Eugenics: A Mystery of Iniquity

The Tuskegee Experiments

On May 16th 1997, former president Bill Clinton, standing behind a podium with the seal of the United States embroidered on the face of it, exposed and apologized for the US government's role in secret experiments aimed at African American men. What was the nature of these experiments? To allegedly 'test the impact of syphillis on black men.' For more details click here.

"Beginning in 1932, the federal government sponsored a study to examine the impact of syphilis involving black men. The experiment went on until 1972 without the test subjects' knowledge, but no President had apologized to the volunteers and their families until President Clinton did so today."


That is the explanation given, but that is not the whole truth.

When you "test" something, such as via experimentation, it is because you have a hypothesis, and you do not know the true outcome? What are the odds that the US government did not know the consequences of syphillis? This of course is a complete line of B.S. Syphillis, and its consequences have been known to the medical community for centuries! Read the following to learn more on the history of Syphillis:

Famous Diseases in History

"This is an infectious disease that occurs only in humans. It is usually transmitted from one human being to another by direct contact, usually by sexual intercourse. The causative organism is a spirochete. The organism was isolated in 1905. There is no vaccine for syphilis."

Here we learn that the "organism" was isolated in 1905! It was in 1932, when the US government began its experiments.

What is not mentioned is the philosophy behind the Tuskegee experiments. The philosophy of Eugenics. Whether you dub it "postive eugenics", the encouragement of genetically superior people to have children, or "negative eugenics", preventing genetically inferior people from having children. The goals of both are the same--the so-called improvement of the human genetic stock. The fact that both ideas are purely unethical may ellude many. George Bernard Shaw wrote, "there is now no reasonable excuse for refusing to face the fact that nothing but a eugenic religion can save our civilization." It is of interest to note that the Roman Catholic Church does in fact encourage the practice of eugenics...

"But the Church, too, has a doctrine concerning marriage and its use, and also a doctrine and a method of dealing with racial defects. The Church therefore has no fault to find with race culture as such. Rather does she encourage it. But she wishes it carried out on right lines."

...as well as segragation...

"The welfare of the State, if seriously threatened by the degenerate, could be better protected by segregation."

Fortunately, the edicts of the Holy See are not always able to prevail against the human spirit.

Although the language presented in the Catholic Encyclopedia is smooth and subtle, appearing to refer to spiritual rather than worldly affairs, the realities of such ideologies and the actions that result because of them are what really matters.

The following excerpts are from James D. Watson's book DNA:

"The American focus on getting rid of bad genes, as oppossed to increasing frequencies of good ones, stemmed from a few influential family studies (See Galton, 2nd paragraph) of "degeneration" and "feeblemindedness"--two peculiar terms characteristic of the American obsession with genetic decline...."

And,

"Another highly influential study was published in 1912 by Henry Goddard, the psychologist who gave us the word "moron", on what he called the "Kallikak family"...two family lines originating from a single male ancestor who had a child out of wedlock (with a feeble-minded wench he met in a tavern while serving in the military....)...." p. 21

The moral of the story, according to Goddard, was that due to this union and the circumstances surrounding it, "a race of defective degenerates" were produced. What a damning assessment based on spurious analysis.

Also,

"Rigorous new methods for testing mental performance--the first IQ tests, which were introduced to the United States from Europe by the same Henry Goddard--seemed to confirm the general impression that the human species was gaining a downward momentum on a genetic slippery slope..."

"...in 1899, when a young man called Clawson approached a prison doctor in Indiana called Henry Sharp. Clawson's problem--or so it was diagnosed by the medical establishment of the day--was compulsive masterbation. He reported that he had been hard at it since the age of 12. Masturbation was seen as part of the general syndrome of degeneracy, and Sharp accepted the conventional wisdom (however bizarre as it may seem to us today) that Clawson's mental shortcomings--he had made no progress in school--were caused by his compulsion. The solution? Sharp performed a vasectomy, then a recently invented procedure, and subsequently claimed that he had "cured" Clawson. As a result, Sharp developed his own compulsion: to perform vasectomies. Sharp promoted his success in treating Clawson (for which, incidentally, we have only Sharp's own report as confirmation) as evidence of the procedure's efficacy for treating all those identified as being of Clawson's kind--all "degenerates""... p.26-27

"Sterilization had two things going for it...it might prevent degenerate behavior...it would prevent ["degenerates"] from passing their inferior [degenerate] genes on to subsequent generations. Sterilization, Sharp believed, offered the perfect solution to the eugenics crisis." p.27

Exactly who is labelled a degenerate is wholly relative. In the end, this is all a pseudo-scientific pretense to eliminate racial undesirables. In 1932, in the form of the Tuskeegee experiments, African Americans were the "degenerates". The establishment were fully aware of the consequences of syphilis, after all "syphilis wiped out American Indians with the same ferocity as it did in Asia, North Africa, and Europe."

"...in 1907 Indiana passed the first compulsory sterilization law, authorizing the sterilization of confirmed "criminals, idiots, rapists, and imbeciles." Indiana's was the first of many: eventually thirty American states had enacted similar statutes, and by 1941 some 60,000 in the United States had duly been sterilized, half of them in California alone. The laws, which effectively resulted in state governments deciding who could and who could not have children, were challenged in court, but in 1927 the Supreme Court upheld the Virginia statute in the landmark case of Carrie Buck. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision:

"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...Three generations of imbeciles is enough." p.27

It is now known in retrospect, history reveals that caught on outside of the United States, and spread through Nazi Germany, Switzerland, and Scandanavian countries authorized similar legislation. It should be obvious to the reader that the prominent practitioners of eugenics tended to be racists who used eugenics to provide scientific justification for their racist views and promote their agendas.

Another quote from Watson,

"Although the term "white supremacist" had yet to be coined, America had plenty of them early in the twentieth century. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants [WASP], Theodore Roosevelt prominent among them, were concerned that immigration was corrupting the WASP paradise that America, in their view, was supposed to be. In 1916, Madison Grant, a wealthy New Yorker and friend of both Davenport and Roosevelt, published The Passing of the Great Race, in which he argued that the Nordic peoples are superior to all others, including other Europeans. To preserve the United States' fine Nordic genetic heritage, Grant campaigned for immigration restrictions on all non-Nordics. He championed racist eugenics policies too:

"Under existing conditions the most practical and hopeful method of race improvement is through the elimination of the least desirable elements in the nation by depriving them of the power to contribute to future generations. It is well known to stock breeders that the color of a herd of cattle can be modified by continous destruction of worthless shades and of course this is true of other characters. Black sheep, for instance, have been practically obliterated by cutting out generation of generationb all animals that show this color phase." 28-29

"..Grant's book was... an influential best-seller. Later translated into German, it appealed to...the Nazis. Grant gleefully recalled having received a personal letter from Hitler, who wrote to say that the book was his Bible." p.29


To be continued....

More on the Tuskegee ExperimentsHere

Setting an Example: freeNewPort.com

I was surfing the internet the other day and stumbled across this interesting site.

The site claims to be representative of the "free press" of Newport Beach; their mission statement:

"The goal of FreeNewport! is to inform, educate, and motivate the residents and businesses of West Newport through all legal and peaceful means so that they are aware of important issues in our city council, they are justly represented in the city council, and to ensure that their opinions are heard and taken into account."

Furthermore, they say that they work to expose:

1) New laws or restrictions which target the residents, restaurants, and/or alcohol establishments of West Newport.

2) City Council members who do not act in the interests of the residents / businesses of West Newport, especially those that claim to represent these districts.

3) The night time use of the Newport Beach police helicopter ("The Ghetto Bird") for routine, non-emergency calls over residential neighborhoods.

4) Police officers who violate our civil rights. In particular, the 4th Amendment, which protects us against illegal search and seizures.

I think that this is a noble idea. Perhaps such interest groups exist throughout the United States? If so I am very interested in learning how to organize and create such a group. It is akin to the idea of a 'neighborhood watch'. We, the people, should take note of our constitutional rights and work together to create solutions, such as demonstrated here at freeNewport.com.

"Think not, what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." ~ JFK





Post your comments and information. Gracias.

The Electoral College

Source: The Official U.S. Department of State website


Frequently Asked Questions About the Electoral College

Who selects the electors?

The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their state party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each state. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be state elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the presidential candidate. Then the voters in each state choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for president, depending on the procedure in each state.

What are the qualifications to be an elector?

The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that "no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." As a historical matter, the 14th Amendment provides that state officials who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies are disqualified from serving as electors. This prohibition relates to the post-Civil War era. A state's certification of electors on its Certificates of Ascertainment is generally sufficient to establish the qualifications of electors.

Is a vote for president and vice president meaningful in the Electoral College system?

Yes, within a state a vote has a great deal of significance. Under the Electoral College system, the people of the United States do not elect the president and vice president through a direct nationwide vote. The presidential election is decided by the combined results of 51 state elections (in this context, the term "state" includes the District of Columbia). A single vote helps decide which candidate receives the state's electoral votes. It is possible that an Elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely.

The Founding Fathers devised the Electoral College system as part of their plan to share power between the states and the national government. Under the federal system adopted in the Constitution, the nationwide popular vote has no legal significance. As a result, it is possible that the electoral votes awarded on the basis of state elections could produce a different result than the nationwide popular vote. Nevertheless, the individual citizen's vote is important to the outcome of each state election.

Are electors required to vote for the candidate who win his or her state's popular vote?

There is no constitutional provision or federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states (currently 24 plus the District of Columbia) require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.

The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout the history of the nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nationwide popular vote?

It is important to remember that the president is not chosen by a nationwide popular vote. The electoral vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nationwide vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each state.

Note that 48 out of the 50 states award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does the District of Columbia). For example, all 55 of California's electoral votes go to the winner of that state election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.

In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nationwide basis will not win the electoral vote. This happened in 1824, when John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William Crawford, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun ran for the presidency. In a two-candidate race, that phenomenon is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Rutherford B. Hayes-Samuel Tilden election of 1876 and the Benjamin Harrison-Grover Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual state elections and the national vote totals.

Why does the United States still have the Electoral College?

The Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. It would be necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to change this system. Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the states as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

Many different proposals to alter the presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nationwide election by the people, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system?

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College.

There have been more proposals for constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and in 1987, for instance, its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it. On the other hand, surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. But public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Such opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina in 1948 and Governor George Wallace of Alabama in 1968 won blocs of electoral votes in the South, which may have affected the outcome, but did not come close to seriously challenging the major party winner. The last third party or splinter party candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, running under the Progressive Party, also known as the Bull Moose Party.

Roosevelt finished a distant second in electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win). In 1992, although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide running under the United We Stand Party, (the forerunner of the Reform Party), he did not win any electoral votes because he was not particularly strong in any one or several states. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees.

How do the 538 electoral votes get divided among the states?

The electoral votes allotted to each state correspond with the number of representatives and senators each state has in Congress. The distribution of electoral votes among the states can vary every 10 years depending on the results of the U.S. census.

One of the primary functions of the census is to reapportion the 435 members of the House of Representatives among the states, based on the current population. The reapportionment of the House determines the division of electoral votes among the states. In the Electoral College, each state gets one electoral vote for each one of its representatives in the House, plus two electoral votes for its two senators.
Every state has at least 3 electoral votes because the Constitution grants each state two senators and at least one representative. In addition to the 535 electoral votes divided among the states, the District of Columbia has three electoral votes because the 23rd Amendment granted it the same number of votes as the least populated state.


If a state gains or loses a congressional district, it will also gain or lose an electoral vote. As a result of the census conducted in 2000, the number of electoral votes allotted to a state changed for some states in the 2004 election.

What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?

There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these states, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) takes all of the state's electoral votes.


Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the state's system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per congressional district and two by the statewide, "at-large" vote. So for example, it is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections.


Can citizens in U.S. territories vote for president?

The Electoral College system does not provide for residents of U.S. territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa to vote for president. (Prior to the adoption of the 23rd Amendment, residents of the District of Columbia also could not vote in a presidential election.) However, a citizen living in a U.S. territory who has an official residency (often called "domicile") in a U.S. state or the District of Columbia can vote in a presidential election, either by absentee ballot or by traveling to their state of residence to vote. Political parties may also authorize voters in primary elections in territories to select delegates to represent them at party conventions, but that process does not affect the Electoral College system.

What would happen if two candidates tied in a state's popular vote, or there was a dispute as to the winner?

A tie is a statistically remote possibility even in smaller states. But if a state's popular vote were to come out as a tie between candidates, state law would govern as to what procedure would be followed in breaking the tie. The results of a tie would not be known until late November or early December, after a recount and after the state's secretary of state had certified the election results. Federal law would allow a state to hold a run-off election.

A very close finish could also result in a run-off election or legal action to decide the winner. Under federal law (3 U.S.C. section 5), state law governs on this issue, and would be conclusive in determining the selection of electors. The law provides that if states have laws to determine controversies or contests as to the selection of electors, those determinations must be completed six days prior to the day the electors meet.

What is your opinion of the Electoral College? Should is be preserved or abolished? What would you recommend? Post your comments.

Here are some helpful links that expand on the "archaic" political atmosphere from which the idea of the electoral college was conceived.

The Electoral College by William C. Kimberling Deputy Director FEC Office of Election Administration

The Pros and Cons of the Electoral College

U.S. Congressman David Price Endorses the "Count Every Vote Act"

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich Challenges Ohio's Electoral College Vote On House Floor

Inventing the Aids Virus

Peter H. Duesberg, 'Inventing the AIDS Virus' Regnery USA 1996, 720 pages, ISBN 0-89526-470-6.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. HIV does not cause AIDS...
2. AIDS is not sexually transmitted...
3. AZT makes AIDS worse, not better...

So argues Dr. Peter Duesberg, one of the world's leading microbiologists, a pioneer in the discovery of the HIV family of viruses, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Duesberg's evidence - revealed in top scientific journals but kept out of the mainstream press - raises questions the AIDS research establishment has so far declined to answer:

If HIV causes AIDS, why have thousands of AIDS victims never had HIV?
Why have hundreds of thousands who have had HIV - for many years - remained perfectly healthy?
Why does the discoverer of the HIV virus now claim it can not be the sole cause of AIDS?
Why has more than ten years of AIDS research - costing tens of billions of dollars - failed to show how (or even if) HIV causes AIDS or attacks the immune system?
With annual federal funding at more than $7 billion, AIDS research is better funded than any other disease - including cancer. Yet it has also produced the least results. Why? Duesberg explains how the lure of money and prestige, combined with powerful political pressures, have tempted otherwise responsible scientists to overlook - even suppress - major flaws in current AIDS theory.

The answer? Not more funding for more flawed research. Instead, start with an open airing of all the facts and failures, then determine the real cause of the disease.

This book does both. For Duesberg's solution to the AIDS mystery is as convincing as his critique of the HIV theory - and could save hundreds of thousands of lives at risk today

Peter Duesberg is professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley, a pioneer in retrovirus research, the first scientist to isolate a cancer gene, and recipient of the Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health. His articles challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis have appeared in scientific journals including The New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, The Lancet, British Medical Journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Cancer Research.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The preface by the publisher.
The foreword by Kary Mullis.
A chapter from the book.
Early announcement from Associate Press.
Book review by six Professors.
Book review from The New York Times. The reply by Duesberg.
Another book review from Orlando Sentinel.
A book review from the Boston Herald.
And a book review from the Washington Times.
A book review from Laissez Faire Books.
The New York Review of Books published a long review. A summary.
A book review from the (London) Daily Telegraph.
Another book review from The Record.
A short review from the Contra Costa Times.
The book review from the San Francisco Chronicle.
And a book review from the San Francisco Bay Guardian.
Go here for more...

The New Pope and His Past as a Hitler Youth

When Pope John Paul II passed I watched as a new pope was elected. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected. Immediately the media begin to divulge intimate details of Ratzinger's past as a Hitler youth, weaving a yarn to undermine this fact from the very start, rather than explain the subtle implications involved.

First of all, the phrase "Nazi youth camp" is unsettling. In itself, this phrase is a pure example of oxymoronic "double-speech", described in George Orwell's famous book 1984. The negative stigma associated with the word Nazi, in my mind at least, is somewhat diluted by the contradicting connatation associated with a youth camp. I've been to YMCA Youth camp. I've been to Boy Scout youth camp. What I am suggesting is that, no, Nazi youth camp is not akin to our idea of youth camp only with bad guys as scout leaders 'pushing little children with their fully automatics.'

The Nazis were engaged in radical methods of not only racial intervention but genetic intervention, more uncommonly known as "positive eugenics". This philosophy called for selective breeding to eliminate so-called "defects" [perceived external racial qualities]and to increase the number of people with the perceived 'superior' qualities.

One of my associates, when the topic of Ratzinger's past as a Hitler youth was brought up, parroted the exact same thing the media had been saying-- "he escaped...he was forced...he was a youth...he atones...apologetic to the Jews..."

When I mentioned the strict prejudice in the selectivity with which Nazi youth were 'drafted' or 'bred' she went on to suggest, "Well perhaps they did in the beginning [of the war] but after some time they simply picked [any one who could bear arms]"[Read here the sympathetic view].

What she was suggesting was that perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger was one of those non-conforming rejects who otherwise would not have fit the bill as a home grown Nazi youth, (hair simply wasnt blonde enough, eyes not blue enough) but since the Allies were kicking their asses they had no room to complain. [Hear son, take this rifle and dont stop shooting until you see the whites of their eyes, or at least i think that's how that quote goes]

Was this the case? Or was he a Nazi youth, like many others who were ultimately [im] planted by the Nazi's, deeply traumatized and brain-washed and then harvested by the Catholic church? Why allow such precious hardware go to waste?

Is this so absurd? Hitler himself considered himself to be a Catholic! In her book, The Christ Conspiracy, Archaya S, points out that:

"Hitler also remarked to one of his generals: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remains so."

She goes on to add that whether or not Hitler was a true christian is debatable. This is beside the point. The question I ask is whether or not Hitler saw himself as a Catholic and whether or not the Catholic church received him as one or condemned him like so many other 'heretics' throughout the churches history. The evidence suggests that, no, Hitler was not condemned, nor the Nazi's, they were allies of the Roman Catholic church!

According to Archaya S,

"In addition, Hitler's paternal grandmother was allegedly Jewish. But Hitler himself was raised a Roman Catholic, and was very much impressed by the power of the church heirarchy. He pandered to it and used it and religion as a weapon. All during his regime, Hitler worked closely with the Catholic church, quashing thousands of lawsuits against it and exchanging large sums of money with it. In addition, thousands of Nazis were later given safe passage by the Vatican, as well as by multinational governmental agencies, to a number of locales, including North and South America, via the "Ratline" from Germany through Switzerland and Italy."

"In reality," Archaya continues, "Hitler was only building on a long line of imputation against the Jews as "Christkillers," a charge used numerous times over the centuries whenever the Catholic church wanted to hold a pogrom against common Jews and seize their assets. The events of WWII, in fact, were the grisly culmination of a centuries old policy, started by the Church and continued by Martin Luther, as was well known by Hitler. Indeed, Hitler was embraced as a Christian instrument, as Walker relates:

The rise of Hitler's Germany provides an interesting case in point, showing a nation swept by militaristic sentiment coupled with a sense of divine mission. The churches accepted Hitler's warmongering with religious joy. In April 1937, a Christian organization in the Rhineland passed a resolution that Hitler's word was the law of God and possessed "divine authority". Reichsminister for church affairs Hans Kerrl announced: "There has arisen a new authority as to what Christ and Christianity really are--that is Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler is the true http://www.christiantimestoday.com/July_04/images/manoffaith2.jpg." And so the pious gave him their blessing, and the church's gave him God's."

Getting back to Ratzinger (once again the lighter side)...is it possible that Ratzinger was and is still of Nazi sympathizers who have been hidden within the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church? Is he the Nazi equivalent of the Manchurian candidate? Share your thoughts here and post your comments.

Does anyone know what the name Ratzinger means per chance? Post it in the comments.

Son of a Bush!

The following site has an variety of resources pertaining to the Bush-Bin Laden-Saud Family connections [here]

This link contains information on Bin Laden families ties to the now infamous [amongst Bush opponents] Carlyle Group [here]. If you have more information on these subjects please post it here as a comment on any one of the blogs posted here.

In 2004 we watched as muscle man Arnold Schwarzenegger became elected as governor of California. It is no coincidence that surrounding the Terminator's persona is the black cloud of Nazism. Why? Read here and here.

But I see another coincidence...George Bush's brother Geb Bush recently converted to Roman Catholicism. Read about it http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-fjeb23apr23,0,4303737.story?coll=sfla-news-florida.

I have a sneaky suspicion that we will be seeing more of these two in the future. What are your thoughts and comments?

George Bush was Business Partners with Osama Bin Laden's Brother!

Bush & Bin Laden - George W. Bush Had Ties to Billionaire bin Laden Brood

Source: American Free Press

The unexplained death of Salem, Osama bin Laden's oldest brother, in 1988, brought to an abrupt end a long and intriguing relationship between President Bush and the head of the bin Laden family fortune.

By Roger Miller

The world now associates the bin Laden name with Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect be hind the terror atrocities of Sept. 11. As President George W. Bush leads an intense international manhunt for Osama, few Americans realize that Osama's eldest brother, Salem, was one of Bush's first business partners.

A photograph from 1971 has surfaced and been printed in English papers showing Osama, age 14, and his brother Salem, age 19, enjoying a summer holiday at the Astoria Hotel in Falun, Sweden. Christina Akerblad, the hotel owner, told the Daily Mail, "They were beautiful boys, so elegantly dressed. Everybody loved them."

Osama embraced Islamic fundamentalism and is now the world's most wanted man. "Salem went on to become a business partner of the man who is leading the hunt for his brother," the Daily Mail's Peter Allen said. "In the 1970s, he and George W. Bush were founders of the Arbusto Energy oil company in Mr. Bush's home state of Texas."

President Bush and the bin Laden family have been connected through dubious business deals since 1977, when Salem, the head of the bin Laden family business, one of the biggest construction companies in the world, invested in Bush's start-up oil company, Arbusto Energy, Inc.

James R. Bath, a friend and neighbor, was used to funnel money from Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, to set up George W. Bush in the oil business, according to The Wall Street Journal and other reputable sources.

Through a tangled web of Saudi multi-millionaires, Texas oilmen, and the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International, Bush was financially linked with the bin Laden family until Salem met an untimely end in a freak flying accident near San Antonio in 1988.

The infamous BCCI was shut down in 1991 with some $10 billion in losses.

In June 1977, George W. Bush formed his own oil drilling company, Arbusto Energy, in Midland, Tex.

"Arbusto" actually means "shrub" in Spanish, but the Bush family interpreted it as "bush".
Salem bin Laden, a close friend of the Saudi King Fahd had "invested heavily in Bush's first business venture," according to The Daily Mail (U.K.).

Arbusto later became Bush Exploration, when Bush's father became vice president. As the company neared financial collapse in September 1984, it was merged with Spectrum 7 Energy Corp. in an effort to stay afloat.

The 50 investors who propped up the Bush company with $4.7 million were "mainly friends of my uncle" who "did pretty good" in Bush's words, although they lost most of the money they invested in the company. Jon Bush, George's uncle, raised money for Arbusto from political supporters of the Reagan-Bush administration.

"These were all the Bushs' pals," family friend Russell Reynolds told the Dallas Morning News in 1998. "This is the A-Team."

The "A-Team" limited partners contributed $4.67 million to various Bush funds through 1984 but got only $1.55 million back in profit distributions, and $3.9 million in tax write-offs.

William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds, two staunch Reagan-Bush supporters, owned Spectrum 7.

Despite his poor track record, the owners made Bush president of the company and gave him 13.6 percent of the parent company's stock.
surprise deal

As the hard times continued, Spectrum merged with Harken Energy in 1986. In 1990, Harken received a contract from the government of Bahrain to drill for offshore oil although Harken Energy had never drilled a well overseas or anywhere in water.

"Knowledgeable oil company sources believe that the Bahrain oil concession was indeed an oblique favor to the president of the United States but say that Saudi Arabia (home of bin Laden) was behind the decision," according to The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride Into the Secret Heart of the BCCI, by Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne.

It raised oil-industry eyebrows when the Persian Gulf state announced it had chosen tiny Harken to explore an offshore site for gas and oil. Bahrain officials said they had no idea President Bush's son was associated with Harken, a claim oil-industry sources ridicule.
The Bahrain deal was brokered in part by Arkansas investment banker David Edwards, one of Bill Clinton's closest friends. The Bahrain oil project resulted in two dry holes and Harken energy abandoned the project.

Two months before Iraq invaded Kuwait, on June 20, 1990, the younger Bush sold two-thirds of his Harken stock, 212,140 shares at $4 a share-for a total of $848,560.
"That was $318,430 more than it was worth," Dr. Arthur F. Ide, author of George W. Bush: Portrait of a Compassionate Conservative, said. "George W. broke the law to do this since the transaction was an insider stock sale."

Eight days later, Harken finished the second quarter with losses of $23 million and the stock went "into a nosedive" losing 75 percent of its value, finishing the year at a little over $1 a share.

"Like his father who made his fortune in the oil business with the money of others, George W. founded Arbusto with the financial backing of investors, including James R. Bath," said the late James Howard Hatfield, author of a "controversial biography," Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Mak ing of an American President.

Hatfield, 43, was found dead of an apparent prescription drug overdose in a hotel room in Springdale, Ark. on July 18, 2001. Police declined to investigate.

Bath became friends with George W. during their days together in the Texas Air National Guard. Bath "confided that he was an original investor in George Bush Jr.'s oil exploration company," according to The Outlaw Bank.

Bath found investors for Arbusto and "made his fortune" by investing the money of two BCCI-connected Saudi sheiks, Khalid bin Mahfouz and Salem bin Laden. Mahfouz was one of the richest men in the world and a controlling shareholder in BCCI.

Bill White, a former real estate business partner of Bath, said: "He had put up $50,000 to help George, Jr., get started in oil business" at a time when "Bath had no substantial money of his own," according to The Outlaw Bank.

Bath received a 5 percent interest in two Arbusto-related limited partnerships controlled by Bush, although Bush told The Houston Post in 1990 that he had "never done any business" with Bath. However, Bush said Bath was "a lot of fun."

Bath told White that he was in the CIA and that "he had been recruited by George Bush himself in 1976 when Bush was director of the agency . . . he said Bush wanted him involved with the Arabs, and to get into the aviation business."

White contends that the Saudis were using Bath and their huge financial resources to influence U.S. policy during the Reagan and Bush administrations, according to the Houston Chronicle of June 4, 1992. Such representation by Bath would require that he be registered as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice, which he was not.

Shortly after Bush's father was appointed director of the CIA, Salem bin Laden appointed Bath as his business representative in Texas. According to The Houston Chronicle, Salem bin Laden, heir to one of the largest building companies in the Middle East, signed a trust agreement appointing Bath as his Houston representative in 1976.

In 1978 Bath purchased Houston Gulf Airport on behalf of Salem bin Laden. When bin Laden died in 1988, his interest in the airfield passed to bin Mahfouz.

There was also a political aspect to Salem bin Laden's financial activities, which played a role in U.S. operations in the Middle East and Central America during the 1980s,
according to Public Broadcasting's Frontline report.

As head of Binladen Brothers Construction (now the Binladen Group), a company that later helped build U.S. airfields during Operation Desert Storm, bin Laden was close to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and "a good friend of the U.S. government," a San Antonio attorney, Wayne Fagan, who represented Salem bin Laden from 1982 to 1988, told the San Antonio Express-News.

When the family patriarch, Sheik Mohammed bin Laden, died in 1968, he left an industrial and financial empire and a progeny of 54 sons and daughters, the fruit of a number of wives. In 1972, Salem bin Laden, the oldest son, took over the estate as his father's successor, with the assistance of several brothers.

With over 40,000 employees, the Bin Laden Group is represented in the major cities of Saudi Arabia and the Arab capitals of Beirut, Cairo, Amman, and Dubai. The company builds highways, housing units, factories, hangars, and military bases, some of which are part of the U.S.-Saudi "Peace Shield" agreement.

The story of the Bush involvement with bin Laden and the BCCI scandal involves "trails that branched, crossed one another, or came to unexpected dead ends," according to The Outlaw Bank.

FREAK ACCIDENT

Salem bin Laden came to an "unexpected dead end" in a Texas pasture, 11 years after investing in Arbusto, when the ultralight aircraft he was flying crashed into power lines near San Antonio on Memorial Day, 1988.

On the morning of May 29, 1988, almost immediately after takeoff, Salem bin Laden's aircraft struck and became entangled in power lines 150 feet high before plunging to the ground.

"He was a very experienced pilot. He was a good pilot. We just can't understand why he decided to go right instead of left," recalled airstrip owner and former Marine Earl May field, who cradled bin Laden, bleeding from the ears.

That day, bin Laden took off in a southeasterly direction into the wind. He surprised onlookers by turning west to ward power lines less than a quarter-mile away.

"Nobody could figure out why he tried to fly over the power lines," said Gerry Auerbach, 77, of New Braunfels, a retired pilot.

Bin Laden had more than 15,000 hours of flight experience.

The police report concluded "freak accident." H

Bush-Bin Laden Connection

The Bush-Bin Laden Money Connection

Source: BushWatch


"Former President George Bush met with King Fahd, right, on a trip to Saudi Arabia last year as part of his work for the Carlyle Group." (NYT, 3/5/01)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Second Bush Oil Deal To Come With Murky Ties To Saudi Financiers And Osama Bin Laden
"On September 24, President George W. Bush appeared at a press conference in the White House Rose Garden to announce a crackdown on the financial networks of terrorists and those who support them. “U.S. banks that have assets of these groups or individuals must freeze their accounts,” Bush declared. “And U.S. citizens or businesses are prohibited from doing business with them.”

"But the president, who is now enjoying an astounding 92 percent approval rating, hasn’t always practiced what he is now preaching: Bush’s own businesses were once tied to financial figures in Saudi Arabia who currently support bin Laden.

"In 1979, Bush’s first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi Arabian family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden. It has long been suspected, but never proven, that the Arbusto money came directly from Salem bin Laden. In a statement issued shortly after the September 11 attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden’s, in Arbusto.

"In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests. In fact, Bath has extensive ties, both to the bin Laden family and major players in the scandal-ridden Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) who have gone on to fund Osama bin Laden. BCCI defrauded depositors of $10 billion in the ’80s in what has been called the “largest bank fraud in world financial history” by former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During the ’80s, BCCI also acted as a main conduit for laundering mo

Bush Money

Source: BushWatch


"[Texas] Observer readers are familiar with much of the ground [Charles] Lewis covers in The Buying of the President 2000 [Avon Press], including accounts of how he:

made $15 million off the Texas Rangers deal with the help of $135 million in corporate welfare from Arlington taxpayers;
took $4.5 million from the business interests clamoring for "tort reform" and rewarded them with laws that make it harder to sue irresponsible businesses; and
invited oil industry executives to develop a do-nothing public relations response to the "grandfathered" air pollution problem in Texas.

The Observer has not yet covered the University of Texas Investment Management Company (UTIMCO) scandal, in which huge sums of money flow back and forth between Bush and his top donors. Tom Hicks (of the Dallas corporate takeover firm Hicks Muse Tate & Furst) made Bush a millionaire fifteen times over by buying the Texas Rangers. Hicks and his brother Steven contributed $146,000 to Bush's gubernatorial campaigns; Steven is a Bush fundraising "Pioneer," who has raised at least $100,000 for Bush's presidential race. Tom Hicks long urged U.T. to move part of its $13 billion endowment into riskier investments. In 1990, for example, he tried to get it to invest in his takeover of Healthco, a dental supply company that went bankrupt three years later. In 1995, the Texas Senate confirmed Tom Hicks as a U.T. regent, just as Bush was moving into the Governor's Mansion. Hicks hired lobbyists to push a bill -- signed into law by Bush -- that created UTIMCO. With Hicks as its first chair, UTIMCO began to dole out lucrative contracts to private investment firms to manage portions of the endowment. Many of these firms had ties to Hicks and Bush:

"The Carlyle Group. The elder George Bush reportedly has an equity stake in this firm, which is run by leading members of his presidential administration.
Maverick Capital Fund. Its investors include Bush Pioneer Charles Wyly and his brother Sam, who gave $210,273 to Bush's gubernatorial campaigns.
Bass Brothers Enterprises. Bass family interests funneled $215,000 to Bush and financed a Bahraini drilling contract won by a small oil exploration company where Bush served as a director.
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. This corporate buyout firm would soon join Hicks, Muse in a $1.5 billion takeover of Regal Cinemas.
Evercore Partners. Evercore joined Hicks, Muse in a $900 million buyout of television stations soon after its UTIMCO deal.
American Securities Partners. The company won a UTIMCO contract soon after selling eleven radio stations to Hicks, Muse."

The Media: Machina of the Gods

The following excerpt is drawn from the book Mass Control: Engineering Human Consciousness, written by Jim Keith. The following statements about the media were made more than 50 years ago. How much more or less do you feel they apply today? Defend your minds.

"Journalist John Swinton--one of the most respected of the breed at the time--described the situation succinctly when he gave a toast at the New York Press Club in 1953. Swinton said,

"There is no such thing at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone."

[Dan Rather comes to mind]

"The business of journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon [wealth/greed], and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread/ You know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

"We are tools of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."