Click here to submit Tips... contact me... information or news articles you wrote that pertain to this site!
The United States Military Is Now Officially Controlled By The United Nations And NATO
The Legislative Branch Of The United States Government Has Been Officialy Declared Powerless, If this isn't a coup d'état i don't know what is!!!
WASHINGTON, March 7—Under question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that "international permission," rather than Congressional approval, provided a 'legal basis' for military action by the United States.
Resolution Calls for Impeachment if Obama Does Not Seek War Authorization from Congress
Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, has introduced H. Concurrent Resolution 107, which calls on the House, the Senate Concurring, to prevent Obama from starting another war without authorization from Congress. The resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on March 7.
Obama has violated article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution.
Obama’s unconstitutional decision to involve the U.S. in the illegal attack on Libya without the consent of Congress motivated at least some members of the House of Representatives to demand an explanation. On June 3 of last year, the House passed a resolution demanding that the president provide an explanation to the American people, a request that was ignored by Obama and his administration.
Rep. Jones’ resolution states that any use of military force by Obama without explicit consent and authorization of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
It will be interesting to see if the resolution makes it out the Committee on the Judiciary. It was virtually ignored by the corporate establishment media.
The resolution reads as follows:
“IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 7, 2012
Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”
Reality Check The fiat Dollar is the real reason for high gas prices
FBI director: Have to check whether targeted killing rule is outside US only
March 07, 2012
FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder's "three criteria" for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.
This video is here to demonstrate that the TSA's insistence that the nude body scanner program is effective and necessary is nothing but a fraud, just like their claims that the program is safe (radiation what?) and non-invasive (nude pictures who?). This video is not intended to teach anyone how to commit criminal acts, nor is intended to help "the terrorists" -- if I could figure this out, I'm sure they've long figured it out, and by exposing it to the public, we now have an opportunity to correct it. The scanners are now effectively worthless, as anyone can beat them with virtually no effort. The TSA has been provided this video in advance of it being made public to give them an opportunity to turn off the scanners and revert to the metal detectors. I personally believe they now have no choice but to turn them off.
Please share this video with your family, friends, and most importantly, elected officials in federal government. Make sure they understand that your vote is contingent on them fixing the abuse that 200,000 passengers face from the TSA on a daily basis.
Legislators who have stood up to the TSA - especially Dr. Ron Paul & Sen. Rand Paul
...and all those who have both publicly and privately stood up to the TSA.
My legal battle against the TSA's nude body scanner and pat-down molestation program continues in court, soon with a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. If you'd like to donate to this effort, send PayPal to: jon [at] fourtentech.com
Copyright (C) 2012 Jonathan Corbett. All rights released for any non-commercial purpose.
Produced using Windows Live Movie Maker (Premiere kept crashing my computer!) on a PC. :) Video recorded using an HP TrueVision HD Web cam, except for "hidden camera" sections using an iPod 4G. Audio using an audio-technica mic (that really wasn't intended to be used this way) mixed with Ableton Live.
Media & Official - jon [at] fourtentech.com -- please no phone calls, I will respond to all e-mail inquiries very quickly.
All others - please leave a note on my blog (link above). I do read them all and generally reply if your post needs a response.
Data Hint at Hypothetical Particle, Key to Mass in the Universe
After 40 years, more evidence is being reported Wednesday that the end of the biggest manhunt in the history of physics might finally be in sight.
Physicists from the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., say they have found a bump in their data that might be the long-sought Higgs boson, a hypothesized particle that is responsible for endowing other elementary particles with mass.
70 Percent of Ground Beef at Supermarkets Contains ‘Pink Slime’
Pink Slime For School Lunch: Government Buying 7 Million Pounds Of Ammonia-Treated Meat For Meals
Pink slime -- that ammonia-treated meat in a bright Pepto-bismol shade -- may have been rejected by fast food joints like McDonald's, Taco Bell and Burger King, but is being brought in by the tons for the nation's school lunch program.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is purchasing 7 million pounds of the "slime" for school lunches
BEIJING/SHENZHEN, March 8 (Xinhua) -- Chinese and American physicists have made a pivotal breakthrough in the study of neutrinos, which may explain the predominance of matter over antimatter in the universe.
The research on the subatomic particles, which was conducted at a nuclear power plant in south China, is expected to define the future of particle physics.
The findings come from the Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment, which was conducted close to the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station in Guangdong Province.
Based on data collected from two powerful nuclear reactors, multinational scientists have been able to confirm and measure a third type of neutrino oscillation, Wang Yifang, a co-spokesperson for the experiment and head of the Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), said at a press conference Thursday in Beijing.
Neutrinos, the wispy particles that flooded the universe in the earliest moments after the Big Bang, are continually produced in the hearts of stars and and other nuclear reactions.
It is estimated that up to a million people died as a function of George Bush Jr.’s decision to invade Iraq. According to Bush, that decision was made on the basis of “faulty intelligence.” This is the ex-president’s way of passing the blame. The decision was made by Mr. Bush’s insistence that the accurate intelligence he was getting from traditional sources was false, and that the lies he was being told by other parties were true.
Now there is Iran. Over and again the intelligence community has told the powers that be that Iran is not engaged in a nuclear weapons program. And over and again the men and women in Congress and the White House have insisted that these traditional sources of information are wrong and that the stories that are coming from other sources (in this case the Israeli government and its special interest agents in Washington) know better. As in 2003, so it is in 2012. The politicians appear to be out for blood. One wonders how many dead and maimed bodies will satisfy them? Perhaps it will be a million dead Iranians.
The only difference is that today, we have a president who is hesitant to go to war this very moment. As General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has put it, the major difference between the U.S. and Israel on military action against Iran is timing. For President Obama, first comes the “diplomacy” of ultimatums combined with draconian sanctions, and then comes the slaughter. Perhaps it will come in his anticipated second term.
I have written about this more than once before and it is hard to find anything new to say. Yet, given the play of events, what has been said before warrants being said again. Therefore, below your will find a piece originally posted on the 10th of June 2011, but amended where necessary to bring it up to date.
Part I – Is there an Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program?
On Friday 3 June 2011 the investigative reporter Seymour Hersh gave an interview to Amy Goodman for the radio program Democracy Now! The topic was Iran and whether or not it is developing nuclear weapons. Hersh answered this question definitively for Goodman as he did shortly thereafter in a comprehensive piece for The New Yorker (6 June 2011 ) entitled “Iran and the Bomb: How Real is the Threat? His answer: there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. There is no threat. This position has been confirmed by two National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) on the question of Iran and nuclear weapons. These expressed the collective opinion of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. Their unanimous conclusion has been that “there is no evidence of any weaponization.” This was reconfirmed in mid February 2012 by an array of top U.S. intelligence chiefs appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee to give their annual report on “current and future worldwide threats” to national security.
Hersh set his understanding of the issue against the background of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In that case there was no credible evidence for weapons of mass destruction yet we had high government officials going around talking about the next world war and mushroom clouds over American cities. Both the U.S. Congress and the general population bought into this warmongering. Hersh is obviously worried about a replay of that scenario. Thus, in his interview, he said “you could argue its 2003 all over again….There’s just no serious evidence inside that Iran is actually doing anything to make nuclear weapons….So, the fact is…that we have a sanctions program that’s designed to prevent the Iranians from building weapons they’re not building.”
In 2003 those kind of sanctions, applied to Iraq, along with the accompanying misinformation campaign, led to a tragic and unnecessary war. Are we now doing it all over again? As Amy Goodman pointed out, “the Obama White House…has repeatedly cited Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to the world.” President Obama asserted as much in a 22 May 2011 speech before AIPAC and again in his 4 March 2012 talk to the same organization. On the latter occasion Obama told his audience, “I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power: a political effort aimed at isolating Iran….an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.” All this for something that is simply not happening.
If this is the case, what in the world was President Barack Obama talking about when addressing AIPAC? And what are the members of Congress talking about when they address this same issue? The vast majority of them take the same line not of President Obama, but of Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu who thinks Obama is weak and naive and that their should be war against Iran now. In addition, this morbid fantasizing about Iran’s nuclear ambitions has captured the attention of the mainstream press. Amy Goodman asked Hersh about a New York Times report (24 May 2011) stating “the world’s global nuclear inspection agency [IAEA]…revealed for the first time…that it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon.” Hersh quickly pointed out the that the word “evidence” never appeared in the IAEA report and, it turns out, the type of nuclear trigger the New York Times was referring to is so fraught with technical problems that, according to Hersh, “there is no evidence that anybody in their right mind would want to use that kind of a trigger.” So, what in the world is the New York Times telling us?
Part II – What is Real?
Questions One and Two: The questions about Iran’s nuclear program are not open ended. They have real answers. First, is Iran developing nuclear energy? The answer to this is a definitive yes. No one, Iranian or otherwise, denies this. Their aim here is energy production and medical applications. This is all legal. Second, is it developing nuclear weapons? According to every reliable expert within the intelligence agencies of both the United States and Europe, the answer is no. These answers describe reality in relation to Iran and its nuclear activities.
Question Three: The really important question. Why do American politicians and military leaders refuse to accept reality as regards this issue? That too must have an answer. And
intelligent people who investigate these matters should be able to figure it out. I consider myself in this crowd, and so I am going to venture forth with my answer.
Answer to question three: It is Politics. However, it is not just U.S. politics. Others have helped write the script. These others can be identified by asking to whom are American officials pledging to pursue the Iranian nuclear weapons fantasy? The president’s pledge has gone to AIPAC and the Israelis. Members of Congress have done the same.
Part III – Other People’s Fears Become America’s Fantasies
Israeli politicians are addicted to the Iran threat. Iran serves, alongside the Palestinians, as the latter day ruthless anti-Semite who would destroy the Jews. Zionists seem to need this kind of “existentialist” enemy. This is the equivalent of the Islamic fundamentalist taking the place of the hateful communist as the great enemy that the United States also seems to need. And, as it turns out, the Israeli lobby is more influential in formulating U.S. foreign policy toward Iran than all of the nation’s intelligence services put together. Hence our politicians from the President on down, chase shadows. Not just verbally, mind you, but in terms of definable policy (like sanctions against Iran).
U.S. politicians and military leaders can not talk like this and create policy like this without the mainstream press following along. Where there is smoke, there must be fire. Plus, ever since the Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981), Americans have been told that the Iranians hate us. So, whether it is Fox TV, whose fanatical conservative backers have always lived in a bi-polar fantasy world of good and evil, or the New York Times, whose quasi-liberal backers empathize with Israel just enough to buy into that country’s paranoia, the message is that the Iranians are crazy people out to destroy the West. And the evidence? Who needs it?
Part IV- The Real Danger is Acting on False Assumptions
What happens when a well armed individual can not tell the difference between reality and unreality? What happens when a well armed individual just knows, in his gut, that the other guy is plotting to destroy him? Chances are something horrible will happen. And, the American public ought to know that this is so, because collectively we have already lived out this tragedy in 2003. In that year we had leadership who were much more influenced by their guts, by religious imagery, by duplicitous Iraqi con men, by scheming Zionists and ideologically driven neo-cons, than anything vaguely resembling hard evidence. That “something horrible” cost the lives of up to a million human beings.
So let us get this straight. It seems there are two worlds. The real world of facts and evidence and the unreal world of fantasy. Our political leaders and their advisers are, apparently, stuck in the unreal one. Their words, and their policies, are built on the assumptions of this fantasy world. They go to war and kill people based on beliefs that are demonstrably false. And the rest of us? Most of us are stuck in our own local niches and beyond them we do not know what is real or unreal. So we rely on others to tell us what to believe. Who are the others? They just happen to be our political leaders, their advisers, and follow-the-leader media commentators. Well, that makes a nice little circle. And, a fatal one at that.
DR. LAWRENCE DAVIDSON is professor of Middle East history at West Chester University in West Chester, PA, and the author of America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood (University of Florida Press, 2001), Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood Press, 2003), and Foreign Policy, Inc.: Privatizing American National Interest (University of Kentuck Press, 2009).
Why Truth-ers can go haywire if they have never heard of Elizabeth Dilling?
The people who disintegrated the Soviet Union and the British Empire are
in the process of doing it to the USA. Why do they do this? How were they
taught from childhood? What are they thinking? What habits of thinking
cause them to destroy the middle class? What environment did they grow
up in that bent the twig in that direction? Why can they not controlled
themselves? Why do they feel nothing toward the people they murder and
harm? What causes them all to go insane? Elizabeth Dilling gave us the
guide to understanding the answers to these questions
There are seven European central banking family dynasties that control or
own one-third of the wealth of the world. Elizabeth Dilling’s Table of
Exhibits lets you experience for yourselves how these families are molded
from childhood into the adults they eventually become. What authorities
did they rely on? What were they instructed to believe? What secrets do
they believe are the Truth and is the motive for all they do and become?
If you are a Truth-er, follower of the Truth Movement, there is likely a
conscious inside your heart and mind they would not permit you to
understand Inverse Morality. What is Inverse Morality?
It is like the Ten Commandments turned upside-down. Thou shalt not
steal. Inverse Morality would say it is good to steal. We are proud of that
stealing achievement. The more you steal the better. It is good to steal
from the ignorant human cattle. They are there for us to abuse. But do
not get caught so that it reflects back on us. If your name is Rosenfelt,
why then just change it a little, to Roosevelt and they will not know you
are one of us. Be a crypto, like Stalin or Hitler. Tell them you are an
atheist. They will believe that, and never suspect the Truth.
Normal people with a conscious and concern for others can never
understand the New World Order and its inverse morality or how truly evil
it is. It is evil beyond normal reason. Dilling demonstrates why? Her book
begins as follows:
“Bible scholars are aware that Jesus Christ denounced the Pharisees. He
said they nullified all the Commandments of God by their Tradition,
"teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:13; Matt.
15:6-9, etc.). His invective, in truth, cannot be equaled. All of Matthew 23
is like a whiplash. He likened Pharisaism to a whited sepulchre, indeed
beautiful outwardly, but "inside full of dead men's bones and of all
uncleanness." Christ climaxed one condemnation after another with the
expletive, "Hypocrites!" He called the Pharisees children of them that killed
the Prophets. He foretold they would go on killing, crucifying and
persecuting until the guilt for all the righteous blood shed from Abel on
down would be upon them. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can
ye escape the damnation of hell?" Christ asked.
So you do not have to take my word that the New World Order is very
dangerous. You can consider the words of Jesus, who has millions of
believers. In mass media it is right in our face every day, but until we
discover the Truth we may not see what they are doing to the nation.
Christ is as utterly devastating of Pharisaism in the record of John 8.
Although He admitted that His hearers were descendants of Abraham, He
said they were, spiritually, of the devil. Christ told them:
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He
was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because
the truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).
Yes! I am saying the seven European central banking family dynasties that
own or control one-third of the wealth of the world are in fact, Pharisees.
The history of banking from 700 AD in Venice and the Fondo bankers,
through the Lombard bankers that infiltrated the major nations of Europe
and on to today, reports that they are deeply rooted in the Eleusinian
Mystery Religions, the Kabala, the Zohar and the Talmud.
If you think there is something wrong with TV preachers today, then you
are picking up on the evidence that the Lombard bankers are behind the
scenes pulling the financial strings and providing access to their mass
media monopoly to only those that work their deceptions at the bankers
Once the Lombard bankers target a nation they attack simultaneously on
several fronts: religion, finance, education, politics, mass media, military,
food sources, natural resources, industry and etc. Because this is done with
money it is invisible. But the results are in your face.
So once you are interested in 9/11 and the other issues of the Truth
Movement you might ask: "What has that to do with us today? What a
group of Pharisees did two thousand years ago is over and done with?"
To whom should be look for an answer? Of course, the Pharisees
themselves, they would be proud to tell each other. What the Pharisees
say, is best supplied by the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (1943):
“The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break,
through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and
methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a
very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most
important single piece of that literature … and the study of it is essential
for any real understanding of Pharisaism.”
But are all people that call themselves Jews today, in actuality, “Pharisees”
of the Bible? Again do not take my word for it let us ask them. Concerning
the Pharisees, the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia says:
“With the destruction of the Temple (70 A.D.) the Sadducees disappeared
altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the
Pharisees. Henceforth, Jewish life was regulated by the Pharisees; the
whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of
view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A new
chain of tradition supplanted the older priestly tradition (Abot 1:1).
Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the
Jew for all the future.” (See Exhibit 264 herein.Dilling)
But I was taught that the Jews were the people of the Old Testament,
could that not be true today? When you read Dilling and her evidence you
discover that the people who call themselves Jews today reject the Old
Testament when it is in conflict with the Talmud. They consider it folk lore,
from their past. Dilling explores the Talmud and exposes what it says with
examples from the documents themselves. (Otherwise unbelievable I
They are bankers with enormous Raw political power, rooted in invisible
money manipulations, but their interests encompass other fields, like an
octopus and one of the grapnals attacks religions, even Hari Krsna. There
is a claim that Prabhupada, there leader was poisoned and the movement
infiltrated by the New World Order.
To understand the mental paradigm of these powerful families and answer
the questions presented in the first paragraph here, our best source is
Elizabeth Dilling. That is just the way it is. email@example.com
9/11 was an inside job an this documentary proves it DO NOT MISS THIS!!!
The Lost Ark of the Covenant
Can you dig it?
JACKIE HAYDEN meets a man who claims that the Lost Ark of the Covenant is buried on the Hill of Tara. Oh yes, JOHN HILL also says that he s the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah
As every hotpress reader knows, the Old Testament ends with the last chapter of the book of Malachi in which God reminds us of the covenant he made with Moses and in which he ominously promises that before the great and terrible day of the Lord he will send Elijah the prophet. What few hotpress readers know is that the prophet Elijah has been reincarnated, has been living in Kells, Co Meath for the past two years under the name John A. Hill and passionately believes that the long-lost Ark of the Covenant is buried on the Hill of Tara, at one time the capital of Ireland and where our ancient high kings once hung out.
When you meet Hill, or JAH as he more generally styles himself, his long grey-streaked beard certainly carries echoes of the stereotypical biblical prophet, although this effect is somewhat dissipated by a colourful jacket and a baseball cap emblazoned with the world Ireland . He s an affable, clear-skinned, quietly-spoken man whose knowledge of the Bible and other ancient books and texts is truly impressive.
Anyone whose acquaintance with the Ark is confined to the film The Raiders Of The Lost Ark will know that it is one of the most sought-after archaeological treasures on the planet, believed to contain the tablets on which God wrote the ten commandments for Moses, as well as the Torah, the five books of the Bible from Genesis to Deuteronomy, which detail the covenant which God made with Moses and all of mankind.
JAH is convinced that the similarity of the names Tara and Torah is one factor that links Tara with the Ark Of The Covenant. He believes too that the Irish are descended from the Dan (as in De Danann), the fifth tribe of Israel. But his impressive book of evidence is a complex one and may be beyond the ken of the unscholarly. Some of his evidence has been unearthed in the ancient Irish Metrical Dindsenchas which states that the queen Teia Tephi, who crops up repeatedly in ancient Irish history, is buried in a mergach (Hebrew for resting-place) under a mound that fits the description of the Mound Of The Hostages on the Hill Of Tara.
The same source also states that Tara is the secret location of The Way Of Life , and the Book of Deuteronomy describes the Covenant in those terms.
Irrespective of what you think of JAH s claims, they remain so far unrefuted. As he explained to me, The author of the Book of Jeremiah was appointed custodian of the Ark and he s buried only a few miles away in Loughcrew. It was he who brought the Ark from Jerusalem to Tara via Tanis in Egypt and a short stopover in Gibraltar.
The story goes that when Jeremiah left Jerusalem with the Ark he also brought with him the aforementioned Teia Tephi, daughter of King Zedekiah. Having separated prior to their arrival in an effort to protect their treasure, they arrived separately in Hibernia, the ancient name of Ireland which JAH points out can be translated as Hebrew s New Land , perhaps supporting his claim that the De Danann were one of the tribes of Israel.
Jeremiah and Teia Tephi were subsequently reunited at Tara. He died in 581 BC and they are buried in Meath only a few miles apart. In one of her prophesies Teia Tephi predicted that one day she will be recovered from her resting-place at Tara along with the Ark Of The Covenant.
That, in an over-simplified nutshell, is supposed to be how the Ark came to be buried with Teia Tephi under the Mound Of The Hostages at Tara.
In another apparent coincidence, JAH points out that the very name Mound Of The Hostages has echoes of the Biblical Book Of Chronicles in which the Ark and its contents are referred to as the hostages .
JAH himself lived in Gibraltar for some time, a fact which also might explain how the signatures of 500 Gibraltarians and 500 locals have been sent to the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht Sile de Valera as part of a petition asking her to allow a dig on the site to verify JAH s claim. These appeals to the Minister have been turned down in the usual way Ministers have of doing business, with the unconvincing excuse that JAH is not a professional archaeologist.
As JAH told hotpress: She referred me to the Office of Public Works, but that process would be far too costly for me to pursue. All I want to do is dig up a specific piece of earth about two metres by two metres and maybe go down ten, twenty or thirty feet. That s all. I know the exact spot where the Ark is buried and there s absolutely nothing to be lost by allowing me to excavate there. This would be the most significant find in the history of the world, so the attitude of the Irish government is inexplicable.
Except maybe the fact that if JAH s claim holds water it would screw up the cosy relationship that exists between Irish archaeologists, whom JAH refers to as the liars club , and the Minister and her lackeys. It might also reflect unfavourably on the work carried out by de Valera s uncle Ruaidhri in the fifties, but that thought probably never crossed her mind.
JAH has also written to Minister for Tourism Jim McDaid who replied with the usual buck-passing manoeuvre referring the writer to de Valera.
There have of course been many claims for possession of the Ark, often referred to as a hotline to God , including those siting it in the Vatican, Scotland, Ethiopia, Egypt and Jerusalem, but the custodians of these alleged arks have uniformly refused to show it for the most spurious reasons, while JAH s claim has at least the advantage that he s not attempting to hide anything and it would be comparatively easy to prove him wrong.
JAH eschews all organised religion. Religion has killed more people than anything else , he admits, but he believes in the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran and argues that, when properly studied, all three books are in perfect harmony.
He also claims that unearthing the Ark at Tara would be a major scoop in more ways than one.
The benefits for all mankind, and especially Ireland, in finding the Ark at Tara are incalculable , JAH explains. I ve even approached RTE about doing a film based on my evidence. But despite broadcasting programmes about the Ark made in other countries they aren t interested in my evidence. The well-known American producer Bruce Burgess has expressed interest in funding a film about the excavation of the site but once again the Irish government is not interested in granting the necessary permission.
But support for JAH s project is growing, not least in Meath itself. Local Fianna Fail TD Johnny Brady is reported to be not best pleased by de Valera s recalcitrance and, according to JAH, even signed JAH s petition to her to allow JAH to excavate the site.
His supporters also include local activists such as Joseph Glynn who points with incontrovertible common sense that since the excavation can t damage anything and would leave the site unscarred there s no reason why the Government cshouldn t allow it to proceed. After all, Glynn reckons, we re talking about a small area and the dig would only take a couple of weeks.
JAH claims he knows precisely where that dig should take place. I was up on Tara one day and I saw this bright diamond-shaped light shining on the area. People who ve stood on that spot on even the coldest day will tell you that they can feel an inexplicable warmth emanating from the spot.
Although he s understandably reluctant to admit where precisely that spot is, he willingly admits it s in the vicinity of the Mound Of The Hostages and not far from the nearby Rath Of The Synods where a team of British Israelites excavated towards the end of the 19th century.
JAH also refutes concerns that the recovery of the Ark would result in the mayhem that features in the Raiders Of The Lost Ark film.
That couldn t happen he claims. The recovery of the Ark will set the world back in harmony again and this could be our very last chance. God has given me the task of recovering it and God has shown me the exact spot. I know that some people will dismiss this as the notion of a crackpot, but I ve thoroughly researched the subject and I ve no doubts whatsoever that the Ark is buried at Tara.
While some have argued that mankind needs a miracle to rescue us from certain catastrophe, JAH actually believes a miracle of a different kind has already happened.
When you see what we ve done to the earth, and to each other, the wars, the greed, the pollution, the materialism, it s actually a miracle that the earth hasn t already shut down. The Ruler of The Universe has been interfering to keep mankind alive. That s a miracle and it s already taken place!
All our woes can be traced back to our failure to obey the Covenant made between God and Moses. When I find the Ark we will return to a peaceful and prosperous society.
When the Covenant is restored, usury (the lending of money), believed by JAH and his supporters to be a major cause of all our woes, will also disappear.
He also maintains that this must happen in his lifetime. I put it to him that since he s now 52 years old, allowing the Biblical threescore years and ten as the average lifespan means that we have only 18 years before all hell (or heaven) breaks lose.
I d put it sooner than that , he answers with unnerving confidence, I d say it s more likely to be around twelve years.
Meantime, all that seems to stand between JAH and potentially the most significant find in history, is a stubborn Minister.
Coming soon to the skies above you — drones, drones and more drones.
And all giving police and who knows who else the chance to peek into your backyard.
Legislation just signed by President Obama directs the Federal Aviation Administration to open the skies to remotely controlled drones within the next three years. It will begin in 90 days with police and first responders having authority to fly smaller drones of less than 4.4 pounds at altitudes under 400 feet. Gradually, all drones are to be allowed by Sept. 30, 2015.
The use of drones had been restricted out of civilian aviation safety concerns created by a sky full of drones flown by untrained operators in the same space as aircraft. But that was overridden by successful lobbying of drone makers and customers who will reap the financial benefits for commercial purposes. “The market for drones is valued at $5.9 billion and is expected to double in the next decade,” the New York Times reported.
They can be used by real estate agents to snap aerial photos. But then, given costs and ease of use, what will stop a member of the paparazzi or any other prying photographer from using them to get more personal snapshots? The Times report said a $300 drone can be flown from an iPhone.
The planned expansion extends the militarization of law enforcement that has been going with the adaptation of military technology and strategies to civilian law enforcement. Police see several advantages to drones over other surveillance.
The pilotless craft cost less, are cheaper to operate and can remain airborne longer. They can be used as a crimefighting tool to patrol from the skies. Authorities can monitor traffic, search remote areas for missing persons or watch criminal suspects. But, then, police can watch a political rally, silently from 30,000 feet overhead.
But also alarming is the danger of escalating their use to include weapons. Drone builders are researching the use of nonlethal weapons such as tear gas, tasers and stun guns fired from a drone, and lethal weaponry can be an easy next step on the slippery slope.
The drones will add to the erosion of privacy that has come with the ubiquitous cameras and global positioning systems that can monitor our whereabouts.
The new law is concerned with safety in establishing guidelines and training requirements for operators. It will be up to governments and even the courts to enact constitutional safeguards on their use.
Jewish Man Exposes Israel's Lies
Jewish activist to AIPAC: Stop Silencing Dissent!
‘Obama betrays Americans for Israel’
An interview with Sarah Marusek, political analyst
Mon, 05 Mar 2012
A prominent political analyst says the US government feeds misinformation to its citizens in order to increase support for Israel, while demonizing Iran.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Sarah Marusek, political analyst, to further discuss the issue.
The following is a transcription of the interview.
Press TV: I found the [Barack Obama’s] whole speech quite interesting and actually common in that it almost sounded like a presidential campaign raised for the state of Israel instead of the United States. What’s your take on this speech overall?
Marusek: Yes, I definitely agree that is sounds like Barack Obama is the president of Israel and not the president of the United States. We sit hear listening to his speech wondering who he’s actually listening to? Is he speaking to the Israeli people or is he speaking to the United States’ citizens or is he speaking to whom?
Unfortunately, the people sitting in the room at AIPAC are much less representative of the American people than they are of the Israeli people.
And so really it’s a sign that he’s not speaking to people like me, to my family, my friends, my colleagues or even many Republicans throughout the United States or other members of the Democratic Party.
But he’s speaking to the Israelis.
It’s quite shameful, really, as an American to stand and watch your president really grovel to another country in this way, and to lose authority by begging this group, this audience, these people to accept him, to approve of his actions for their country and not really take into consideration the interests of the United States, the security interests of the United States, the economic interests of the United States.
All of these interests are really hurt when he completely sidelines American interests and pursues policies for Israel’s interests especially when it comes to the case of Iran for example.
The recent sanctions against Iran which, granted, were passed through the Congress, but many of the other sanctions were pushed through the White House as well, are really going to affect American tax payers and are going to affect American pockets when we look at how different budgets are going to be spent preparing for the American military intervention in Iran if it comes, hopefully still it will not come.
But the American industrial military complex is, of course, going to begin preparing for this and spending a lot of money and spending on all kinds of military planes, missiles and all of these other things to attack Iran.
And then, of course, the sanctions against Iran’s bank and oil, that’s going to hurt the American citizens because the price of gasoline is going to go up in the United States.
All of these policies are not in America’s interests and yet we have a president standing, bowing to AIPAC and to the Israeli community.
Press TV: Sarah, where’s the American people in general in all of this? As a fellow American and looking at this it’s very difficult to see. I’m wondering where the average American is when the US president, basically, the loyalty lies with a foreign state?
How can this happen that the president of the United States of America, first priority, [serves] a foreign state instead of the country that he has been sworn in, taken an oath of office to serve and protect. What is the responsibility at this point, in your perspective, of the American people when they see such a speech and they hear the very type of pro-Israeli rhetoric coming from their president? What do you think should be the reaction of the average person and why aren’t we seeing it, basically is the question?
Marusek: I think we can see that the American people are becoming increasingly confused when it comes to this issue. And of course, traditionally, the American people have long sided with the Israeli people and with the Israeli government in particular when it comes with anything to do with foreign policy in the Middle East.
But if you look at recent polls, for example, half of Americans actually suggest that there shouldn’t be any military strike against Iran. And even more importantly, 20 or 30 percent of Americans would support an Israeli strike. So if Americans do support some sort of action against Iran, which of course we hope still would not happen, they actually prefer America to do it and not Israel.
So you see that perhaps maybe growing distrust of Israel’s leadership among the American people.
But then it’s very difficult to say what the general American public thinks because we are a diverse country with many different people, many different viewpoints.
And unfortunately we have the Republican presidential candidates coming to every place in America, places that most Americans couldn’t find on a map, let alone other countries, and these presidential candidates like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich are actually telling voters that Iran is going to come and attack them, which is absolutely outrageous.
So this mixed message coming from our political elite - well actually it’s not a mixed message of course, it’s a message against Iran - but this misinformation, I should say, coming from the Washington elite is really confusing Americans.
Although, I think we see an increasing number of us growing weary of giving Israel so much control over our foreign policy and our people in Washington, we also are hearing these lies about the dangers posed by Iran against our own interests and that sometimes pushes us closer to Israel.
Zionism the Invisible Force Behind All Upheavals - Turkish Newspaper Editor
Something is seriously wrong when ''logic'' tells two academics it is fine to kill infants if they are inconvenient since infants are not ''persons''.
This is the argument advanced by two Melbourne philosophers in the Journal of Medical Ethics. They suggest that it is permissible to kill live infants who might be a burden to their families, in the same way they might have been aborted before birth.
I learnt about the paper - by Alberto Giubilini, of the universities of Milan and Monash, and Francesca Minerva, of Melbourne and Oxford - from Friday's Age, which reported that they had been shocked to receive email death threats.
''This was a theoretical and academic article,''' Dr Minerva told The Age. ''I'm not in favour of infanticide. I'm just using logical arguments.'' However, she carefully defined her proposal as ''after-birth abortion'' and not infanticide, leaving it unclear what she does favour.
She said the argument had been around for 30 years. This is true; Australian philosopher Peter Singer has managed to become widely admired despite - or perhaps because of - advocating similar views. But the simple fact that someone advocates an idea does not make it a legitimate concept or proper subject for discussion. Some ideas are simply depraved, and should be met with revulsion. Killing infants because they might be inconvenient is one such.
English philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe suggested in a famous paper half a century ago that some discussions should never happen. She wrote that if someone thought in advance it was open to question that we should procure the judicial execution of an innocent person, ''I do not want to argue with him; he shows a corrupt mind."
That's also the case, I think, when philosophers argue that a newborn is not a person and therefore cannot suffer harm, so that killing a new-born is not committing a harm. Their argument might weigh with some people if it were confined to those infants who suffer a defect during birth, or whose defect was not diagnosed in utero. But they explicitly extend this to any child who might be perceived as a burden by its parents, and even suggest that a mother would find it easier to have a baby killed than adopted.
The authors say nothing of post-natal depression or mood swings that might lead a mother to a hasty decision, though I am sure they are aware of this aspect and would factor it in to a fuller proposal. They reach their position by using a viciously reductive definition of ''person'' as someone who values their own existence, such that being deprived of it would be a loss. An infant does not do this, true; nor does someone in a coma.
But in talking this way I have already conceded too much. To talk of "persons" as a separate category from other human beings, who are non-persons and thus less morally significant, is to allow thuggish thinking to smuggle in the desired conclusions in the premise.
A fatal step was taken earlier in this arena, when ''quality of life'' was allowed to replace the value of life in such discussions.
I do not think other people should decide someone's life is not worth living, especially for ''defects'' such as Down's syndrome (I speak as the father of a Down's child).
Nor is it any justification to claim one is following logic. Logic is a tool, whose usefulness depends on the premises with which it works; it is not a good in itself.
Take this example. Premise one, Jews, Slavs, gypsies and homosexuals are subhumans. Premise two: Sub-humans drain society and are not fit to live. Conclusion: Therefore their lives should be ended. The logic is valid (the conclusion matches the premises) but it is wrong.
The other point about logic is that reason - of which logic is a part - cannot be detached from morality. Thinking is a moral activity, subject to moral descriptions such as ''generous'' or ''callous'' or ''selfish''. It is a fallacy beloved of some philosophers to imagine that they can analyse the "facts" as neutral entities, then later subject them to some moral test.
Dr Minerva told The Age she was frightened by the death threats, most apparently arriving via a conservative website in the United States. But I wonder how she failed to understand that publishing such ideas would stir deep passions.
When she said the paper was "theoretical and academic", was she saying it did not articulate a real-life possibility that the authors intended should be taken seriously? It seems unlikely, in a journal of ethics.
Of course, the death threats are reprehensible, and I don't condone them at all. But perhaps Drs Giubilini and Minerva can find it comforting that those making the threats were engaged in the same activity as the philosophers: following the logic where it took them.
NB: Read the original paper here. It is quite short.
Psychological Trauma Coming To A Primary School Near You
UK school children have once again been frightened after a careless stunt, allegedly used to improve their creative writing .
Nine and Ten year olds attending the Wincheap Foundation Primary School in Canterbury, were interrupted mid lesson by a commotion outside. As they were encouraged to peer out the window they saw their school caretaker abducted by a man wearing a red-wig. The kidnapper forced the caretaker at gun-point in to a vehicle, before speeding out of the school-grounds.
In reality it wasn’t a real abduction. The man in the red wig was Clive Close, the school-headmaster. What appeared to be a gun was actually an old water-tap used as a prop. The whole incident had been premeditated as part of a bizarre teaching method, allegedly used to spark children’s imagination and help improve their creative writing in English lessons.
Amid concerns over thousands of protestors descending on Chicago, Illinois for the G-8 Summit this spring, the event have been moved to the presidential compound at Camp David, Maryland, around an hour outside of Washington.
Leaders from the United States, Russia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and European Union were expected to arrive in Chicago this May for the annual meeting of the world’s largest economies. Protesters also had plans for the Windy City, however, and demonstration groups including Occupy Wall Street offshoots had begun orchestrating events to coincide with the meeting. Now barely two months before the event is slated to occur, the G-8 Summit is being moved outside of Chicago to Camp David, a suburban city outside of the US capital that serves as a historic retreat locale for America’s commander-in-chief.
"In May, the United States looks forward to hosting the G-8 and NATO Summits. To facilitate a free-flowing discussion with our close G-8 partners, the president is inviting his fellow G-8 leaders to Camp David on May 18-19 for the G-8 Summit, which will address a broad range of economic, political and security issues,” reads a statement released Monday by the White House.
After the G-8 Summit, the NATO meeting is expected to continue as planned in Chicago on May 20 through 21.
In the past, these high-profile meetings of the minds have attracted massive demonstrations, with the 2010 G-20 Summit in Toronto resulting in the largest mass arrest in the history of the entire country of Canada. In recent weeks, the Apartment Building Owners and Managers’ Association of Chicago began a series of presentations in which it explained how building managers could effectively handle riots, protests, tear gas and bomb threats.
Camp David has served as a retreat for every president since Franklin Roosevelt went into office in the 1940s and has hosted foreign dignitaries such as Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher and Anwar al-Sadat. Come this spring, however, it will serve as a meeting place for more than just a few heads of state. Obama, Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy are just a few of the names that are expected on this year’s guest list — and don’t expect there to be many more. Camp David is normally subjected to heightened security standards, and this spring’s G8 Summit won’t come as any exception. For protesters hoping to picket outside the grounds — a mass demonstration would be unlikely.
Coincidently, a new bill drafted by Congress, HR 347, will make it a federal offense to trespass on the grounds of any place granted Secret Service. If approved, the NATO Summit in Chicago will fall into this jurisdiction, as will the presidential retreat at Camp David. What does that mean for protesters? Even if you’re in the proximity of the premises, you could be considered a criminal for engaging in any activity that disrupts a governmental event.
Highest Court in Mississippi Upholds 9 Pardons
March 8, 2012
Bringing a definitive close to the legal controversy that has swarmed since former Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi gave pardons to nearly 200 felons in his last days in office, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the judicial branch did not have the power to void those pardons.