"Uncle" says, "it's good for you!"
Date: 21 Jul 2003 10:05 GMT
From: dr_b.helthi@t-online.de
Subject: ? "Uncle" says, "it's good for you!"Folks, if the excerpt, below this commentary, sort of "grabs" your attention, go online to http://www.nvic.org/Issues/homeland%20security.htm
and read all of the article.After a few more months, most of us will conclude that the "Homeland Security Act" was a seductive-titled, fraudulent maneuver to rescind states'rights, and individual rights, and funnel power into the hands of the current US president, his cronies, and the pharmaceutical and oil industries. A few people suspected this from the outset, but at the time, I couldn't believe that "a good ole Texas boy" would subvert the USA. An "old timer" remarked, "- - takes a smart man to steal a national election." I disagree. Only an exceedingly greedy, "unsmart" man will steal a US, national election. A "smart" man can foresee the destruction that will be done to the nation, and will do ones best to avoid it. The best example I know of is found in Germany. The former Chancellor, Dr. Helmut Kohl, fondly called by some as "Father of the German Reunification," was found to have between 40,000,000 and 140,000,000 million Deutsche Marks in secret bank accounts outside of Germany. He was not prosecuted. Anyone with five grains of brain can readily understand why most Germans try to avoid paying income tax nowadays, and why the "state purse" shows an increasing deficit.
Why aren't the "Democrats" more active against the direction of the current US president and his cronies? The vast majority of the democratic leadership agree with the "big business" direction of the current administration; they are getting richer. If the Democrats win the next election, they can say, "the Republicans did it, we inherited it." Also, many of them fear the power that is exercised by the "Bush Machine." After all, look at what just happened to the British agent, Mr. Kelly, who reported to the BBC that Mr. Blair was serving Parliament a plate of "fairy-tale" about WMD in Iraq: (from CNN on-line news) "Kelly, 59, bled to death from a cut to his left wrist, police said. They said a knife and a package of painkiller tablets were found with the body when it was discovered 8 kilometers (five miles) from Kelly's house in Southmoor, Oxfordshire." Right. How many men did it take to hold him as they slit his wrist? Or, had they sedated him with an injection, already? No mention of a small-egg-sized hematoma on his head from a knock-out blow - which CIA secretives rarely use anymore. Had the painkiller package of pills been opened, or was it still sealed? Did he die of blood loss or from the injection? Did the Brits do him in, or did they accept the expertise of the US CIA, whose agents are everywhere? Agent Kelly is a prime example of what happens to high-level "secretives" who tell the truth. Scott Ritter was the UN's top weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, when he said they found no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Where is Scott Ritter now? For some interesting reading, go online and search for "Scott WMD". If he is still alive, and not in hiding, and isn't surrounded by four "bodyguards" - all larger than he- when in public, I am pleasantly surprised. Search out a former CIA agent - which will not be easy - and ask what it's like in the "secret agent" business. Occasionally, it is possible to find one who "retired" because (s)he couldn't handle the dishonesty any longer. They will tell you about what goes on "behind the scenes" - but cautiously and carefully. They want to avoid being subsequently found in a rural area, 5 miles from home, dead from a slit wrist, with a package of aspirin carefully placed nearby. No former secret agent slits ones wrists, 5 miles from home, in a rural area. This contrived death was designed for adolescent-level fantasizers.
dr_b.helthi
===============================
The following is excerpted from:POWER GRAB BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SETS STAGE FOR FORCED VACCINATION IN AMERICA
Drug Companies Get Liability Protection In Homeland Security Bill
By Barbara Loe Fisher, President, NVIC
It all started at 5:17 a.m. EST on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 as dawn began to break in the nation's Capitol and the Administration delivered the Homeland Security Bill (H.R. 5710) to the U.S. House of Representatives. By that night the House approved the bill 299 to 121 and sent it to the Senate. What would happen over the next seven days would change the historic balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches of our government; give power to federal health officials to force vaccination of all citizens without their informed consent; and bar lawsuits against drug companies for injuries and deaths caused by bio terrorism and pediatric vaccines."
dr_b.helthi
posted by Chris Gupta on Monday August 4 2003
updated on Saturday September 24 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/08/04/uncle_says_its_good_for_you.htm
Related ArticlesBills C-51 & C-52 Example letters
Here are a couple of letters that you can adapt and paste in the left hand side of Health Canada Abuse site to send to your representatives. Here is an extract from the site: Harper & Cabinet Ministers Standing Committee of Health Canadian Senators Canadian Members of Parliament Conservative MPs Liberal MPs NDP MPs BLOC MPs Independent MPs The current Status for Bill C-51 is here and for C-52 is... [read more]
May 28, 2008 - Chris GuptaDr. Carley's comments to PBS re: Autism, ADHD, Vaccinations...
"ADD & ADHD are primarily a result of vaccinations" Further to: Vaccines Often The Cause of "Multiple Sclerosis & Other DEMYELINATING Diseases" here is another excellent response to junk health PBS programs of late. "All are sponsored by the same cabal* who brought you this disease via the nutrient depleted, addictive and toxic chemical added processed foods; surgeries; and last but not least the supposed magic of generally toxic vaccines... [read more]
January 14, 2008 - Chris GuptaRe: Vaccines
At 02:16 PM 29/05/2007, you wrote: Why do you lump all vaccines together as a category that is dangerous rather than treating them as individual cases? Is that a good way to find out if vaccines are dangerous in your opinion? Also, why would you trust eyewitness accounts rather than treat them with a well needed grain of salt? If I found eyewitness accounts that contradicted your opinion would you... [read more]
May 29, 2007 - Chris Gupta
