Monsanto, and Monsanto appears to be aiming for a monopoly on marijuana & hemp production after it becomes legal (and of course fuck organic farmers in the process like they do with everything else).
California's Prop 19 (2010) which Monsanto/Soros supported heavily, had a restriction of 25 sq ft for personal cultivation. Washington's Initiative 502 does not allow personal grows. Colorado's Amendment 64 limits home-growing to 6 plants. Both limit possession to one ounce. Oregon's Measure 80 has no quantitative limits on possession and most importantly it allows unrestricted personal cultivation without a license.
This "conspiracy theory" doesn't sound so crazy now does it!
Oh and the Oregonian is against Measure 80 plus they didn't mention Monsanto at all. Surprise!
I would also post my rebuttals here, but we're just a tad busy organizing the referendum and getting signatures with only about 2 weeks left! So, for now you can check out the OTHER side of this story here:
PUBLIC WATER PUBLIC VOTE!
Featuring The Dandy Warhols +16 other great bands!
Sunday October 7th at Rotture/Branx
September 4, 2012
I hope you are enjoying the beginning of the Autumn season. Since I announced my support for adding fluoride to Portland's water system, many people have asked me how I came to my decision.
I have been studying the water fluoridation issue since I was elected as a City Commissioner and I am convinced now, more than ever, that adding fluoride to our water system is integral to our goals of making Portland a more prosperous, educated, healthy, and equitable city.
In addition to facts, I have sought out both the pro and con arguments about this issue. More than 3,000 studies have been completed on fluoridation and the overwhelming weight of the evidence–plus more than 65 years of experience–supports the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
Fluoridation is used in over 70% of the nation's public drinking water. Every large city in the nation except for Portland has adopted fluoridation, reaching over 200 million people. It's used in over 60 countries.
It reduces cavities by at least 25% in adults and children over and above brushing/flossing and access to dental health care. Fluoride combines with phosphate and calcium to create a strong barrier that protects teeth from cavities. It works on the surface of the teeth and, when swallowed, strengthens teeth from within during tooth development in childhood. Water fluoridation maintains a low level of fluoride in saliva, providing continuous protection to adults and children throughout the day.
The Centers for Disease Control named the "Fluoridation of drinking water" as one of "10 great public health achievements" of the 20th century. The American Academy of Family Physicians states that fluoridation of public water is "safe and effective".
For reviews of the safety and effectiveness, see this site that is overseen by all of the major medical associations and organizations:
Many have called, emailed or written to me on Facebook and Twitter and have asked me to answer their concerns. I'd like to respond to some of the most common questions in advance of the City Council hearing this Thursday on fluoridation.
1) "What is the effect of fluoride on IQ?"
I have read the "Harvard IQ Study" that many mention to me. Unfortunately, it is being misrepresented or misunderstood. Keep in mind, Portland's proposal for fluoridation will be 0.7 parts per million (also measured in mg/L). The Harvard study evaluated studies done in China with fluoridation exposures up to 11.5 parts per million compared to control groups with exposures around 1 parts per million. The control groups with low levels of fluoridation (around 1 ppm) even had slightly higher IQs! The authors said each study reviewed had "deficiencies" that limited their ability to draw conclusions and the differences in IQ were within the "measurement error of IQ testing." This study did not evaluate optimal water fluoridation, and it did not conclude that even high levels of water fluoridation reduces IQ or harms brains.
2) "Has fluoridation at the level proposed been linked to bad health effects?"
More than a half dozen expert review panels have looked at the scientific evidence on fluoridation and have concluded there is no credible evidence linking fluoridation at optimal levels to any negative health effect. Reviews have been conducted by the US Institute of Medicine, the US Task Force on Community Preventive Services, the US Public Health Service, the National Academy of Sciences, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the World Health Organization, and the National Health Service, United Kingdom.
One study often brought up to me is a National Research Council report. This report looked at fluoridation levels between 2 and 4 parts per million. Again, Portland's suggested rate is 0.7 parts per million. Even at more than twice the optimal level, this study concluded that there were no negative health effects, but that there was a slight increase for a cosmetic issue of dental fluorosis. They stated that dental fluorosis was "near zero" at levels below 2 ppm, which is nearly three times the optimal level.
"When used appropriately, fluoride is both safe and effective in preventing and controlling dental caries."
- U.S. Center for Disease Control, August 17, 2001
"…no clear association between water fluoridation and incidence or mortality of bone cancers, thyroid cancer or all cancers was found."
- A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, September 2000
"Using a qualitative method of analysis, there is no clear association of hip fracture with water fluoridation. The evidence on other fractures is similar."
- A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, September 2000
"…there is no consistent evidence to demonstrate any association between the consumption of controlled fluoridated drinking-water and either morbidity or mortality from cancer (USPHS, 1991; USNRC, 1993; WHO, 1996; IPCS, 2002).
- Fluoride in Drinking-water Report, World Health Organization, 2006, (Page 34)
3) "Shouldn't we be scared of fluorosis?"
Most fluorosis in the U.S. is a white spotting on the teeth and does not cause any health problems. The National Research Council concluded that severe dental fluorosis is a risk at high water fluoridation levels such as 4 ppm, but that it was "close to zero" at water fluoridation levels at or below 2 ppm, which is almost three times the level found in optimally fluoridated water. At 0.7 ppm, the rate Portland is suggesting, children will not be getting a "high exposure."
4) "Children are given free fluoride treatments in school – why spend the money on fluoridation?"
The fluoride treatments in school are not enough. They are expensive, difficult to implement, and have significant gaps in coverage. Fluoride supplement programs miss kids at the critical age from 0-5 years old. They also miss older kids during summertime, weekends, and when parents fail to fill out the paperwork to enroll their children.
Water fluoridation is the single most cost-effective means of preventing tooth decay. It is less expensive than school programs or prescription supplements. Oregon has implemented the school dental program and still has the fifth worst rate of tooth decay in the nation.
Oregon children suffer from higher rates of tooth decay than all neighboring states. More than one in three children lives with untreated decay. Oregon children have more than double the rate of untreated tooth decay (35%) as in Washington state (15%), which is largely fluoridated.
5) "Why don't we just spend the money on dental care for low-income families?"
Prevention is the most cost-effective response to end the dental health crisis, and fluoridation would pay for itself many times over. Dental disease accounts for 30% of all healthcare costs for children, a significant portion of household income for struggling families.
Cities save an estimated $38 in dental costs for every $1 invested in fluoridation.
The lifetime per-person cost of Portland's proposed water fluoridation program would be about $50. That's a bargain compared to the lifetime cost of treating a single cavity: $2000.
Fluoridation reduces Medicaid expenditures, which is a savings for taxpayers. A Texas study found that water fluoridation reduced Medicaid expenditures by $24 per child/year. A New York study found that Medicaid recipients in less fluoridated communities required 33% more treatments for tooth decay than those in fluoridated counties.
6) "Will it affect the taste of the water or beer?"
Fluoride has no taste and no smell. Many brands of beer are brewed with fluoridated water, including all beer brewed in all cities larger than Portland and many smaller ones, too. This includes Fort George in Astoria, Block 15 in Corvallis, and the two other Widmer breweries outside Portland. Widmer recently told the Portland Tribune that the level of fluoride proposed " is not going to impact the aroma or flavor of the beer, nor will it impact the process. We're not expecting any changes from the brewing side or the final product either."
Here's what Alex Ganum, owner of Upright Brewing, wrote in a letter to the Oregonian: "As a local brewer, I can tell you that at standard levels (0.7 ppm), fluoride in water is tasteless, odorless, and doesn't affect the brewing process in any way. It is harmless to yeast and doesn't change the taste of beer one bit. Water fluoridation is just fine for beer, and it's important for good dental health as well. In fact, breweries across the U.S. have been making great beer with fluoridated water for 50 years."
7) "Why choose water fluoridation, which affects everybody?"
Adding fluoride to drinking water has been shown to be beneficial to everyone, and will not cause negative health impacts to anyone. Fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in nearly all water supplies, including Bull Run. Everyone ingests fluoride every day: they just aren't ingesting the optimal level needed to fight cavities.
We already add chemicals to our current water supply to ensure public health, including chlorine and sodium hydroxide.
Water fluoridation is supported by a broad-based coalition of over 75 community organizations from the education and social justice sectors, as well as all the main health institutions including: the Oregon Academy of Family Physicians, Oregon Medical Association, Oregon Public Health Association, Kaiser Permanente NW, Legacy Health, Providence Health & Services, Oregon Health & Science University, and the Coalition of Community Health Clinics.
8) "Where does fluoride come from, and how do we know it's safe?"
Fluoride used in drinking water is tested for toxins, monitored, and certified annually. It must meet American Water Works Associaion (AWWA) and National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) standards for purity, which are stricter than pharmaceutical grade. The Environmental Protection Agency regulates fluoride additives in drinking water, and has had a Memorandum of Understanding with the Food & Drug Administration since 1979 recognizing this authority.
Fluoride is manufactured through a process that separates fluoride from phosphorite rock. Phosphorus is later used by the fertilizer industry for fertilizer. Fluoride is not a byproduct of fertilizer.
9) "Why is Council moving forward without looking to voters?"
We care about public health and believe this is the right thing to do. Most public health decisions are made by elected officials, like: motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws, smoke-free workplaces, and nutrition standards for schools. Portlanders are invited to contact us, come to the hearing, and provide input. Portlanders also have a right to collect signatures and bring the issue to the ballot.
Fluoridation has not been discussed recently at the Portland City Council. The last vote was in 1980, during a special election with only 19 percent voter turn-out. That was 32 years ago. A lot has changed since then. The dental health crisis has only grown worse, and the evidence base for water fluoridation has only grown stronger.
In 1978, the voters approved fluoridation. And, the two previous votes were in the 1950s and 60s, when fluoridation was new. This was the time of McCarthyism and the Red Scare when fluoridation was portrayed as a "communist plot."
It is time for fluoridation to be weighed by the city council and analyzed based on the scientific evidence of its safety and effectiveness.
"…frequently ignored question: 'In debates about fluoridation, are you hearing the voices of the vulnerable?' When political arguments erupt between policy-makers, interest groups and oral health professionals, are the groups who are most vulnerable even part of the discussions?"
- The Ethics of Water Fluoridation, 2000
10) "Who is lining your pockets? What are you getting out of this?"
Both the construction of the system and the fluoride supply will be put out for public bid in a very proscribed and transparent fashion. We all stand to gain when fluoridation reduces personal dental care expenses and offers savings for taxpayers on healthcare programs such as Medicaid.
The Everyone Deserves Healthy Teeth coalition includes over 75 education organizations, health institutions and community nonprofits in the Portland region.
11) "What about the EPA Staff union's concerns?"
The EPA is not opposed to water fluoridation. Just last year, a senior EPA official issued a joint statement with another federal health official, citing the "strong evidence that water fluoridation is safe and effective" for preventing tooth decay.
The criticism that anti-fluoride groups are referring to was made many years ago by EPA's internal staff union, not the agency's leaders. The union raised concerns about fluoride's safety and called for "double blind" studies to be done, particularly related to osteosarcoma.
Since then, a 15-year Harvard study that examined actual fluoride levels in bone found no link between fluoride and osteosarcoma (2011). The design of this study was approved by the National Cancer Institute. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, fluoride is safe and effective for fighting tooth decay with a Cancer Effect of "None."
Every respected scientific committee or health organization that has reviewed the evidence on the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation has concluded that fluoridation is a healthy and effective public health practice. As such, and after much consideration, I am voting to bring Portland in line with other major cities when it comes to public health efforts to protect our city.
PORTLAND CITY HALL
1221 SW 4th Ave, Room 340 / 503-823-4120
Join the discussion on facebook:
"In your eyes, I’m a terrorist, and it’s perfectly reasonable that I be standing here in an orange jumpsuit. But one day, America will change and people will recognize this day for what it is. They will look at how hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed and maimed by the US military in foreign countries, yet somehow I’m the one going to prison for 'conspiring to kill and maim' in those countries – because I support the Mujahidin defending those people. They will look back on how the government spent millions of dollars to imprison me as a 'terrorist', yet if we were to somehow bring Abeer al-Janabi back to life in the moment she was being gang-raped by your soldiers, to put her on that witness stand and ask her who the terrorists are, she sure wouldn’t be pointing at me." –Tarek Mehanna
"At some point in the future, I believe history will be quite clear about who the actual criminals are in this case: not Mehanna, but rather the architects of the policies he felt compelled to battle and the entities that have conspired to consign him to a cage for two decades." –Glenn Greenwald
No, it's more like ... can't see the MOUNTAIN.
Many people are saying that Barack Obama was forced by Congress to accept the indefinite detainee provisions of the recently passed NDAA bill. It's the usual excuse that's been used so many times before by other presidents, too, that they have to sign it or else they'll lose the next election because they'll appear to be Not Supporting The Troops. Well it it turns out according to senior Democrat Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, it was the Obama administration that requested that the exemption for American citizens be removed! And he had already threatened to veto the bill unless the Senate complied. Doesn't exactly sound like Obama was forced into it!
The Evidence from Senate Session November 17, 2011
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Arizona will forgive me, I would ask one more question through the Chair. The question goes back to the point the Senator made: Section 1031, as I understand it, would be a departure from current law and would say that those who are American citizens can be detained indefinitely if they are suspected of certain terrorist conduct. I ask the Senator from Colorado: Is that the point the Senator made in his statement?
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The Senator from Illinois is correct. Mr. President, 1031 would do just that, and it would come directly at a piece of law, posse comitatus, which dates back to the Civil War, that is held dear by all of us in America because it distinguishes between the military used to protect us against foreign foes and how we manage our own civil affairs here at home.
Also, as the Senator alludes to, it causes questions to be raised about something that is very sacred in our system of law, which is the writ of habeas corpus. You have to prove why you hold someone. You cannot detain an American citizen indefinitely in any other circumstance.
Mr. LEVIN. I do appreciate the Senator's response. I have one other question, and that has to do with an American citizen who is captured in the United States and the application of the custody pending a Presidential waiver to such a person. I wonder whether the Senator is familiar with the fact that the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee, and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.
Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee, and that we removed it at the request of the administration that this determination would not apply to U.S. citizens and lawful residents? Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language, the absence of which is now objected to by the Senator from Illinois?
Mr. DURBIN. Let me just say to my colleague, whom I respect and count as a friend, the critical difference between the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from South Carolina is this: The Hamdi case involved an American citizen, part of the Taliban, arrested in Afghanistan, OK? The Senator from South Carolina made that point when he said the word ``overseas.'' Unfortunately, section 1031 does not create that distinction. An American citizen arrested in the United States, charged with terrorism, without any connection to overseas conduct -- having been arrested overseas, I should say -- is still going to be subject to indefinite detention.
Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator aware of the fact that section 1031 in the bill we adopted months ago in the committee had exactly the language that the Senator from Illinois thinks should be in this section 31, which would make an exception for U.S. citizens in lawful residence? That was in our bill. And I am wondering if the Senator is aware that the administration asked us to strike that language from section 1031 so that the bill in front of us now does not have the very exception the Senator from Illinois would like to see in there.
The Good: Ron Paul has the balls to speak against empire building, invasions of other nations, war-profiteering, dollar hegemony, CIA drug trafficking, and more. "What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?" Compare that to Bush's lies of "War on Terror" with "pre-emptive strikes" and Obama's lies of "Just War" and "humanitarian intervention".
The Bad: Half-assed logic and highly questionable views on women's right to choose, welfare, social security, immigration, and racial equality, all buried under the blanket of "states' rights issues". Individual and human rights have no borders. Also he runs as a Republican instead of Libertarian so he supports the two-party monopoly. (Makes sense if you look at the actual Libertarian platform ... he isn't one!)
The Ugly: Ron Paul, the free market capitalist and medical doctor, didn't even provide group health insurance for his campaign staff. His manager Kent Snyder, whose hard work and perseverance generated $MILLIONS of dollars in funds, died of complications from pneumonia in 2008, his poor mother slapped with the $400K bill. Apparently that's Ron Paul's idea of keeping government out of healthcare.
If Ron Paul becomes president don't be surprised if all his campaign promises go down the toilet as usual. I question whether his motives are based on really caring about people or if it's only that he's concerned with the effects on "free trade", how expensive wars are, etc. I also question why the corporate media is finally giving him comparable publicity, and he's included in debates with other contenders. It usually means those who pull the strings have made a decision to support, and that is a bad omen.
My conclusion is ironic because I have defended Ron Paul many times. I still love many of the things he stands for, but ultimately I have to say he is a glass half empty.
Obama was the last straw for me. I've given up on the expectation that any president will solve our problems. Those puppet actors are in fact a big part of the problem. Abolish the executive branch! And since I know that won't happen ... best just to be prepared for the inevitable ...
I just found two of these 2011 D pieces of shit in my pocket. I was a pretty avid coin collector as a kid, and all my life I have witnessed the decline of all coins in their metal composition, aesthetics, and value (both intrinsic and relative to inflation). It is totally symbolic of the overall decline of the USA. E Pluribus Unum? Yeah right, more like E Pluribus Nemo. Oh and did you know the US Mint made it ILLEGAL to melt down coins? Yeah that's because pre-1982 pennies are now worth about 2.5 cents. Hell, even these crappy zinc coins cost more than 1 cent to make.
But wait, there's more! Yep this story gets worse by the hour. I just read that the coin has an official name. The US Mint calls it the "Preservation of the Union" One-Cent Coin.
This bullshit was actually made into law by Congress in 2009 as the usual distraction from far more important issues (see Section 303):
Ending slavery was obviously a great outcome of the Civil War, but it wasn't the true reason for it, unless one is inclined to believe that the South's decision to sell its cotton to Europe at a higher price prior to the war was pure coincidence. Funny how the North didn't seem to mind slavery when they were buying up all that cotton for processing in their factories.
The unfortunate flip side of that preservation ... ehh ... coin (bwaha!) which we see ever more clearly now is a vast military that occupies 150 countries all over the world and an equally vast Orwellian network of "security" departments to "protect" our homeland.
Some also speculate that Lincoln was assassinated because he attempted to end the Federal Reserve and its debt-based banking system. The only other president to attempt that was JFK, and oh gee look what happened to him. So many coincidences! (Another one being that I found these coins on the 48th anniversary of JFK's death ... oh wait that actually IS a coincidence haha! Or is it synchronicity? <cue spooky music>
Now, does any of the above ring a bell within the context of certain nations (most notably Iraq and Libya) demanding payment for its oil in Euros and refusing to be controlled by Global Banksters? Surely that is just a coincidence, too ...
My very good friend Chris Bigalke hipped me to this the other day. Dwolla is a payment system that recently went nation-wide, similar to PayPal but they only charge a flat fee of 25 cents per transaction with no % regardless of the amount. Dwolla says there's never been an online cash option but that's not true because with PayPal and I think also Google Checkout you can indeed use your bank account instead of a credit card. I don't know why Dwolla makes this claim. BUT, the big difference when you use Dwolla is that they're not ripping off the recipients with %-based fees that are especially ridiculous for large transactions.
At first I thought of Dwolla only in business terms, but it didn't take long for me to think of it in the grande scale of social and economic terms.
Obviously it's great for recipients because they're not getting screwed, especially when they're on a shoestring budget and tight profit margins.
But it's also great for senders because they're reducing the monopoly power of the global Banksters who screw us all, plus you can pay via iPhone or Android smartphone which is a great thing if you want to, say for example, buy a t-shirt at a concert and you don't have enough cash in your pocket and wtf dude there's no ATM? Who wants to use paper money anyways when studies have shown it's slathered in germs, cocaine residue, and even feces. Yes, feces!
I can't remember the last time I watched local TV news. Their title for this piece is "At Odds", which applies not only to police vs Occupy, but also police vs their own commissioner. What's completely missing from the video are any details of the upcoming new wardrobe for the cops: gas masks, batons, and helmets. That's going to completely change the downtown atmosphere.
I meant to post this last month, but then Occupy Wall Street happened. I'm not quite ready to talk about Occupy here, plus I prefer to offer my readers exclusive content that you probably won't find anywhere else, so it's back to this little tidbit o' weirdness.
IARPA recently reposted a job listing in the "Science" and "Health Care" categories that was originally described as a "Neuroscience and Human Subject Research SME (Subject Matter Expert)". It has since been changed to "Lead Scientist with Subject Matter Expertise in Neuroscience".
The original url was:
Very interesting that they removed the "Human Subject" part. Maybe that made people question too much what is meant by "high-risk/high-payoff research", especially when you're aware of what other dubious things they're known for:
2009-06-03: Spooky research cuts
US intelligence agency axes funding for work on quantum computing.
"Two leading researchers in quantum computing have had their funds cut off by a US intelligence-research agency in what seems to be an administrative technicality. The controversy has underscored some scientists' fears that the field in the United States is too dependent on the spy world for funding."
2011-07-21: The NSA Is Building An Artificial Intelligence System That Can Read Minds
"If IARPA is the spy world’s DARPA, Aquaint may be the reincarnation of Poindexter’s TIA [Total Information Awareness]."
And check out all the articles at Wired.com:
2010-06-11: Spies Want to Stockpile Your YouTube Clips (And Scan Them for Terror Threats)
2010-10-01: U.S. Spies Want Algorithms to Spot Hot Trends
2011-01-26: Intel Agency: Without Videogames, We’re Doomed
2011-05-25: Spies, Meet Shakespeare: Intel Geeks Build Metaphor Motherlode
2011-07-07: Spy Geeks Want Holodeck Tech for Intel Analysts
2011-07-11: Spy Agency’s Next Top Analyst: You
2011-07-29: Here’s How U.S. Spies Will Find You Through Your Pics
2011-07-29: Shhh! Spooks Want Drones As Silent As Owls
2011-08-22: U.S. Spies Totally Confused by Wall Street, Too
2011-09-07: Intelligence Community Wants to Monitor Social Media
President Obama has proposed to cut Medicare by $248 billion over ten years. Where is the discussion of cutting WAR costs? Ron Paul says there's a quid pro quo because of partisan politics and we can only reduce warfare spending if we reduce welfare spending. Why don't we just get rid of partisan politics? Many people believe that welfare recipients are lazy and taking advantage of their tax dollars and should just get a job. Where are they supposed to find jobs when unemployment is so high because the jobs don't exist?
In addition to being the 1st day of Occupy Portland, 10/6/11 is also the last day of 10 Years of "War on Terror" (the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan started 10/7/01). $4 TRILLION dollars (plus the $2.3 TRILLION that "went missing" from the Pentagon on 9/10/01). And it's not even a question of whether it was worth it, because it's ALL FOR A LIE.
Let's see if the cops have enough guts or are just too plain stupid to get filmed arresting or pepper spraying universally respected airline pilots!
This looks like it's gonna be an important film. If only everyone would actually watch it. Sign up for their email list and also click on Screenings and "Demand It!" (or as I prefer to say, request it) in your city.
The Four Horseman is an independent cinematic feature documentary which lifts the lid on how the global economy really works. Living in the age of consequence, unfettered growth and profit seeking have pushed humanity to the brink.
Today’s Four Horsemen – socially organised violence, debt, iniquity, and poverty – control all of our lives. They’re gathering momentum, decimating communities and compromising future generations. If they are not arrested the planet will gallop to a logical conclusion.
By dispelling the myth that capitalism has failed, the Four Horsemen charts how a vast majority of the world’s population have been made to pay for the greatest heist in history. Capitalism hasn’t failed – it has worked perfectly according to the rules the system's creators have established, at the detriment to those who can least afford it.
Younger generations sense innately that something is wrong. Disillusionment and unhappiness are far reaching throughout the developed world where almost everyone has got to the end of the benefits of economic growth.
Four Horsemen pulls together for the first time 23 of the world’s leading thinkers who have held jobs at the highest level and explains where we go from here and how we can begin to re-engage.
On facebook today, one of those "random" suggestions that I subscribe to Arianna Huffington, which gets me to thinking (uh oh). Now here's a perfect example of a supposedly intelligent yet ignorant supporter and/or shill of the corrupt two party system. She used to be a Republican. She admits she was wrong. I agree that she was. So what makes her think she is right to support the corrupt Democrat party? How long will it take for her to figure THAT one out? And why do so many people think she's smart? It's the accent, right? Haha.
23+ minute introduction is still too much? Okay how about just 5 minutes, and with humor. Some people need to laugh their ass off so they don't notice they just shit their pants. This video is indeed full of sarcasm but maybe that's the only thing we have left as a defense mechanism after so many years of ridicule from those who refuse to ask the simple questions.
Yeah I know we're all busy, so here are 6 quick and very powerful videos that only take a total of 23 minutes and 50 seconds to watch: