The Biochemical Manipulation of Humanity

[ponda]

Short video about corruption around vaccines and anyone trying to get compensation from big pharma.

Rob Schneider-Vaccine Courts & Big Pharma Corruption !

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ueKVez4W54g

[onawah]

Shut down the FDA, start over

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2017
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2...da-start-over/

Vera Sharav, at ahrp.org, has posted a piece about an investigation headed by NYU Professor Charles Seife.

Seife and his students probed the work of the FDA, the federal agency tasked with approving medical drugs for public use.

Sharav: “FDA documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that the FDA has been concealing from the medical community and the public serious research misconduct; including fraud, deception, avoidable risks for human subjects — even deaths — that occurred in clinical trials [of medical drugs].”

Professor Seife (from his article at Slate magazine): “Reading the FDA’s inspection files feels almost like watching a highlights reel from a Scientists Gone Wild video. It’s a seemingly endless stream of lurid vignettes—Faked X-ray reports. Forged retinal scans. Phony lab tests. Secretly amputated limbs. All done in the name of science when researchers thought that nobody was watching.”

“That misconduct happens isn’t shocking. What is: When the FDA finds scientific fraud or misconduct, the agency doesn’t notify the public, the medical establishment, or even the scientific community that the results of a medical experiment are not to be trusted. On the contrary. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses.”

“The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn’t get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.”

There is much more, but that taste should be enough to convince any sane person that the FDA is a rogue agency, dedicated to protecting and forwarding the profits of pharmaceutical companies.

In past articles, I’ve revealed that, every year in the US, FDA-approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans. This conservative assessment was made by Dr. Barbara Starfield, in her landmark July 26, 2000, review in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

In my 2009 interview with Dr. Starfield, she emphatically stated that she was aware of no systematic federal effort to fix this horrendous ongoing disaster.

In fact, the FDA had (until they removed it) a page on their own site which stated: “Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs (adverse drug reactions yearly.” “100,000 DEATHS yearly.” The FDA was highlighting the catastrophic effects of medical drugs they themselves were certifying as safe and effective. (Update: the slide presentation making these statements now found here.)

Of course, they took no responsibility.

This is on the order of a defendant saying, “Did I kill people? Well, if you look in that field over there, if you start digging, you’ll find a number of bodies. I know. I put them there. But I wasn’t really responsible. Why would you place me on trial?”

In a stunning interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg (7/29/12), former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Kavanagh, exposed the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies:

Kavanagh: “…widespread racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation.”

“I was threatened with prison.”

“One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

Kavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the agency who insisted the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Kavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

What was his secret task at the FDA? “Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.” In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Veterans of the Armed Forces, take note: Kavanagh remarked that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the later effects of nerve gas, “actually increased the lethality” of certain nerve agents.

Kavanagh recalled being given records of safety data on a drug—and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

Getting the picture?

Anyone who believes the FDA can be fixed with a few adjustments to rules and a few personnel changes is whistling in the dark.

Talk about a swamp.

Nothing short of shutting down the Agency, fumigating the buildings, and starting over with actual humans in charge, humans who believe in human health, would work.

Scores of criminal prosecutions, convictions, and very long prison terms for current FDA employees would also be necessary.

[onawah]

EPA SAYS A PESTICIDE IS HARMFUL FOR CHILDREN; SCOTT PRUITT SAYS LET’S USE IT ON OUR CROPS
http://uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/epa...e-it-our-crops
Not surprisingly, Trump's cabinet members look like they are going to continue making policies just as horrible as they were before.

FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 2017
By Kara Cook-Schultz
Toxics Program Director
Last year, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) panel found that a chemical pesticide, chlorpyrifos, is unsafe to ingest at any level. So in November of 2016, the EPA proposed to completely ban its use.

But last week the EPA changed course: Scott Pruitt announced that EPA will let Big Ag keep using this chemical on food.

The controversy over chlorpyrifos began more than a decade ago, when the EPA first banned the indoor use of the insecticide, but continued to allow its use on food crops. After this decision, the EPA studied the risks of eating food treated with the pesticide. Jim Jones, former assistant administrator of the EPA, says scientists followed hundreds of mothers and their newborn children, monitoring their exposure.

EPA scientists found that 90% of American women of childbearing age have unsafe levels of chlorpyrifos in their bloodstream. Studies showed that at age 7, the average IQ of children who had been exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos was a few percentage points lower than children who hadn't been exposed to much of the chemical at all. And in November of 2016, the EPA found some toddlers are exposed to levels that are more than 14,000 percent above what the EPA scientists considered a “safe” limit.

So last year, the agency proposed an outright ban on chlorpyrifos. After all, the agency’s own chemical safety experts found that crops sprayed with the insecticide are dangerous to ingest. But then last week, the EPA reversed course. Scott Pruitt’s EPA quietly announced that it was not going to ban chlorpyrifos, after all.

The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment. It is the agency’s duty to review risks associated with the pesticides we use and take appropriate action. The law on pesticides (the Federal Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act) is very strict: it requires “a reasonable certainty that no harm will result,” to consumers or people living in the areas where pesticides are applied.

In this case, there is a reasonable certainty that harm is ongoing from the use of this pesticide. I’m angry and I’m calling for a change. You should be, too. We can do something about this--we can tell the EPA that this is unacceptable.

The EPA is required to complete the next re-evaluation of chlorpyrifos by October 1, 2022. That’s too late; children and their brains are at risk now. The EPA needs to convene their re-evaluation today, and following their own scientific results, the agency should ban chlorpyrifos.
1. Brady Dennis, "EPA chief, rejecting agency's own analysis, declines to ban pesticide despite health concerns," The Washington Post, March 29, 2017.
2. Ibid.
3. "Revised Human Health Risk Assessment on Chlorpyrifos," Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed on April 7, 2017.

[onawah]

DOW CHEMICAL DONATES $1 MILLION TO TRUMP, ASKS ADMINISTRATION TO IGNORE PESTICIDE STUDY
The fact that C.E.O. Andrew Liveris is a close adviser to Donald Trump can’t hurt.
BY BESS LEVIN
APRIL 20, 2017
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/...ngered-species

Chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are a group of pesticides that are a big money-maker for Dow Chemical, with the company selling approximately 5 million pounds of chlorpyrifos in the U.S. each year, according to the Associated Press. Dow Chemical, however, has a small problem on its hands, and it’s not the fact that the pesticide was “originally derived from a nerve gas developed by Nazi Germany,” per the AP, though that’s certainly not great for marketing materials. In this case, it’s the fact that studies by federal scientists have found that chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are harmful to almost 1,800 “critically threatened or endangered species.” Historically, groups like the Environmental Protection Agency would want to avoid killing frogs, fish, birds, mammals, and plants, which is why the regulator and two others that it works with to enforce the Endangered Species Act are reportedly “close to issuing findings expected to result in new limits on how and where the highly toxic pesticides can be used,” the AP reports.

Luckily for Dow, the E.P.A. is now run by climate-change skeptic and general enemy of living things Scott Pruitt, who last month said he would reverse “an Obama-era effort to bar the use of Dow's chlorpyrifos pesticide on food after recent peer-reviewed studies found that even tiny levels of exposure could hinder the development of children's brains.” Plus, Dow Chemical C.E.O. Andrew Liveris is good buddies with President Donald Trump. So, you can see how the company, which the AP reports also spent $13.6 million on lobbying last year, might feel like it is in the clear.

According to the AP, lawyers representing Dow and two other companies that manufacture the pesticides in question (known as organophosphates) have sent letters to the heads of the E.P.A, the Department of Commerce, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, asking them to “set aside” the results of the studies, claiming that they are “fundamentally flawed.” Not surprisingly, the scientists hired by Dow “to produce a lengthy rebuttal to the government studies” have come up with diverging results.

In addition to Pruitt’s long history of, per the AP, aligning “himself in legal disputes with the interests of executives and corporations,” Dow has another reason to be hopeful the government will conveniently ignore any lingering concerns about killing off entire species: Andrew Liveris is a close adviser to Donald Trump who was literally standing next to the president in February when he signed an executive order “mandating the creation of task forces at federal agencies to roll back government regulations.”

Dow also donated $1 million to underwrite Trump’s inaugural festivities, the AP reports, but God help the person who dares to wonder aloud if the check was some sort of an attempt to curry favor with the administration. As Rachelle Schikorra, Dow’s director of public affairs, told the AP, any such suggestion is “completely off the mark.”

[onawah]

If even the corporate owned, sell-out EPA was in favor of banning chlorpyrifos, you know it must be BAD.
With Pruitt in charge now, activists had better get really busy.
I got this email today from Sierra Rise:

The science on chlorpyrifos was as clear as it was damning. Even small doses of the pesticide can harm children's brains and farmworkers' nervous systems.1 The Environmental Protection Agency proposed banning it.

Then Scott Pruitt rejected his own agency's science and overturned its recommendations. Chlorpyrifos lives to fight our health another day.

But Pruitt can't stop retailers from banning the toxic chemical in their stores. Tell grocery outlets not to stock any food that has been treated with chlorpyrifos.

"There's a sense of helplessness," said a California dairy worker to the Guardian. "I'm being poisoned and I can't do anything about it. It's like a slow death."2

Chlorpyrifos is in the same chemical category as sarin nerve gas3 and has been linked to autism, lower IQs, and memory problems in children of pregnant women who have been exposed to the toxin.4 We shouldn't be spraying it over our produce or anywhere near where people live.

But that's exactly what we're doing: six to ten million pounds a year on crops including apples, asparagus, broccoli, cauliflower, corn, cranberries, onions, peaches, strawberries, soybeans, and walnuts. Researches have found chlorpyrifos residue on food and in drinking water.5

In 2000, chlorpyrifos was prohibited from most household products after thousands of poisonings resulted in twitching, tremors, slurred speech, paralysis, and death.6 It's time for us to stop using it entirely. If the EPA won't ban chlorpyrifos, get grocery outlets to shut this dangerous chemical out of their stores.

In it together,
The SierraRise team



References:
1. Schlanger, Z. (30 March 2017). "The US government is ignoring its own scientists' warning that a Dow pesticide causes brain damage in children." Quartz.
2. Levin, S. (17 April 2017). "'Like a slow death': families fear pesticide poisoning after Trump reverses ban." The Guardian.
3. Prakash, A. and Dolšak, N. (12 April 2017). "Why did Scott Pruitt refuse to ban a chemical that the EPA itself said is dangerous?" Washington Post.
4. Levin, S. (17 April 2017). "'Like a slow death': families fear pesticide poisoning after Trump reverses ban." The Guardian.
5. Lerner, S. (14 January 2017). "Poison Fruit: Dow Chemical Wants Farmers to Keep Using a Pesticide Linked to Autism and ADHD." The Intercept.
6. Ibid.

Take action here: https://petitions.signforgood.com/ch...ode=SierraRise

[onawah]

How would you feel if your doctor were bribed to give you a drug?

by Jon Rappoport

April 27, 2017
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2...ve-you-a-drug/

Hello, Novartis. The pharmaceutical giant has just been fined $50 million by the government of South Korea for bribing doctors to prescribe the company’s drugs.

FiercePharma reports: “Last year, prosecutors in the country [Korea] raided Novartis offices to gather documents and account books. South Korean officials later indicted a half-dozen Novartis execs, as well as more than a dozen doctors and five medical journal heads…The Korea Times says the criminal trial is now underway.”

A Novartis spokesperson called the crime “in violation of our policies and inconsistent with our culture…”

Really? There’s more.

FiercePharma continues: “Outside of Korea, Novartis faces separate bribery claims in Greece, where an official earlier this month said ‘thousands’ of people could be implicated.”

“The company faced other allegations in Turkey, which it now considers ‘unsubstantiated,’ and paid $25 million to U.S. authorities last year to settle a bribery investigation in China.”

Sounds like bribery might be central to the culture of Novartis.

You walk into a doctor’s office. He makes a diagnosis and writes out a prescription for a drug. Unknown to you, he’s been paid off to tell you to take the drug.

In the case of Novartis, do law enforcement officials in Korea, Greece, Turkey, and China release the names of the bribed doctors and inform their patients of these crimes? If not, why not? The patients ought to know, and they ought to be able to sue the drug company.

Let’s take this whole business out on to a wider stage. Do you think doctors who take money from drug companies (e.g., for speaking fees and consulting) might be prone to altering their prescription habits? If so, consider this nugget from NPR (3/17/16): “Nationwide [in the US], nearly 9 in 10 cardiologists who wrote at least 1,000 prescriptions for Medicare patients received payments from a drug or device company in 2014, while 7 in 10 internists and family practitioners did.”

Then there is this bombshell from Business Insider (1/9/15)—wait for the punch line in the last sentence: “Companies pay doctors millions of dollars to promote not their most innovative or effective drugs, but some of their most unremarkable.”

“In the last five months of 2013, drug makers spent almost $20 million trying to convince physicians and teaching hospitals to give their freshly-patented drugs to patients, but many of them are near-copies of existing drugs that treat the same conditions.”

“A hefty portion are also available as generics, chemically identical copies that work just as well at a fraction of the price. And still others have serious side effects that only became apparent after they were approved by the FDA.”

Doctors paid by drug companies. Doctors prescribed those companies’ drugs. Some of those drugs have serious side effects.

Medicalbillingandcoding.org (5/25/11) follows the money. According to their analysis, between 2009 and 2011, these drug companies paid doctors the following amounts: Merck, $9.4 million; Johnson & Johnson, $10.6 million; Pfizer, $19.8 million; AstraZeneca, $22.8 million; GlaxoSmithKline, $96.4 million; and Eli Lilly, $144.1 million. For speaking fees, consulting fees, etc., and who knows what else? Does this cast an ominous cloud over the companies and their favorite doctors? Is the Pope Catholic?

Medicalbillingandcoding,org goes on to publish fines that have been levied against drug companies (2007-2010) for engaging in illegal activities with doctors. The fines are, of course, a drop in the bucket, considering the profits of these corporations:

Forest Laboratories, $313 million; Allergan, $600 million; AstraZeneca, $520 million; Cephalon, $425 million; Pfizer, $2.3 billion.

Paying a fine is having to say you’re sorry, and then you walk away.

The next time you talk with a doctor, you might apprise him of these matters, just to liven the conversation.

[onawah]

Dastardly Dow re chlorpyrifos harm to humans
From Organic Consumers Assoc. email update today
12/6/18
"We’ve known for a while that Monsanto buried the truth about Roundup weedkiller, by ignoring concerns by its own scientists. Now it seems Dow Chemical Co. has been using the same playbook.

Dow (renamed DowDuPont after its 2017 merger with DuPont) likely knew for decades that its widely used chlorpyrifos insecticide is harmful to humans—especially children and developing fetuses. But the company hid that information from regulators, both in the U.S. and EU, according to a new study, published in the journal Environmental Health.
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/...940-018-0421-y

The revelation comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is duking it out in the legal system over a court ruling that the agency finalize a ban on chlorpyrifos that was proposed under the Obama administration, but overturned after Trump took office. On September 24, the EPA—the agency charged with protecting us from environmental contaminants—asked the courts to re-hear the case.

In the meantime, in California alone, 800,000 acres and on dozens of crops continue to be doused with a pesticide that Beyond Pesticides describes this way:

A neurological toxicant, chlorpyrifos damages the brains of young children: impacts of exposure, even at very low levels, include decreased cognitive function, lowered IQ, attention deficit disorder, and developmental and learning delays."

Read 'Did Dow Chemical Fake Safety Studies on Brain-Damaging Chlorpyrifos?'
https://www.organicconsumers.org/blo...g-chlorpyrifos
TAKE ACTION: Tell the EPA to ban this chemical that damages children's brains now
https://advocacy.organicconsumers.or...228/petition/1

[onawah]

‘Prescription Drug Price Relief Act’
From Social Security Works 501C3's email update today:

"Tell Congress:

“No one should die because they can’t afford life-saving medication. But, because of Big Pharma’s greed, the American people pay, by far, the highest drug prices in the world. I’m becoming a co-signer of the ‘Prescription Drug Price Relief Act’ to force drug companies to lower their prices and to stop price gouging the American people.”

ADD YOUR VOICE: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/...-getting-worse

Americans pay, by far, the highest drug prices in the world; often times, those prices are five times as much as the same medicines in Canada. This is because, for years, we’ve had a Congress that encourages Big Pharma’s corruption and monopoly power.

But now, there’s a new bill that will be introduced this week by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna, which will drive down drug prices and protect the American people from Big Pharma’s price gouging.

The “Prescription Drug Price Relief Act” will force drug companies to price medicines equal to or below the median price in these five countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan.

And, most importantly, if companies refuse to lower their prices, the federal government would allow generic competition in order to ensure that prescription drugs are not out of reach for working families and older Americans.

This new legislation is clear-eyed about how Big Pharma works. Even if we leverage Medicare’s buying power to lower drug prices, Big Pharma will try to find ways to collude and continue to gouge us. This protects against that -- mandating the lower prices the rest of the world gets.

Stand by our champions in Congress and become a co-signer of the “Prescription Drug Price Relief Act” to protect the American people from Big Pharma’s price gouging.

Big Pharma’s greed and corruption is a problem that is only getting worse. But by seizing the means of production, we can transform the prescription drug industry from one that chases profits to one that is based in justice.

No one should die because they can't afford $150,000 per year for insulin or because drug manufacturers like Mylan decide to increase the costs of the life-saving EpiPen by 400 percent.

Become a co-signer of the “Prescription Drug Price Relief Act” today to ensure that no one goes without the medicine they need.

Thank you,

Michael Phelan
Social Security Works"

[Savannah]

https://gizadeathstar.com/2019/01/ro...egal-immunity/

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR: VACCINE BIG PHARMA HAS TOTAL LEGAL IMMUNITY
Joseph Farrell

There is no doubt that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had a good year last year. Indeed, the son of the infamously murdered Senator and former U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy Sr., has for some reason been emboldened to remark last year that he did not believe the official story of his father's untimely murder shortly after winning the hotly-contested 1968 California Democratic Primary. Indeed, who does believe that story. It has more magic bullets flying around inside the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel than the murder of his uncle, former president John F. Kennedy.

RFK Jr also won a stunning victory in a lawsuit against Monsanto, and yet another stunning legal victory against the vaccine industry, opening up many documents that demonstrated an astonishing degree of malfeasance and inept, if not deliberately bad, science.

More recently, Mr. Kennedy spoke to Fox Network's Tucker Carlson on the legal protections afforded to Big Pharma and the vaccine industry, and it's a stunner(thanks to Mr. V.T for sharing this article):

Robert F. Kennedy Jr Drops Vaccine Truth Bomb Live On TV

It's worth noting what he said to Carlson:

“
“
“The pharmaceutical industry is so powerful,” he explained. “They give $5.4 billion a year to the media. They’ve gotten rid of the lawyers, so there is no legal interest in those cases. They have really been able to control the debate and silence people like me.“

Asked how things could get this bad, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explained that Congress granted Big Pharma “blanket legal immunity” when it comes to vaccines.

Big Pharma became a law unto themselves. They can put toxic ingredients in your vaccines, they can seriously injure your child – but you cannot sue them.

“What you have to understand is that the vaccine regimen changed dramatically around 1989.

Hmmmn.... 1989, wouldn't that be during the administration of G.H.W. "Poppy" and "New World Order" Bush? But I digress... back to Mr. Kennedy:

“
The reason it changed, Tucker, is that Congress, drowning in pharmaceutical industry money, did something they have never done for any other industry – they gave blanket legal immunity to all the vaccine companies.

And who had to sign any such legislation? Why, the same guy whose administration also gave use the "substantial equivalence" opening the floodgates for GMOs to be introduced into the food supply. But I digress again...

“
“So that no matter how sloppy the line protocols, no matter how absent the quality control, no matter how toxic the ingredients, or egregious the injury to your child, you cannot sue them.

“So there’s no depositions, there’s no discovery, there’s no class action suits. All of a sudden vaccines became enormously profitable.”

The enormous profits in the unregulated industry meant Big Pharma companies raced each other to produce new and unnecessary vaccines to pump into newborn children – often dozens at a time.

Now, all of this raises a question in my mind, and it occurred to Catherine Austin Fitts in our recent Solari-year-end-wrap-up conversation (which we hope will soon be available on Solari.com and in the members' area of this website): What has emboldened Mr. Kennedy to make such statements now, not only about big pharma, but about his murdered father? As he stated on the Carlson interview, it is only the second time he has been invited on a major television network to talk about the vaccine industry and vaccine safety. But why, also, invite further ire by only recently talking about his personal thoughts about his father's murder, and his disbelief in the official narrative that it was the "lone nut-Manchurian patsy" Sirhan Sirhan?

To put the point a bit differently, why does he feel confident enough to speak about any of these things? To do so, particularly if one is a Kennedy, is - I venture to say - a risky business. After all, all of the "brothers" - JFK, RFK Sr., Teddy - are gone. His cousin, JFK Jr., perished in highly suspicious circumstances aboard his private aircraft along with his wife, after apparently making it clear to a few friends that he either planned to investigate, or was investigating, his father's assassination, and had aspirations for political office.

One can, of course, take the view that Mr. Kennedy is aware of the risks but nonetheless speaking out courageously in spite of them. In doing so, he would certainly be following precedents established by his father and his assassinated presidential uncle.

But perhaps there are circumstances emboldening him as well. Times have changed since those assassinations. Three - and only three - television/radio networks no longer control the flow of information. The deep state playbook is now so transparently obvious that almost every story and government-corporate narrative is questioned almost as soon as it arises. Too many suspicious doctor deaths have raised awareness of the machinations of big pharma and big agribusiness to new levels of cynicism and skepticism.

And there is, I suggest, possibly something else going on: the deep factions are at war. Mr Kennedy alluded to this by calling Big Pharma a "mafia", and mafia bosses tend to sip brandy and smoke cigars at the table, while their soldiers are shooting at each other on the streets. In short, perhaps it was a subtle signal that the former "truces" are no longer in effect, and that some formerly allied factions are now going after other factions, with whom they were once allied. Perhaps, just perhaps, there are some within "the elite" who are genuinely alarmed at the technocratic, transhumanist, total-absence-of-morality-and-law direction that some globaloneyists want to take things.

Perhaps, but there are, after all, contra-indications. Emanuel-there's-no-such-thing-as-French-culture-and-please-protest-in-the-traditional-peaceful-French-way-Macron for example. Or Angela-Globaloney-Mad-Madam-Merkel's recent pronouncement that governments would have to give up their national sovereignty for the glorious sake of the New World Order, and her express statement that government would simply have to ignore their civilian populations and voters to do so. Who better to state the principles of tyranny than a German chancellor(in), huh?

In the meantime, though, kuddos, Mr. Kennedy, for stating with such clarity, the obvious truth that no one wants to confront.

See you on the flip side...