U.S. Government Program Injected Citizens with Plutonium,Uranium

by Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society
February 22. 2012

In a secret program that is now admitted to be true, the United States government injected unknowing human ‘participants’ with highly toxic plutonium. It sounds like a bizarre torture scenario that you’d expect to see blamed on illegal terror organizations, but the individuals behind this crime are actually doctors working for the United States government. Disregarding the health of innocent citizens, the government testers were eager to see how unknowing participants suffered as a result of secret plutonium injection.

It began in 1945, when an employee at the Oak Ridge Nuclear Facility was in a car accident. Ebb Cade survived, but was taken in as a human participant in a disturbing study he did not consent to. It is important to note that this man was a fifty-three-year-old African American, as previous government trials have singled out African Americans and other minorities. The racist sterilization programs occurred between 1929 to 1974 under an admitted eugenics programs that officials claimed were ‘creating a better society’. Most victims were poor, black women who were ‘deemed unfit to be parents’. Individuals as young as 10 were sterilized simply for not getting along with schoolmates or being promiscuous, and many parents were misled into sterilizing their children.

 Ebb Cade was taken and bound to a bed with a broken arm and leg, where doctors interviewed him regarding his current state of health. After determining he was in a state of proper health, doctors secretly injected him with 4.7 micrograms of plutonium on April 10th. It is still unknown who exactly ordered the program within the U.S. government, as they have managed to disassociate themselves with the entire nefarious program. At the time of the injection, scientists were perfectly aware of the negative effects associated with radiation. With cancers and radiation sickness on the rise, these scientists knew exactly what they were doing — examining the effects of plutonium isotopes on living beings.

Prior to the tests on Cade, the scientists injected animals with plutonium and noted the severe adverse effects. In some cases, animals were even fed radioactive waste. In fact, one scientist received a face full of gas and required his stomach to be pumped along with a full face scrub in an attempt to eliminate the threat. The scientists made sure that they were given the full treatment after the exposure. Meanwhile, they were injecting individuals with plutonium.

Scientists took excretions from Cade over the next five days to see how much plutonium retained in his body. They also refused to set his broken bones until April 15th, and cut samples from the bone before doing so to examine the plutonium content in his bone tissue. Fifteen of his teeth were pulled for testing. After all of this, they never informed Cade what they were doing. One nurse said that the tortured Cade escaped in the middle of the night, and he was later found to die in 1953 of heart failure.

Sadly, Cade was not the last test experiment.

Three human experiments followed, all cancer patients seeking treatment. Instead of treatment, the patients were injected with deadly plutonium in order for government scientists to see the effects. A man in his sixties with lung cancer, a woman in her fifties with breast cancer, and a “young man” with Hodgkin’s lymphoma were all given the poison. Conveniently, the third patient’s records are not available. He was injected with fifteen times more than any other individual, at 95 micrograms.

What followed is further widespread testing. The University of Rochester joined the program, injecting patients with not only plutonium but radioactive isotopes like polonium and uranium. Other institutions like the University of California soon followed suit.

Perhaps most concerning is the fact that this disgusting disregard for human health is not an isolated incident. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment is but one example of secret government human experiments that have run rampant throughout recent history. Taking place between 1932 and 1972,  Tuskegee, Alabama, the U.S. Public Health Service knowingly infected poor black men with syphillus in order to test the effects. These men thought that they were receiving free healthcare by the U.S. government.

The list goes on, targeting minorities and the disabled in particular. From forced sterilizations to incognito injections, there is a lengthy history of government testing that shows the blatant disregard for your health by the United States government and elsewhere. With this in mind, is it any wonder why the FDA keeps toxic substances like mercury unregulated among the food supply?

The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom

by Robert McDowell
WSJ
February 20, 2012

On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year’s end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish “international control over the Internet” through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.

If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet’s flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.

Since the Net’s inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it operating and thriving through what is known as a “multi-stakeholder” governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been the key to the Net’s phenomenal success.

In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online—and that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping their hands off the Internet sphere.

Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human condition more quickly—and more fundamentally—than any other technology in history. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world, where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and raising living standards.

Farmers who live far from markets are now able to find buyers for their crops through their Internet-connected mobile devices without assuming the risks and expenses of traveling with their goods. Worried parents are able to go online to locate medicine for their sick children. And proponents of political freedom are better able to share information and organize support to break down the walls of tyranny.

The Internet has also been a net job creator. A recent McKinsey study found that for every job disrupted by Internet connectivity, 2.6 new jobs are created. It is no coincidence that these wonderful developments blossomed as the Internet migrated further away from government control.

Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:

• Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;

• Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for “international” Internet traffic, perhaps even on a “per-click” basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;

• Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as “peering.”

• Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;

• Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work;

• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.

Many countries in the developing world, including India and Brazil, are particularly intrigued by these ideas. Even though Internet-based technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some governments feel excluded and want more control.

And let’s face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly.

Merely saying “no” to any changes to the current structure of Internet governance is likely to be a losing proposition. A more successful strategy would be for proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity within every nation to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties, including governments and the ITU, to broaden the multi-stakeholder umbrella with the goal of reaching consensus to address reasonable concerns. As part of this conversation, we should underscore the tremendous benefits that the Internet has yielded for the developing world through the multi-stakeholder model.

Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest. This would also undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as cloud computing.

A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in lightning-fast Internet time. Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.

Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet—no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous—should be turned back. Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder model. Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory role for the ITU.

Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach. Regulation proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings. With this in mind, some estimate that approximately 90 countries could be supporting intergovernmental Net regulation—a mere seven short of a majority.

While precious time ticks away, the U.S. has not named a leader for the treaty negotiation. We must awake from our slumber and engage before it is too late. Not only do these developments have the potential to affect the daily lives of all Americans, they also threaten freedom and prosperity across the globe.

Mr. McDowell is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

Bill Gates Favors Death Panels and Vaccines for Depopulation

by Theodora Filis
UK Progressive
February 16, 2012

When Bill Gates, founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which provides vaccines to third world countries, promoted decreasing the population of the world and favoring the ‘death panel’, it shocked many people. Bill Gates believes that “instead of spending millions of dollars on old people who just have months to live, the money should be spent elsewhere, where it can actually benefit people”.

Two years ago, the Microsoft billionaire, unveiled his mission to reduce the world’s population through vaccines during a TEDx presentation. As Gates rambles on about CO2 emissions, and its effects on climate change, he injects without pause, that in order to get CO2 to zero, “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.” He then goes on to describe how the first number, P (for People) might be reduced.

“The world today has 6.8 billion people”, said Gates, “that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

In January 2010, at the Davos World Economic Forum, Gates announced his foundation would give $10 billion (€7.5 billion) over the next decade to develop and deliver new vaccines to children in the developing world.

For those who haven’t figured it out, the primary focus of the Gates Foundation is vaccinations, especially in Africa and other underdeveloped countries. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a founding member of the GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunization) in partnership with the World Bank, WHO and the vaccine industry. The goal of GAVI is to vaccinate every newborn child in the developing world.

How could that be a bad thing? Sounds like noble philanthropic work, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, the vaccine industry has been repeatedly caught forcing dangerous (unsafe, untested or proven harmful) vaccines onto Third World populations – vaccines they cannot get rid of in the West. Some organizations have suggested that the true aim of the vaccinations is to make people sicker and even more susceptible to disease and premature death.

 

Back in May of 2009, The London Times reported that some of the “richest people in the world met in New York to discuss their favorite causes”. The group, which included such notables as Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros and Michael Bloomberg, decided, during that meeting, their money would best be spent on reducing the world’s population.

Read Full Article…

Documents Detail a March 23 Greek Default Plan

Government to Freeze Bank Accounts, Eliminate Euro, Restrict Capital Flow

by Mac Slavo
SHTFPlan.com
February 16, 2012

That a default in Europe is coming has never been the question. For the astute observer the only thing at issue is how and when it will happen.  While the mainstream financial media and government officials have tried to spin this story as one that involves only Greek debt, the fact of the matter is that this isn’t isolated to a single country. Italy, Portugal, Ireland and most other European countries are in exactly the same boat.

Despite all of the propaganda and machinations from leading financial powers like the United States, Germany, and France, it’s should be clear that there is no viable solution to the debt debacle facing Europe. As such, we should understand that a situation similar to what led to the Great Depression of the 1930′s is now unfolding once again. The ability of entire nations to pay off their debt is now in question, and given the sheer size of the numbers we’re talking about, any reasonable person could agree that there is simply no plausible resolution that will make all parties whole again.

This has been playing out in Greece for nearly three years, and we may very well be just weeks away from the dreaded moment when it finally becomes official. An exclusive report detailing internal bank documents from two major Wall Street players says that we may have much less time than we think as insiders prepare for a financial doomsday next month.

Read Full Article…

The World Bank’s 28 year-old Depopulation Plan

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 14, 2012

Plans to drastically reduce the world’s population aren’t new. Many organizations and members of the oligarchy have manifested their intention to promote and carry out plans to dramatically reduce — between 80% and 90% — the number of humans that inhabit the Earth. Last week, we presented proof of now the United Nations and well-known philanthropists divest and invest billions of dollars to support campaigns that threaten the lives of millions of people every year. According to the cited sources and documentation in our article UN Pushes for a Global Tax to Finance its Global Socialist System, the UN alone, and in many cases its alliances with rich corporatists or partner organizations spend their budgets implementing programs in third world nations to avoid human reproduction and the development of those nations. In many cases, the application of eugenics or population control programs are a condition to receiving financial aid.

But the UN is not the only corporate-controlled organization that pushes for population reduction. Together with the UN are the World Health Organization, the IMF, and the World Bank, among others. In the case of the World Bank, the record reveals that some of the most recent initiatives date to 1984, when a report was written and presented to the controllers of the Bank. Among other things, it suggests the immediate start of population reduction policies in order to maintain economic growth; mainly for the developed nations. The document titled “World Development Report 1984″, also includes analysis and commentary about issues such as the Recovery or Relapse in the World Economy, Population Change and Development, Population Data Supplement and World Development Indicators. Notice how three of the 4 most important topics have to do directly with population.

The 300-page report from 1984 was the seventh of its kind, meaning that the World Bank’s elite’s thoughts on how to reduce or manage the world’s population was at least that old. We know today that the actual plan to reduce the population to around 500 million people is much older than that, and that this plan has been channeled through several other organizations whose work is to create policies that support the move to get rid off billions of people. Along with these organizations, the elites have partnered with their own corporations to implement policies in fields such as education, resource management, war (civil and otherwise), peace, financial aid, development, commerce, trade and so on, to enforce those policies. In essence, the corporate oligarchy has always controlled all sides.

The report is very clear from the beginning as to how important depopulation is in their plans to control the masses. “What governments and their people do today to influence our demographic future, will set the terms for the development strategy well into the next century. Failure to act now to slow growth is likely to mean a lower quality of life for millions of people.” Note that the World Banks’ strategy is one for the long term. Depopulation policies are being applied and will continue to be applied progressively, not at once. That is exactly what the elites have been doing for decades. They have been using slow-kill weapons such as chemical products in the food supply and other products we consume on a daily basis, but whose effects are only seen years later (fluoride, GMO’s, pesticides, herbicides, BPA, vaccines and others).

The report continues trying to reinforce a fallacy: That poverty and hunger are a consequence of overpopulation. As we have reported in numerous occasions, poverty and hunger have little to do with overpopulation, but have everything to do with monopolistic practices, price speculation, war and political corruption. “The experience of the past decade shows that education, health, and other development measures that raise parents’ hopes for their children, along with widespread access to family planning services, create a powerful combination in reducing fertility.” This last two words describe the main goal of the World Bank. But let’s review the complete quote and re-format it to reflect what the Bank really means. Indoctrination through the current educational system, eugenics through the use of highly toxic medicines along with the promotion of abortion results in reduced fertility.

The humanity hating statements start on page 50 of the report. “Lower GDP growth makes it more difficult for countries to finance programs in education and family planning, for example –that reduce population growth.” This statement is very important, because education or indoctrination through the public education system in developed and not developed countries together with the so-called family planning practices are two of the most effective tools to carry out eugenics today. In many countries, children are taught to hate humanity and that the most important thing is the well-being of animals, insects and mother nature or GAIA. Some NGO’s have even published articles or produced PSA’s that promote the salvation of insects and animals above humans and that humans and animals are equal. Legislation being worked out in Congresses around the world intend to officially consider humans as equals to animals and to have the United Nations as official spokesperson of the voiceless animals. All of this, of course, to save the planet. But in reality the sought outcome is to equal humans to animals in order to rip our humanity from us. If people are like animals, then people are not people, but animals. With this, the elites can legally argue that it is time to end with all the inherent rights we have as people, because we are not longer people. No more right to life, no right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness, etc.

Neither does poverty or hunger have anything to do with overpopulation, nor there is an overpopulation problem, as the World Bank says in its report. The report goes on to ask whether governments should promote and apply campaigns to reduce fertility and therefore reduce their population. The answer, the text reads, requires an understanding of high fertility and population growth. ” It is the poor with little education and poor health and family planning services who have many children, yet it is also the poor who lose out as rapid population growth hampers development.” This statement is very revealing, as many of the policies for sterilization and population control implemented for the past 50 years are pointed to the poor in both wealthy and developing countries.

The World Bank’s then goes to say that one of the main reasons why poor people choose to have many children is because they want to secure help when they become old; someone to take care of them. The report also cites other reasons such as income, infant mortality, family encouragement of high fertility and limited information about contraceptives, which the report says “are safe”. Of course, this last claim is not true. But that is a discussion for another article.

What the report fails to say is that the real cause of high fertility in poor countries is the welfare-state. Although in many countries some of the reasons cited by the 1984 report may be applicable, the reason why most people have several children in poor and rich countries is because there are socialist programs in place that promote free care and services for those who cannot pay for it. The reason why those people cannot pay for care and health services is because they don’t have jobs to earn a living and depend on their governments to provide care for themselves and their children.

If there is a strong reason why poor people decide to have more than 2 children, which is near the optimum average of 2.1 per family, is because there is an incentive to keep having more. But this is just an unintended consequence of public policies. The real issue is that governments use welfare to keep people dependent, as supposed to help them be self-sufficient and independent. So the Bank not only lies about the real cause of high fertility, but it also supports government intervention to maintain the welfare-state.

Further down on the report, it says that collectivism should be the model to follow, because government control of population fertility has ”longer time horizons than its individual constituents, and the government can weigh better the interests of the future generations against of those of current citizens.” This couldn’t be further from the truth, as most countries where governments intervene heavily in all aspects of life are places where — due to people’s dependence of government — its citizens don’t get to enjoy their lives freely. The report blames the family as a unit, for the government’s lack of action. Governments must, says the report, invest more on the poor.” With this, the World Bank reinforces public perception that it does support socialist policies and the welfare-state as models to govern a dumbed-down, poor and dependent population. “Health and education costs of children are heavily subsidized by the public sector as are roads, communications and other public services that boost jobs and income.” This could not be further from the truth. No socialist program could ever spur economic growth and higher incomes better and more effectively than entrepreneurship in the private sector. What government-sponsored programs do, besides keeping people dependent, is to limit the people’s opportunities as it doesn’t offer incentives to detach themselves from the ever existent government nipple. Also, it is important to remember where government funds come from. In most countries, money is taken from the middle class to give it to the poor in exchange for nothing. The middle class effectively subsidizes poverty. Unfortunately, most of the income stolen from the middle class does not even make it to the poor. It stays inside the government corruptocrazy to finance the its out-of-control spending.

Although the report does not recognize it explicitly, it is visible in many of the claims made in it, that history shows how population growth and decline has always been (except under situations like war or major natural disasters) “automatically” controlled by human progress and how it never needed government intervention. It is not a coincidence that war is one of tools of choice the globalists use to keep the poor countries from developing. That is what is stated on the White House Memorandum 200 prepared by Mr. henry Kissinger.

How does the World Bank implement population control

On page 160, the report states clearly how governments and private institutions can coerce their populations into becoming infertile. “ensuring that people have only the children they want, might not be enough to bring private and socially desired fertility into balance. Economic and social policies are indispensable. Eliminating subsidies to large families, offering financial incentives for smaller families, imposing disincentives for larger families…” The report praises the quota system imposed to the chinese by its government and the fact that China “gives permission” to its citizens to have or not to have children.  ”The system quotas and the accompanying pressure to have an abortion when a woman becomes pregnant without permission, are an additional policy step over and above the system of incentives and disincentives.” In other words, governments should implement any and all measures available to prevent people from having children and cause them to become infertile, including poverty and starvation, bribery, violently killing babies right out of the mothers’ wombs and imposing penalties on people who do not attend to government population control policies.

In addition to imposing sterilization policies and methods as well as bribing people so they don’t have children, the World Bank’s report also suggests that offering low interest rate loans to communities and schools can be a good incentive to keep population growth down and to reduce fertility. “Incentives that offer schools, low interest loans, or a tubewell to communities where contraceptive use is high, also directly link lower fertility to increased welfare.

But all of these suggestions seem mild when it comes to enforcing sterilization policies. The 1984 report also adds that “Male and female sterilization and IUDs can be made more readily available through mobile facilities (such as sterilization vans in Thailand) or periodic “camps” (such as vasectomy and tubectomy-camps in India and IUD “safaris” in Indonesia).”

“Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”

The authors also promote the creation of concentration camps where people can be taken to be sterilized.

As we have informed before, the World Bank’s policies and suggestions to reduce population are in complete accordance with those of other organizations, philanthropists, NGO’s and well-known personalities who donate their monies to reduce the human population. Those include the UN, the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, World Health Organization and IMF. So the next time your country receives aid from a foreign foundation, an NGO, the World Bank or the IMF, remember: this aid comes at the cost of human lives.