NWO3

NWO3.COM News and Current Affairs Washington Leads World into Lawlessness Demise of Peak Oil theory IMF Resources and Insists Austerity Must be Intensified OFR - Fed Agency with no Budget Ceiling USAID Training Foreign Workers with Tax Dollars NSA Secret Spy center

The sheer magnitude and complex web of deceit surrounding the individuals and organizations involved in this conspiracy is mind boggling, even for the most astute among us. Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences that were created by the Mother of All mind control organizations: The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. Author and de-programmer Fritz Springmeier (The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines ) says that most people have built in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics. "Slides", Springmeier reports, is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead ends a person's thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand. For example, the mention of the word "conspiracy" often solicits a slide response with many people. (Springmeier has co-authored three books on trauma-based programming which detail how the Illuminati employs highly tuned and extrememly sophisticated Mind Control (MC) training programs that begin the programming process while the intended victim is still within the womb. Mind Control is a much greater problem than most people realize. According to Cisco Wheeler, a former Illuminati mind control programmer, there are 10 million people who have been programmed as mind controlled slaves using trauma-based MC programs with names like Monarch and MK Ultra. The newer, non-trauma, electronic means of MC programming that grew out of the Montauk Project, may include millions more. Al Bielek, who played a principle role in the development of the Montauk Project, said that there likely 10 million victims of Montauk style mind control programming worldwide, the majority located in the USA. He also said that there are covert Montauk Programming 'Centers' in every major city in the U.S. ) What most Americans believe to be "Public Opinion" is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public. Public opinion polls are really taken with the intent of gauging the public's acceptance of the Illuminati's planned programs. A strong showing in the polls tells the Illuminati that the programing is "taking", while a poor showing tells the NWO manipulators that they have to recast or "tweak" the programming until the desired response is achieved. While the thrust and content of the propaganda is decided at Tavistock, implementation of the propaganda is executed in the United States by well over 200 'think tanks' such as the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institute which are overseen and directed by the top NWO mind control organization in the United States, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park, California.

The sheer magnitude and complex web of deceit surrounding the individuals and organizations involved in this conspiracy is mind boggling, even for the most astute among us. Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences that were created by the Mother of All mind control organizations: The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. Author and de-programmer Fritz Springmeier (The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines ) says that most people have built in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics. "Slides", Springmeier reports, is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead ends a person's thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand. For example, the mention of the word "conspiracy" often solicits a slide response with many people. (Springmeier has co-authored three books on trauma-based programming which detail how the Illuminati employs highly tuned and extrememly sophisticated Mind Control (MC) training programs that begin the programming process while the intended victim is still within the womb. Mind Control is a much greater problem than most people realize. According to Cisco Wheeler, a former Illuminati mind control programmer, there are 10 million people who have been programmed as mind controlled slaves using trauma-based MC programs with names like Monarch and MK Ultra. The newer, non-trauma, electronic means of MC programming that grew out of the Montauk Project, may include millions more. Al Bielek, who played a principle role in the development of the Montauk Project, said that there likely 10 million victims of Montauk style mind control programming worldwide, the majority located in the USA. He also said that there are covert Montauk Programming 'Centers' in every major city in the U.S. ) What most Americans believe to be "Public Opinion" is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public. Public opinion polls are really taken with the intent of gauging the public's acceptance of the Illuminati's planned programs. A strong showing in the polls tells the Illuminati that the programing is "taking", while a poor showing tells the NWO manipulators that they have to recast or "tweak" the programming until the desired response is achieved. While the thrust and content of the propaganda is decided at Tavistock, implementation of the propaganda is executed in the United States by well over 200 'think tanks' such as the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institute which are overseen and directed by the top NWO mind control organization in the United States, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park, California.

The Rockefeller World, Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission by Andrew Gavin Marshall It is quite apparent in the history of America from the late 19th century and into the 20th century, that the Rockefeller family has wielded massive influence in shaping the socio-political economic landscape of society. However, up until the first half of the 20th century came to a close, there were several other large dominant families with whom the Rockefellers shared power and purpose, notably among them, the Morgans. As the century progressed, their interests aligned further still, and following World War II, the Rockefellers became the dominant group in America, and arguably, the world. Of course, there was the well-established business links between the major families emerging out of the American Industrial Revolution going into the 20th century, followed with the establishment of the major foundations designed to engage in social engineering. It was with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that the changing dynamics of the Morgan-Rockefeller clan became most apparent. As discussed earlier in this book, the Council on Foreign Relations is the ultimate networking and socializing institution among the American elite. The influence of the CFR is unparalleled among other think tanks. One study revealed that between 1945 and 1972, roughly 45% of the top foreign policy officials who served in the United States government were also members of the Council, leading one prominent member to once state that membership in the Council is essentially a “rite of passage” for being a member of the foreign policy establishment. One Council member, Theodore White, explained that the Council’s “roster of members has for a generation, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, been the chief recruiting ground for Cabinet-level officials in Washington.”[1] The CIA, as previously examined, is also no stranger to this network, since more often than not in the first several decades of the existence of the Agency, its leaders were drawn from Council membership, such as Allen Dulles, John A. McCone, Richard Helms, William Colby, and George H.W. Bush. As some researchers have examined: The influential but private Council, composed of several hundred of the country’s top political, military, business, and academic leaders has long been the CIA’s principal “constituency” in the American public. When the agency has needed prominent citizens to front for its proprietary (cover) companies or for other special assistance, it has often turned to Council members.[2] Roughly 42% of the top foreign policy positions in the Truman administration were filled by Council members, with 40% in the Eisenhower administration, 51% of the Kennedy administration, and 57% of the Johnson administration, many of whom were holdovers from the Kennedy administration.[3] The Council has had and continues to have enormous influence in the mainstream media, through which it is able to propagate its ideology, advance its agendas, and conceal its influence. In 1972, three out of ten directors and five out of nine executives of the New York Times were Council members. In the same year, one out of four editorial executives and four of nine directors of the Washington Post were also Council members, including its President, Katharine Graham, as well as the Vice-President Osborn Elliott, who was also editor-in-chief of Newsweek. Of both Time Magazine and Newsweek, almost half of their directors in 1972 were also Council members.[4] The Council also has extensive ties to the other major American think tanks, most especially the Brookings Institution, as well as the RAND Corporation, the Hudson Institute, the Foreign Policy Association, and of course, the special-purpose foundations such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, of which fifteen of its twenty-one trustees (as of 1971) were also Council members, and its pre(continued)

The Rockefeller World, Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission by Andrew Gavin Marshall It is quite apparent in the history of America from the late 19th century and into the 20th century, that the Rockefeller family has wielded massive influence in shaping the socio-political economic landscape of society. However, up until the first half of the 20th century came to a close, there were several other large dominant families with whom the Rockefellers shared power and purpose, notably among them, the Morgans. As the century progressed, their interests aligned further still, and following World War II, the Rockefellers became the dominant group in America, and arguably, the world. Of course, there was the well-established business links between the major families emerging out of the American Industrial Revolution going into the 20th century, followed with the establishment of the major foundations designed to engage in social engineering. It was with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that the changing dynamics of the Morgan-Rockefeller clan became most apparent. As discussed earlier in this book, the Council on Foreign Relations is the ultimate networking and socializing institution among the American elite. The influence of the CFR is unparalleled among other think tanks. One study revealed that between 1945 and 1972, roughly 45% of the top foreign policy officials who served in the United States government were also members of the Council, leading one prominent member to once state that membership in the Council is essentially a “rite of passage” for being a member of the foreign policy establishment. One Council member, Theodore White, explained that the Council’s “roster of members has for a generation, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, been the chief recruiting ground for Cabinet-level officials in Washington.”[1] The CIA, as previously examined, is also no stranger to this network, since more often than not in the first several decades of the existence of the Agency, its leaders were drawn from Council membership, such as Allen Dulles, John A. McCone, Richard Helms, William Colby, and George H.W. Bush. As some researchers have examined: The influential but private Council, composed of several hundred of the country’s top political, military, business, and academic leaders has long been the CIA’s principal “constituency” in the American public. When the agency has needed prominent citizens to front for its proprietary (cover) companies or for other special assistance, it has often turned to Council members.[2] Roughly 42% of the top foreign policy positions in the Truman administration were filled by Council members, with 40% in the Eisenhower administration, 51% of the Kennedy administration, and 57% of the Johnson administration, many of whom were holdovers from the Kennedy administration.[3] The Council has had and continues to have enormous influence in the mainstream media, through which it is able to propagate its ideology, advance its agendas, and conceal its influence. In 1972, three out of ten directors and five out of nine executives of the New York Times were Council members. In the same year, one out of four editorial executives and four of nine directors of the Washington Post were also Council members, including its President, Katharine Graham, as well as the Vice-President Osborn Elliott, who was also editor-in-chief of Newsweek. Of both Time Magazine and Newsweek, almost half of their directors in 1972 were also Council members.[4] The Council also has extensive ties to the other major American think tanks, most especially the Brookings Institution, as well as the RAND Corporation, the Hudson Institute, the Foreign Policy Association, and of course, the special-purpose foundations such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, of which fifteen of its twenty-one trustees (as of 1971) were also Council members, and its pre(continued)

Does Your Candidate Look Presidential Enough? It is amazing to me that with the many problems we have in our country, there are those who are still interested in whether or not someone looks presidential. It comes up all of the time. And, don't believe for a minute that these comments only come from those cheesy media outlets that talk about one's looks based on a genuine lack of knowledge about the real issues of an election. They really don't have a choice except to focus on this perspective. They have nothing else to talk about. But, it is sad that you might hear this comment from mainstream media who has all of the tools, to at least, be able to have a grasp on the real issues that face our country. But, even they will find time to include a portion of their coverage or commentary to bring up the "who looks presidential" comment. First of all, what does that statement even mean? If there is a look that a candidate should strive for, what is that look and who set that look as the standard? Is it short or tall? Is it black or white or brown or a mix of the three? Is it overweight or slim? Is it athletic or studious? Is it mature or youthful? What is this look that we keep hearing about? I took some time to review some people who had actually been president. Surely, they would have the presidential look. They must have it. If not, how did they get elected? I started with our first President George Washington. President Washington is generally considered to have been a good President, but his looks are a different story. I'm not one to criticize, but George was not necessarily an attractive man. Let’s face it … bad wig, unusually common face, and a mouth full of wooden teeth. Did he look presidential? Apparently to somebody ... he did. Sorry, but I don't see it. By the way, his wife Martha was no beauty queen either. What about Honest Abe, our 16th president? He happens to be my favorite president of all time. I read everything that I can get my hands on concerning his presidency. But looks? Not so much! He was tall and gangly. He had a nose that was eclipsing each time he turned against the rays of the sun and a mole that every plastic surgeon in 1863 Washington would have loved to get their scalpel on. And, that chin-lined beard and top hat; need I say more? A great president but not much for looks either. What about Teddy Roosevelt? He served two terms and was generally well respected. But, did he look like a president? Some might argue that. When he put on his battle gear, he looked more like a stand-in for The Crocodile Hunter. Dainja, Dainja!!! He seemed more at home on the back of a horse than in the big seat of the presidency. He wore those round glasses and accompanying lancet very well but neither was very stylish. That look might have been well suited for the land down under and someone with a slight vision impairment, but it did not bode so well for a president. He was a smart and courageous man, no doubt, but not so much of a fashion icon. In his defense, very few men can carry off that bloused trouser look. He gave it his best shot. I would be remiss if I did not at least mention our 27th President, William Howard Taft. You remember Mr. Taft don't you? He was the heaviest President in our nation's history at over 300 pounds. He was definitely substantial, but Presidential?... I'm not so sure. Taft is the only President to actually get stuck in the White House tub. I can't imagine he looked very Presidential at the time. He wasn't much for looks, but you have to give him some credit. He never met a meal that he didn't like. And, what about our fourth President, James Madison? At only five foot, four inches and less than 100 pounds, could he have possibly looked Presidential? Maybe he was the first to coin the "light" phrase. As in Presidential- Lite. I'm sure his parents were proud of the little rascal, but I suspect that he looked much tinier than Presidential. So who is it that so(continued)

Does Your Candidate Look Presidential Enough? It is amazing to me that with the many problems we have in our country, there are those who are still interested in whether or not someone looks presidential. It comes up all of the time. And, don't believe for a minute that these comments only come from those cheesy media outlets that talk about one's looks based on a genuine lack of knowledge about the real issues of an election. They really don't have a choice except to focus on this perspective. They have nothing else to talk about. But, it is sad that you might hear this comment from mainstream media who has all of the tools, to at least, be able to have a grasp on the real issues that face our country. But, even they will find time to include a portion of their coverage or commentary to bring up the "who looks presidential" comment. First of all, what does that statement even mean? If there is a look that a candidate should strive for, what is that look and who set that look as the standard? Is it short or tall? Is it black or white or brown or a mix of the three? Is it overweight or slim? Is it athletic or studious? Is it mature or youthful? What is this look that we keep hearing about? I took some time to review some people who had actually been president. Surely, they would have the presidential look. They must have it. If not, how did they get elected? I started with our first President George Washington. President Washington is generally considered to have been a good President, but his looks are a different story. I'm not one to criticize, but George was not necessarily an attractive man. Let’s face it … bad wig, unusually common face, and a mouth full of wooden teeth. Did he look presidential? Apparently to somebody ... he did. Sorry, but I don't see it. By the way, his wife Martha was no beauty queen either. What about Honest Abe, our 16th president? He happens to be my favorite president of all time. I read everything that I can get my hands on concerning his presidency. But looks? Not so much! He was tall and gangly. He had a nose that was eclipsing each time he turned against the rays of the sun and a mole that every plastic surgeon in 1863 Washington would have loved to get their scalpel on. And, that chin-lined beard and top hat; need I say more? A great president but not much for looks either. What about Teddy Roosevelt? He served two terms and was generally well respected. But, did he look like a president? Some might argue that. When he put on his battle gear, he looked more like a stand-in for The Crocodile Hunter. Dainja, Dainja!!! He seemed more at home on the back of a horse than in the big seat of the presidency. He wore those round glasses and accompanying lancet very well but neither was very stylish. That look might have been well suited for the land down under and someone with a slight vision impairment, but it did not bode so well for a president. He was a smart and courageous man, no doubt, but not so much of a fashion icon. In his defense, very few men can carry off that bloused trouser look. He gave it his best shot. I would be remiss if I did not at least mention our 27th President, William Howard Taft. You remember Mr. Taft don't you? He was the heaviest President in our nation's history at over 300 pounds. He was definitely substantial, but Presidential?... I'm not so sure. Taft is the only President to actually get stuck in the White House tub. I can't imagine he looked very Presidential at the time. He wasn't much for looks, but you have to give him some credit. He never met a meal that he didn't like. And, what about our fourth President, James Madison? At only five foot, four inches and less than 100 pounds, could he have possibly looked Presidential? Maybe he was the first to coin the "light" phrase. As in Presidential- Lite. I'm sure his parents were proud of the little rascal, but I suspect that he looked much tinier than Presidential. So who is it that so(continued)

Yes, America is Still in an Official State of Emergency by Washington's Blog Is the U.S. still in an official state of emergency, and if so, what that means. The answer is yes, we are still in a state of emergency. Specifically: On September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That declared state of emergency was formally put in writing on 9/14/2001: "A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001 . . . ." That declared state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from 9/11 [throughout the Bush administration] to the present. On September 10 2009, President Obama continued the state of emergency: The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2009, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat. Does a State of Emergency Really Mean Anything? Does a state of emergency really mean anything? Yes, it does: The Washington Times wrote on September 18, 2001: "Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him to impose censorship and martial law." Is the Times correct? Well, it is clear that pre-9/11 declarations of national emergency have authorized martial law. For example, as summarized by a former fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation, and the recipient of numerous awards, including the Gary Schlarbaum Award for Lifetime Defense of Liberty, Thomas Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties, Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty and Templeton Honor Rolls Award on Education in a Free Society: In 1973, the Senate created a Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency (subsequently redesignated the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers) to investigate the matter and to propose reforms. Ascertaining the continued existence of four presidential declarations of national emergency, the Special Committee (U.S. Senate 1973, p. iii) reported: "These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. . . . taken together, [they] confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communications; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens." (Most or all of the emergency powers referred to by the above-quoted 1973 Senate report were revoked in the late 1970's by 50 U.S.C. Section 1601. However, presidents have made numerous declarations of emergency since then, and the declarations made by President Bush in September 2001 are still in effect). It is also clear that the White House has kept substantial information concerning its presidential proclamations and directives hidden from Congress. For example, according to Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy: "Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the [George W.] Bush Administration to date, the titles of only abou(continued)

Yes, America is Still in an Official State of Emergency by Washington's Blog Is the U.S. still in an official state of emergency, and if so, what that means. The answer is yes, we are still in a state of emergency. Specifically: On September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That declared state of emergency was formally put in writing on 9/14/2001: "A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001 . . . ." That declared state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from 9/11 [throughout the Bush administration] to the present. On September 10 2009, President Obama continued the state of emergency: The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2009, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat. Does a State of Emergency Really Mean Anything? Does a state of emergency really mean anything? Yes, it does: The Washington Times wrote on September 18, 2001: "Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him to impose censorship and martial law." Is the Times correct? Well, it is clear that pre-9/11 declarations of national emergency have authorized martial law. For example, as summarized by a former fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation, and the recipient of numerous awards, including the Gary Schlarbaum Award for Lifetime Defense of Liberty, Thomas Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties, Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty and Templeton Honor Rolls Award on Education in a Free Society: In 1973, the Senate created a Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency (subsequently redesignated the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers) to investigate the matter and to propose reforms. Ascertaining the continued existence of four presidential declarations of national emergency, the Special Committee (U.S. Senate 1973, p. iii) reported: "These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. . . . taken together, [they] confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communications; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens." (Most or all of the emergency powers referred to by the above-quoted 1973 Senate report were revoked in the late 1970's by 50 U.S.C. Section 1601. However, presidents have made numerous declarations of emergency since then, and the declarations made by President Bush in September 2001 are still in effect). It is also clear that the White House has kept substantial information concerning its presidential proclamations and directives hidden from Congress. For example, according to Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy: "Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the [George W.] Bush Administration to date, the titles of only abou(continued)

Greece: The Epicenter of Global Pillage February 22nd, 2012 by Stephen Lendman Predatory bankers make serial killers look good by comparison. Their business model creates crises to facilitate grand theft, financial terrorism, and debt entrapment. They steal all material wealth and then some. They systematically rob investors and strip mine economies for self-enrichment. They demand they get paid first. They hold nations hostage to assure it. They turn crises into catastrophes. They leave mass impoverishment, high unemployment, neo-serfdom, and human wreckage in their wake. Their Federal Reserve/ECB/IMF/World Bank/political class lackeys do their bidding. They're more dangerous than standing armies. They wage war by other means. They cause "demographic shrinkage, shortened life spans, emigration and capital flight," explains Michael Hudson. They're a malignancy ravaging societies and humanity. Greece is the epicenter of what's metastasizing globally. The latest bailout deal highlights out-of-control pillage. On February 20, New York Times writer Stephen Castle headlined, "Europe Agrees on New Bailout to Help Greece Avoid Default," saying: On Tuesday morning, Luxembourg president/Euro Group head Jean-Claude Juncker announced: "We have reached a far-reaching agreement on Greece's new program and private-sector involvement. The new program provides a comprehensive blueprint for putting the public finances and the economy of Greece back on a sustainable footing." In fact, it assures human misery and economic destruction, not restoration. It's a deal only bankers can love. It demands Greece reduce its debt from 160% to about 120% of GDP by 2020, but how incurring more debt achieves it wasn't explained. It also demands sacking 150,000 public workers by 2015, slashing private sector wages 20%, lowering monthly minimum wages from 750 to 600 euros, cutting unemployment benefits from 460 to 360 euros, and reducing pensions 15% en route to eliminating them altogether. Media reports said bondholders agreed to a 53.5% face value haircut - the equivalent of losing 75% overall. In fact, only 30% of toxic assets are involved. Most held aren't touched. Greece must make good on them, no matter the impossible burden. Private lenders will swap current holdings for new lower face value/lower interest rate bonds. Representing bondholders, Institute of International Finance's Charles Dallara and BNP Pariba's Jean Lemierre called the deal "solid....for investors, a fair deal for all parties involved." In other words, raping Greece for bankers is "solid" and "fair." Its citizens had no say. Without rights, what's best for them wasn't discussed. They're left with huge wage and benefit cuts combined with mass layoffs. Greece faces less tax revenue to cover domestic priorities. In late 2011 alone, its economy shrank 7%. January revenues fell 7% year-over-year. Value-added tax receipts decreased 18.7% from last year. Death spiral financial deterioration continues monthly. Moreover, the nation's $650 billion debt burden is double the reported amount. The more it increases, the harder it is to service and repay, the more future aid's needed, and deeper the country's economic catastrophe heads for total collapse. The deal escrows $170 billion to assure bankers get paid. Investment advisor Patrick Young got it right telling Russia Today that dealmakers don't trust Greece living up to terms because its track record is so bad. "So we now have a situation," said Young, "where Greece said we'll do anything you want, but the problem is" too great a burden to bear. "It's a catastrophe pushing people to the brink of starvation." No matter. Finance ministers will give Greece some money on dreadful terms "where like a nine year old child, every Friday it has to go to daddy, say it's done its homework, say it's been a good boy, can it please have next week's pocket money to pay its civil serv(continued)

Greece: The Epicenter of Global Pillage February 22nd, 2012 by Stephen Lendman Predatory bankers make serial killers look good by comparison. Their business model creates crises to facilitate grand theft, financial terrorism, and debt entrapment. They steal all material wealth and then some. They systematically rob investors and strip mine economies for self-enrichment. They demand they get paid first. They hold nations hostage to assure it. They turn crises into catastrophes. They leave mass impoverishment, high unemployment, neo-serfdom, and human wreckage in their wake. Their Federal Reserve/ECB/IMF/World Bank/political class lackeys do their bidding. They're more dangerous than standing armies. They wage war by other means. They cause "demographic shrinkage, shortened life spans, emigration and capital flight," explains Michael Hudson. They're a malignancy ravaging societies and humanity. Greece is the epicenter of what's metastasizing globally. The latest bailout deal highlights out-of-control pillage. On February 20, New York Times writer Stephen Castle headlined, "Europe Agrees on New Bailout to Help Greece Avoid Default," saying: On Tuesday morning, Luxembourg president/Euro Group head Jean-Claude Juncker announced: "We have reached a far-reaching agreement on Greece's new program and private-sector involvement. The new program provides a comprehensive blueprint for putting the public finances and the economy of Greece back on a sustainable footing." In fact, it assures human misery and economic destruction, not restoration. It's a deal only bankers can love. It demands Greece reduce its debt from 160% to about 120% of GDP by 2020, but how incurring more debt achieves it wasn't explained. It also demands sacking 150,000 public workers by 2015, slashing private sector wages 20%, lowering monthly minimum wages from 750 to 600 euros, cutting unemployment benefits from 460 to 360 euros, and reducing pensions 15% en route to eliminating them altogether. Media reports said bondholders agreed to a 53.5% face value haircut - the equivalent of losing 75% overall. In fact, only 30% of toxic assets are involved. Most held aren't touched. Greece must make good on them, no matter the impossible burden. Private lenders will swap current holdings for new lower face value/lower interest rate bonds. Representing bondholders, Institute of International Finance's Charles Dallara and BNP Pariba's Jean Lemierre called the deal "solid....for investors, a fair deal for all parties involved." In other words, raping Greece for bankers is "solid" and "fair." Its citizens had no say. Without rights, what's best for them wasn't discussed. They're left with huge wage and benefit cuts combined with mass layoffs. Greece faces less tax revenue to cover domestic priorities. In late 2011 alone, its economy shrank 7%. January revenues fell 7% year-over-year. Value-added tax receipts decreased 18.7% from last year. Death spiral financial deterioration continues monthly. Moreover, the nation's $650 billion debt burden is double the reported amount. The more it increases, the harder it is to service and repay, the more future aid's needed, and deeper the country's economic catastrophe heads for total collapse. The deal escrows $170 billion to assure bankers get paid. Investment advisor Patrick Young got it right telling Russia Today that dealmakers don't trust Greece living up to terms because its track record is so bad. "So we now have a situation," said Young, "where Greece said we'll do anything you want, but the problem is" too great a burden to bear. "It's a catastrophe pushing people to the brink of starvation." No matter. Finance ministers will give Greece some money on dreadful terms "where like a nine year old child, every Friday it has to go to daddy, say it's done its homework, say it's been a good boy, can it please have next week's pocket money to pay its civil serv(continued)

The Invention Of AIDS By Boyd E. Graves, J.D. boyded2001@yahoo.com 8-28-1 Do people with HIV/AIDS owe royalties to the patent holder of the AIDS virus? In April 1984, Dr. Robert Gallo filed a United States patent application for his invention, the HIV/AIDS Virus. Normally, when a patent is filed and approved, as Dr. Gallo's was, anyone who uses the product or invention owes a royalty payment to the inventor. Thus, holding the intellectual property laws to their fullest interpretations, one must only wonder why Dr. Gallo has yet to file a lawsuit seeking to recover damages from the usage of his invention? As odd as this scenario may sound, it bears need for additional scrutiny. The scientific evidence is complete and compelling, the AIDS Virus is a designer bi-product of the U.S. Special Virus program. The Special Virus program was a federal virus development program that persisted in the United States from 1962 until 1978. The U.S. Special Virus was then added as 'compliment' to vaccine inoculations in Africa and Manhattan. Shortly thereafter the world was overwhelmed with mass infections of a human retrovirus that differed from any known human disease, it was highly contagious and more importantly, it could kill. A review of the Special Virus Flow Chart ("research logic") reveals the United States was seeking a 'virus particle' that would negatively impact the defense mechanisms of the immune system. The program sought to modify the genome of the virus particle in which to splice in an animal "wasting disease" called "Visna". According to the Proceedings of the United States of America, AIDS is an evolutionary, laboratory development of the peculiar Visna Virus, first detected in Icelandic sheep. Recently, American and world scientists confirm with 100% certainty the laboratory genesis of AIDS. This fact is further underscored when one reviews the 'multiply-spliced' nature of the HIV 'tat' gene and Dr. Gallo's 1971 Special Virus paper, "Reverse Transcriptase of Type-C virus Particles of Human Origin". Dr. Gallo's 1971 Special Virus paper is identical to his 1984 announcement of AIDS. Upon further review the record reveals that he filed his patent on AIDS, before he made the announcement with Secretary Heckler. Earlier this year, Dr. Gallo conceded his role as a 'Project Officer' for the federal virus development program, the Special Virus. The Flow Chart of the program and the 15 progress reports are irrefutable evidence of the United States' secret plan to cull world populations via the unleashing of a stealth biological microorganism that would 'waste' humanity. In light of this true genesis of the world's most divesting biological scourge, it is the United States that owes 'royal' payments to the innocent victims. Each and every victim of AIDS is deserving of a formal apology and a sense of economic closure for an invention of death and despair, perpetrated by the United States. The eyes of the world are upon the General Accounting Office's Health Care Team, under the direction of William J. Scanlon. Between 1964 and 1978, the secret federal virus program spent $550 million dollars of taxpayer money to invent AIDS. It is now necessary to spend whatever it takes to dismantle an invention that has led to the greatest crime against humanity in the history of the world. Additional Resources VIEW Web Archives: http://www.boydgraves.com DOWNLOAD US SVCP Flow Chart: http://www.boydgraves.com/flowchart SIGN Review Petition: http://www.boydgraves.com/petition DONATE On-line: http://www.boydgraves.com/donate CONTACT: http://www.boydgraves.com/contact WRITE To Congress: http://www.congress.org RESEARCH Archives: : http://www.boydgraves.com/order/order.html "We must let nature determine the finish line, not man. We are greater than any federal virus program, we are the human race." --Dr. Boyd E. Graves, Lead Plaintiff for Global AIDS Apology (continued)

The Invention Of AIDS By Boyd E. Graves, J.D. boyded2001@yahoo.com 8-28-1 Do people with HIV/AIDS owe royalties to the patent holder of the AIDS virus? In April 1984, Dr. Robert Gallo filed a United States patent application for his invention, the HIV/AIDS Virus. Normally, when a patent is filed and approved, as Dr. Gallo's was, anyone who uses the product or invention owes a royalty payment to the inventor. Thus, holding the intellectual property laws to their fullest interpretations, one must only wonder why Dr. Gallo has yet to file a lawsuit seeking to recover damages from the usage of his invention? As odd as this scenario may sound, it bears need for additional scrutiny. The scientific evidence is complete and compelling, the AIDS Virus is a designer bi-product of the U.S. Special Virus program. The Special Virus program was a federal virus development program that persisted in the United States from 1962 until 1978. The U.S. Special Virus was then added as 'compliment' to vaccine inoculations in Africa and Manhattan. Shortly thereafter the world was overwhelmed with mass infections of a human retrovirus that differed from any known human disease, it was highly contagious and more importantly, it could kill. A review of the Special Virus Flow Chart ("research logic") reveals the United States was seeking a 'virus particle' that would negatively impact the defense mechanisms of the immune system. The program sought to modify the genome of the virus particle in which to splice in an animal "wasting disease" called "Visna". According to the Proceedings of the United States of America, AIDS is an evolutionary, laboratory development of the peculiar Visna Virus, first detected in Icelandic sheep. Recently, American and world scientists confirm with 100% certainty the laboratory genesis of AIDS. This fact is further underscored when one reviews the 'multiply-spliced' nature of the HIV 'tat' gene and Dr. Gallo's 1971 Special Virus paper, "Reverse Transcriptase of Type-C virus Particles of Human Origin". Dr. Gallo's 1971 Special Virus paper is identical to his 1984 announcement of AIDS. Upon further review the record reveals that he filed his patent on AIDS, before he made the announcement with Secretary Heckler. Earlier this year, Dr. Gallo conceded his role as a 'Project Officer' for the federal virus development program, the Special Virus. The Flow Chart of the program and the 15 progress reports are irrefutable evidence of the United States' secret plan to cull world populations via the unleashing of a stealth biological microorganism that would 'waste' humanity. In light of this true genesis of the world's most divesting biological scourge, it is the United States that owes 'royal' payments to the innocent victims. Each and every victim of AIDS is deserving of a formal apology and a sense of economic closure for an invention of death and despair, perpetrated by the United States. The eyes of the world are upon the General Accounting Office's Health Care Team, under the direction of William J. Scanlon. Between 1964 and 1978, the secret federal virus program spent $550 million dollars of taxpayer money to invent AIDS. It is now necessary to spend whatever it takes to dismantle an invention that has led to the greatest crime against humanity in the history of the world. Additional Resources VIEW Web Archives: http://www.boydgraves.com DOWNLOAD US SVCP Flow Chart: http://www.boydgraves.com/flowchart SIGN Review Petition: http://www.boydgraves.com/petition DONATE On-line: http://www.boydgraves.com/donate CONTACT: http://www.boydgraves.com/contact WRITE To Congress: http://www.congress.org RESEARCH Archives: : http://www.boydgraves.com/order/order.html "We must let nature determine the finish line, not man. We are greater than any federal virus program, we are the human race." --Dr. Boyd E. Graves, Lead Plaintiff for Global AIDS Apology (continued)

WARREN S. RICHARDSON, J.D. Attorney at Law May 5, 2000 Mr. William J. Benson Constitutional Scholar 1128 East 160th Place South Holland, IL 60473 You may address me simply as Warren and I’ll call you Bill. My first comment is to applaud you for the tremendous amount of work you have done in bringing to light the enormous volume of factual data- over 17,000 pages of certified government documents from each of the 48 states (the number in 1913) as well as from the National Archives in Washington, D.C. In fact, the whole project, which includes your two books, is truly monumental. Before going to the subject of your books-the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was not properly ratified-I wish to lay some groundwork. In 1895 the United States Supreme Court ruled a direct income tax to be unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (158 U.S. 601). Since our forefathers who established our form of government (a republic, not a democracy) by splitting the federal power into three equal branches (legislative, judicial, and administrative), it was clearly within the Court’s discretion to render their verdict in the Pollock case. The Supreme Court’s decision in that case can only be changed by one of two methods: The Supreme Court, assuming it has valid reasoning, could reverse the Pollock case; or, An Amendment to the Constitution authorizing a direct income tax could be passed by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. Following the procedure of item 2, above, the Secretary of State has the duty of announcing to the public, the President, and the Congress that a proposed amendment has been accepted or rejected. The people who wished to overturn the Pollock case chose the second alternative. In my professional opinion your two books demonstrate, at least to me, that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified even though the Secretary of State made the public announcement that it had been properly ratified. When only four states of the required 38 ratified it properly, how could it be considered valid? In view of the facts, how could it become a valid part of our Constitution? Since the Pollock case has not been reversed by the Supreme Court, what is the legal framework upon which the current income tax law is based? Although I am a lawyer, it is important to note that I am not a constitutional scholar; therefore I do not speak as one. As noted above, it is my opinion that, based on your overwhelming evidence, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Furthermore, I believe that it is imperative to have legal scholars in constitutional law study this matter deeply and render their opinions on whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. Provided they come to the same conclusion we do (that it was not properly ratified), what would be the logical next move? That last question is a real tough one because of the politics involved. Assume that the Supreme Court rules upon a case properly brought before it that the tax system of the U.S. is not legal. Can you even visualize the reaction of the members of Congress? Bill, you have done a magnificent job in providing the factual data about whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. I am hopeful that we can find the scholars who will go to the next step and suggest what should be done now. Thanks for your hard work. You have done a great service to your country. Sincerely, P.S.: Since a personal letter cannot be distributed, or even shown, to anyone other than the recipient without permission of the author, I hereby authorize you to show it (not publish it) to other people at your discretion.

WARREN S. RICHARDSON, J.D. Attorney at Law May 5, 2000 Mr. William J. Benson Constitutional Scholar 1128 East 160th Place South Holland, IL 60473 You may address me simply as Warren and I’ll call you Bill. My first comment is to applaud you for the tremendous amount of work you have done in bringing to light the enormous volume of factual data- over 17,000 pages of certified government documents from each of the 48 states (the number in 1913) as well as from the National Archives in Washington, D.C. In fact, the whole project, which includes your two books, is truly monumental. Before going to the subject of your books-the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was not properly ratified-I wish to lay some groundwork. In 1895 the United States Supreme Court ruled a direct income tax to be unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (158 U.S. 601). Since our forefathers who established our form of government (a republic, not a democracy) by splitting the federal power into three equal branches (legislative, judicial, and administrative), it was clearly within the Court’s discretion to render their verdict in the Pollock case. The Supreme Court’s decision in that case can only be changed by one of two methods: The Supreme Court, assuming it has valid reasoning, could reverse the Pollock case; or, An Amendment to the Constitution authorizing a direct income tax could be passed by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. Following the procedure of item 2, above, the Secretary of State has the duty of announcing to the public, the President, and the Congress that a proposed amendment has been accepted or rejected. The people who wished to overturn the Pollock case chose the second alternative. In my professional opinion your two books demonstrate, at least to me, that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified even though the Secretary of State made the public announcement that it had been properly ratified. When only four states of the required 38 ratified it properly, how could it be considered valid? In view of the facts, how could it become a valid part of our Constitution? Since the Pollock case has not been reversed by the Supreme Court, what is the legal framework upon which the current income tax law is based? Although I am a lawyer, it is important to note that I am not a constitutional scholar; therefore I do not speak as one. As noted above, it is my opinion that, based on your overwhelming evidence, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Furthermore, I believe that it is imperative to have legal scholars in constitutional law study this matter deeply and render their opinions on whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. Provided they come to the same conclusion we do (that it was not properly ratified), what would be the logical next move? That last question is a real tough one because of the politics involved. Assume that the Supreme Court rules upon a case properly brought before it that the tax system of the U.S. is not legal. Can you even visualize the reaction of the members of Congress? Bill, you have done a magnificent job in providing the factual data about whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. I am hopeful that we can find the scholars who will go to the next step and suggest what should be done now. Thanks for your hard work. You have done a great service to your country. Sincerely, P.S.: Since a personal letter cannot be distributed, or even shown, to anyone other than the recipient without permission of the author, I hereby authorize you to show it (not publish it) to other people at your discretion.