BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Ultimate Video WMD Lies From Bush

Friday, October 5th, 2007

Ultimate Video WMD Lies From Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell to Sell Attacking Iraq …is Iran Next?

Thanks to Jim Gregorich for submitting this video. And now for an old favorite:

http://salonesoterica.wordpress.com/category/911/

Have Your Say: Ultimate Video WMD Lies From Bush
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Measuring BBC bias reporting‏

Friday, October 5th, 2007

Not a sheep

I blogged yesterday about the blatant bias in the BBC’s coverage of the Labour and Conservative party conferences. In amongst that article was the following analysis of the BBC news “reaction to” each of the speeches, I think this worth highlighting and expanding upon.

Here are the links to the BBC reaction to the three main party leaders’ speeches for Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Menzies Campbell.
As you can see, the reaction to Gordon Brown comprises 5 Labour MPs, 6 Union Leaders, a representative each from Greenpeace and CND but no opposition MPs and just 3 of those reactions were in any way less than completely positive about the speech. The reaction to David Cameron’s speech comprises 3 Conservative MPs, 3 Labour MPs, representatives of Greenpeace, the Green Party, Greenpeace, the SNP, IPSOS MORI, 2 Conservative bloggers and 1 Lib Dem blogger and 8 of the reactions were negative about the speech. The reaction to Menzies Campbell comprised of 6 entirely positive comments from Liberal Democrats.

Even the lines that introduce the reactions are interestingly constructed:

“Union leaders, ministers and delegates give their reaction to Gordon Brown’s first speech to Labour’s annual conference as prime minister”
Gordon Brown’s speech requires only reactions and they will be almost entirely positive.

“Politicians give their verdict on David Cameron’s speech to the Conservative Party conference in Blackpool”
David Cameron’s speech requires verdicts and the BBC will make sure that the verdicts are balanced.

“Lib Dem delegates give their opinions on Sir Menzies Campbell’s closing speech to their annual conference”
Menzies Campbell’s speech is only of interest to Lib Dems so we will only ask them.

The BBC just do not care any more, the bias is blatant. Either it is directed by the Labour Government or the bias is institutionalised.

Have Your Say: Measuring BBC bias reporting‏
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Democrats Want to See Torture Memo

Friday, October 5th, 2007

By LARA JAKES JORDANAssociated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats demanded Thursday to see two secret memos that reportedly authorize painful interrogation tactics against terror suspects - despite the Bush administration’s insistence that it has not violated U.S. anti-torture laws.

White House and Justice Department press officers said legal opinions written in 2005 did not reverse an administration policy issued in 2004 that publicly renounced torture as “abhorrent.”

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., promised a congressional inquiry into the two Justice Department legal opinions that reportedly explicitly authorized the use of painful and psychological tactics on terrorism suspects.

“Both the alleged content of these opinions and the fact that they have been kept secret from Congress are extremely troubling, especially in light of the department’s 2004 withdrawal of an earlier opinion similarly approving such methods,” Conyers, D-Mich., and fellow House Judiciary member Nadler wrote in a letter Thursday. Their letter to Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler requested copies of the memos.

The two Democrats also asked that Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department’s acting chief of legal counsel, “be made available for prompt committee hearings.”

The memos were disclosed in Thursday’s editions of The New York Times, which reported that the first 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding, while interrogating terror suspects, and was issued shortly after then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took over the Justice Department.

That secret opinion, which explicitly allowed using the painful methods in combination, came months after a December 2004 opinion in which the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” and the administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.

A second Justice opinion was issued later in 2005, just as Congress was working on an anti-torture bill. That opinion declared that none of the CIA’s interrogation practices would violate the rules in the legislation banning “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment of detainees, The Times said, citing interviews with unnamed current and former officials.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said neither of those memos overruled the December 2004 legal opinion that he said remains in effect.

“Neither Attorney General Gonzales nor anyone else within the department modified or withdrew that opinion,” Roehrkasse said in a statement. “Accordingly, any advice that the department would have provided in this area would rely upon, and be fully consistent with, the legal standards articulated in the December 2004 memorandum.”

“This country does not torture,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters. “It is a policy of the United States that we do not torture, and we do not.”

Perino would not comment on whether the 2005 opinions authorized specific interrogation practices, such as head-slapping and simulated drowning. She initially said the first classified opinion was dated Feb. 5, 2005, but White House spokesman Tony Fratto corrected Perino’s statement later Thursday to say the memo was dated months after February 2005. Another administration official later said it was dated May 2005.

The dispute may come down to how the Bush administration defines torture, or whether it allowed U.S. interrogators to interpret anti-torture laws beyond legal limits. CIA spokesman George Little said the agency sought guidance from the Bush administration and Congress to make sure its program to detain and interrogate terror suspects followed U.S. law.

“The program, which has taken account of changes in U.S. law and policy, has produced vital information that has helped our country disrupt terrorist plots and save innocent lives,” Little said in a statement. “The agency has always sought a clear legal framework, conducting the program in strict accord with U.S. law, and protecting the officers who go face-to-face with ruthless terrorists.”

Congress has prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terror suspects. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said several extreme interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, are specifically outlawed.

“As some may recall, there was at the time a debate over the way in which the administration was likely to interpret these prohibitions,” McCain said in a statement. McCain added that he was “personally assured by administration officials that at least one of the techniques allegedly used in the past, waterboarding, was prohibited under the new law.”

The American Civil Liberties Union called for an independent counsel to investigate the Justice Department’s torture opinions, calling the memos “a cynical attempt to shield interrogators from criminal liability and to perpetuate the administration’s unlawful interrogation practices.”

The issue quickly hit the presidential campaign trail.

“The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security,” Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a statement.

The 2005 opinions approved by Gonzales remain in effect despite efforts by Congress and the courts to limit interrogation practices used by the government in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gonzales resigned last month under withering criticism from congressional Democrats and a loss of support among members of his own party.

The authorizations came after the withdrawal of an earlier classified Justice opinion, issued in 2002, that had allowed certain aggressive interrogation practices so long as they stopped short of producing pain equivalent to experiencing organ failure or death. That controversial memo was withdrawn in June 2004.

^—

Associated Press reporters Deb Riechmann and Pamela Hess contributed to this report.

Have Your Say: Democrats Want to See Torture Memo
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Mercury poison in vaccine, Aids and bugs in blood, white collar crimes go unpunished

Friday, October 5th, 2007

The Canadian Press

Toronto — Activists and lawyers for victims of the worst public-health disaster in Canadian history lashed out in anger Monday after an Ontario judge acquitted the former national medical director of the Canadian Red Cross and three other doctors of criminal charges in the tainted-blood scandal.

Critics called it “ludicrous” that the court acquitted Dr. Roger Perrault, 70, along with the three doctors and a New Jersey pharmaceutical company for their alleged roles in the blood scandal that left thousands of Canadians infected with HIV or hepatitis C.

Dr. Perrault’s lawyer, however, called the ruling an “absolute vindication” and a “complete exoneration.”

Dr. Perrault had been facing four charges of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and one charge of common nuisance for allegedly giving hemophilia patients an HIV-infected blood-clotting product in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Noella Baker, whose husband died of a blood transfusion, holds back her emotions after the verdict in the tainted blood case was handed down Monday in Toronto.

Also acquitted were Dr. John Furesz and Dr. Donald Wark Boucher, formerly of Canada’s Health Protection Branch, and Dr. Michael Rodell, a former vice-president of New Jersey-based Armour Pharmaceutical.

Armour, which had also been facing charges, was acquitted as well.

“There was no conduct that showed wanton and reckless disregard,” Superior Court Justice Mary Lou Benotto said in delivering her verdict.

“There was no marked departure from the standard of a reasonable person. On the contrary, the conduct examined in detail for over one-and-a-half years confirms reasonable, responsible and professional actions and responses during a difficult time.”

Silence fell over the courtroom as Judge Benotto delivered the acquittals.

“The events here were tragic,” she said. “However, to assign blame where none exists is to compound the tragedy.”

John Plater of the Canadian Hemophilia Society could barely contain his bewilderment at the verdict.

“We’re going to be reading it carefully to understand how she possibly could have suggested that what they were doing at the time, the decisions they were making, were somehow professional and reasonable,” he said.

“If you, on the one hand, have a study that says there’s a problem, and on the other hand have a study that says maybe there isn’t a problem, any reasonable person takes the product off the market. They didn’t. People were infected, and people died.

“How that could be considered reasonable behaviour is beyond us.”

James Kreppner, a lawyer who contacted both HIV and hepatitis C from tainted blood, shared Mr. Plater’s incredulity.

“I find it distressing,” Mr. Kreppner said, his failing health evident from his gaunt appearance and hunched stance. “To call that professional conduct, you just can’t justify that.”

Dr. Perrault, the three doctors and the drug company all pleaded not guilty. Lawyers for the three doctors alleged the Crown didn’t present enough evidence to prove its case.

“Today’s absolute vindication and (Perrault’s) complete exoneration is something we’ve been hoping for and actually expected,” said Dr. Perrault’s lawyer, Eddie Greenspan.

“A very intelligent, careful trial judge found not one wit of evidence against any of the accused. … The bottom line was there was no criminal conduct by anyone who was in charge.”

The counts of criminal negligence focused specifically on four victims — who cannot be named under a court order — who contracted HIV from tainted blood. Three of them have died.

The victims of common nuisance represented people living in Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta.

A second trial for Dr. Perrault is set to begin later this year in Hamilton, where he will face several more criminal charges stemming from allegations that the Red Cross and senior officials failed to take adequate measures to screen donors.

Mike McCarthy, a long-time activist on behalf of victims of the tainted-blood tragedy who himself contracted hepatitis C from a blood transfusion in 1984, said the fight is far from over.

“For hemophiliacs like myself and others and those who have died before, this isn’t the end of the line,” said Mr. McCarthy, who’s now pinning his hopes on the Hamilton trial.

“This is just a bus stop to justice.”

More than 1,000 Canadians became infected with blood-borne HIV, and up to 20,000 others contracted hepatitis C after receiving tainted blood products.

It’s not clear how many people have died as a result, but the death toll was 3,000 as of 1997.

Steven Fletcher, the parliamentary secretary to Health Minister Tony Clement, didn’t comment on the ruling but said the government has done “everything it can in this regard.”

“The victims of tainted blood will start receiving compensation, which varies from the tens of thousands of dollars to $400,000, so the government will be processing those applications as well,” Mr. Fletcher said.

In May 2006, the Canadian Red Cross apologized to tens of thousands of Canadians infected with AIDS or hepatitis C.

In exchange for a guilty plea under the federal Food and Drugs Act, the Crown withdrew charges of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and common nuisance against the charity.

The Red Cross accepted responsibility and said it would pay a $5,000 fine and dedicate $1.5-million to a scholarship fund and research project aimed at reducing medical errors.

In addition prior to 1997 there has been other solutions such as the RIFE machine which uses high voltage and low current frequencies to specifically target unwanted body micro organisms including viruses.

Readers are advised to Goggle search & Google Video search without restrictions, RIFE machine, BOB BECK & also US patent US5188738 & related patents

see the following Evidence for yourself, you will be amazed -

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2095786730805958061&q=bob+beck&total=276&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-234247273689402090&q=bob+beck&total=276&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3807238317495330586&q=RIFE&total=516&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-661201775015095955&q=RIFE&total=516&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

PATENTED Cure for all Viruses & Bacteria patent Feb 23 1993 - US 5188738 (link to the enclosed full patent file please)

useful links:

http://www.rifehealth.com/

http://educate-yourself.org/be/beckelectrifierinfo.shtml

Cancers can be greatly reduced and in some cases cured using B17 Apricot Kernels - see here how the B17 works:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507&q=world+without+cancer&total=188&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Have Your Say: Mercury poison in vaccine, Aids and bugs in blood, white collar crimes go unpunished
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Friday, October 5th, 2007 at 4:10 pm and is filed under 9/11 Truth, Business News, General . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: