Obama’s Allegiance Is to the New World Order and Satan

Barack Obama’s Allegiance Is Not to America and God, But to the New World Order and Satan

By Saman Mohammadi, The Excavator
October 29, 2011

It is hard to pierce the psychology of psychopathic rulers and politicians without having some understanding of their philosophy towards life. Our civilization would be better served if the belief system of politicians was discussed on the campaign trail and on television. We would all be in for some stomach-turning surprises.

It is a well understood fact that a number of high-level Iranian politicians believe in the coming of the Mahdi. President Ahmadinejad and his closest advisers produced a documentary for senior government officials that showcased their belief in Islamic end times prophecy. Watch the documentary with English subtitles here.

The sensational documentary was made to indoctrinate the soldiers of Islam in Iran and elsewhere into thinking that they are fighting for God and the prophet Muhammad, when in reality they are fighting for the clerical oligarchs and the political elite that rule the Islamic Republic of Iran. Their martyrdom will help pave the way for a new world order.

But the Iranian government is not unique in its belief in end times prophecy. The United States of America is also led by crazy rulers who share similar beliefs about a new age and have similar religious aspirations for the new world. The only difference is they believe in another kind of end times babble, one that is not Islamic or Christian, but Satanic.

Indeed, a Luciferian philosophy is the inspiration for the creation of a new world order and a one world totalitarian government. Barack Obama, like the Bushes and Clinton before him, has spoken of the need for a new world order.

Vice President Joe Biden also expressed his love for the new world order in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed in 1992 called, “How I Learned to Love the New World Order.” That’s not really that surprising or scary. I expect big power players to make plans to continue their domination of the world in a new form and under a new flag. That’s just politics.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is known to be a creepy egomaniac with a messianic complex. Netanyahu believes he is the Jewish answer to Winston Churchill and Iran is the 21st century Nazi Germany that represents all evil in the world. It is a very bizarre belief that’s not grounded in reality, but it is very politically convenient and a lot of Israelis are falling for this scam.

The people of Israel seem to be losing sight of the fact that Israel is not an occupied concentration camp under totalitarian rule but a highly advanced military state that can defend itself very easily against the slightest aggression from the Iranian government or any other nation.

But Netanyahu wants to keep the Israeli people in the dark and use their insecurity to seize political glory for himself. He is a danger to Israel and the world because of his demonic nature.

Netanyahu is not the only psychopath who wants a world war and mass death. There are a lot of psychopaths in high places in America, Israel, Iran, England, France, Italy, Russia, and all over the world.

The Earth is truly Satan’s Kingdom. And there are many puppets in politics, the military, media, entertainment and business who love to serve Satan and do evil.

After nearly three years in office, it should be clear to everyone that President Barack Obama is a psychopath who serves Satan. And you can add George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, and many other U.S. political leaders to that list.

When you know that Barack Obama is a Satanic thief and a lying psychopath then you’re not shocked when you see him on late night television with Jay Leno calling the mass murder of the Libyan people by NATO drones and Al-Qaeda terrorists a “recipe for success.” In reaction to that interview, the writer at cryptogon.com wrote:

A recipe for success?

The grinning, shill, international terrorist President of the United States talks up the regime’s atrocities on a late night comedy show, with the host, audience and millions of people out in TV land going along with it…

Holy shit.

Holy shit is right. Barack Obama is evil on the scale of Mt. Olympus, and America is the land of the Dead.

How did America and humanity fall so far, into the very depths of hell? I wish I knew.

Knowing the life-guiding beliefs of major politicians and public officials is more important than knowing their opinions about tax policy or small-scale issues.

And forget politicians’ tax records, the public needs to know their mental health records to find out how their brain works. If they are clinically insane then that fact alone will mean the end of the current political system because it is obviously broken and demonic.

If it is shown that high-level politicians lack basic social qualities like empathy and they show signs of psychopathy and mental illness then they must be taken to mental institutions.

Currently, American political psychopaths are voted into the Congress and the White House by millions of naive and gullible people. [See Beware Corporate Psychopaths – They are Still Occupying Positions of Power]

This is not just a problem in America. Every modern society seems to be under the horrific hypnosis of political and religious power in the hands of totalitarian myth makers who are members of secret societies.

Another question we should be asking is who is more mentally sick? The blind sheepish believer that is the modern voter, or the arrogant psychopathic deceiver that is the modern politician?

Both are obviously made for each other.

The rest of us have to watch the dark show and suffer because we get ridiculed by the first group and killed by the second group.

Many people believe there is a war between heaven and hell that is being fought right now. I used to regard those beliefs as spiritual in nature and having no significance in politics and real life. It is obvious the ruling elite are speaking in a symbolic code. And it is obvious they are on the side of Lucifer in this war. If that is the reality of the present situation and I’m not over-paranoid, then mark me down as Lucifer’s adversary.

To get a glimpse into the nature of psychopathy and psychopathic political leaders, read the following articles:

• The Trick of the Psychopath’s Trade: Make Us Believe that Evil Comes from Others
• Ponerology 101: The Political Psychopath
• Truth to Power: Psychopaths Rule Our World
• Ponerology 101: Psychopathy at Nuremburg
• The Psychopath: A New Subspecies of Homo Sapiens

The Founding Fathers, Colonial Script, the Federal Reserve and the National Debt

“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose.” - John Maynard Keynes (The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235)

“This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.“ - Ayn Rand (Gold and Economic Freedom, Objectivist newsletter, 1966, last paragraph)



In Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”, Rand describes what an incredibly unique advancement America represented at its outset, that “for the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work…” that for the first time “there appeared the real maker of wealth…” and that “no other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted of obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.”

On September 17, 1787, as he was leaving Independence Hall in Philidelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a citizen.” What have you given us ?” Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

What were some of the events leading up to Franklin’s famous statement?

Several decades earlier, in the 1750s, the Colonies were very prosperous. There was no income tax, no unemployment, and stable prices. When asked to explain this prosperity to leaders back in the motherland, Benjamin Franklin replied:

“That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one”.

In 1764, the production of Colonial Script was made illegal by the Currency Act, passed into law in England (of course due to pressure from the Bank of England) prohibiting the Colonies from issuing their own money, ordering them to use only the money that was provided (in insufficient quantities) by the English bankers. Benjamin Franklin said:

“In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed”.

The effect that the English bankers were having on the Colonies was by far the most significant reason for the Revolutionary War in 1775, in contrast to what is taught in our history books. Benjamin Franklin was clear about this:

“The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been for the poverty caused by the bad influence of English bankers on the parliament which has caused, in the colonies, hatred of England and the revolutionary war”.

Although the Declaration of Independence was made in 1776, it wasn’t until the Treaty of Paris in 1783 that the new sovereign nation was recognized. The Colonies were once again free to control their own currency. In 1787, the founding fathers made certain that the control of currency was provided for in the United States Constitution. Article 1, section 8, paragraph 5, states:

“The Congress shall have the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof”.

It’s clear that the issuance of currency is of utmost importance to any free society. The abuse and/or exploitation of the issuance of currency has been alluded to by a great many influential people throughout history. And although the Colonies had gained their independence, the fledgling country was far from out of the dark. Enter the looters (to borrow Rand’s terminology) of the era, the Rothschilds.

The Rothschilds were expert looters, i.e.; they had figured out how to enrich themselves at the expense of people who actually worked and produced.

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

It has been said that “the wealth of Rothschild consists of the bankruptcy of nations” . It has also been said that “the19th century was the age of the Rothschilds”, and estimated that during this period the Rothschilds owned as much as half of the world’s total wealth. Though this is a bit hard for me to believe, suffice to say that they were extremely wealthy and powerful. They were bankers, yet they controlled and manipulated entire governments because they controlled “national banks” and thus the issuance of currency. Benjamin Disraeli characterized Nathan Rothschild as “the lord and master of the money markets of the world, and of course virtally lord and master of everything else.”

Nathan Rothschild ran the Bank of England during the period when the 13 Colonies sought their independence. He understood the potential of the new fledgling country in North America and the problems it could pose to imperial England in the future. Though the British could easily have crushed the Colonies in the American Revolution, they didn’t need to. England would be better served by allowing independence and establishing a “national bank” on the United State’s soil which England would control. Alexander Hamilton, the Minister of Finance, supported the idea of such a bank, but Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, strongly opposed it. Jefferson’s opposition to central bankers is legendary:

“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

“I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale”

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

President Washington eventually sided with his Finance Minister, under the premise that making funds available for business and strengthening the national economy was desirable, and the cleverly named The Bank of the United States was established in 1791 with a 20 year charter. When the charter ran out in 1811, Congress voted against it’s renewal on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

The Bank of England, under the direction of Nathan Rothschild, declared that either the renewal of the charter be granted, or the United States would find itself in “a most disastrous war”. Nevertheless, on March 4,1811, the Bank of the United States was dissolved. And on January 20, 1815, President Madison vetoed another bill that would have created a second National Bank.

But finally, on January 8, 1816, faced with the financial hardship from the War of 1812 (just as Nathan Rothschild had promised …) Congress approved another national bank.

In 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed another move to renew the charter of the ‘Bank of the United States’ . As a result, the bank went out of business in 1836. President Jackson was the only one of our presidents whose administration totally abolished the National Debt.

“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out!”

When asked what he felt was the greatest achievement of his career Andrew Jackson replied,

“I killed the bank!”

James Garfield became President in 1881. With regard to the European bankers, he said:

“Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce… And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

Today our central bank is called “The Fed” or ‘Federal Reserve’, again a clever and intentionally misleading name. (Similiarly the “Bank of England” is nothing of the sort, but cleverly named to instill confidence in the populace. The bank sold shares to “private investors”, the names of which were never disclosed.)

After signing the act in 1913, President Wilson said:

“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” ( both from The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People (New York and Garden City: Doubleday, Page and Company, 1913)

Just after the Federal Reserve Act was passed, Congressman Charles Lindbergh said,

“The act established the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized” … “the greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

The international bankers had created a currency panic in 1907 in order to get the American people to swallow the idea of the ‘Federal Reserve’ in classic Hegelian dialectic form. In 1911, John Moody’s ‘The Seven Men’ was in McClure’s Magazine. In it he states:

“Seven men on Wall Street now control a great share of the fundamental industry and resources of the United States. Three of the seven men, J.P. Morgan, James J. Hill, George F. Baker, head of the First National Bank of New York belong to the so-called Morgan group; four of them, John D. and William Rockefeller, James Stillman, head of the National City Bank, and Jacob H. Schiff on the private banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb Company, to the so-called Standard Oil City Bank group…the central machine of capital extends its control over the United States…The process is not only economically logical; it is now practically automatic.”

Consider the function of the Fed. Today’s dollar is “fiat money”, meaning it is not backed by anything of value (gold) as it used to be, but it is backed only by government decree, by the “full faith and credit” of the United States government.

What are the economic effects of printing money carte blanch;, i.e., uninhibited by the need to have something of real value (and therefore something of limited supply…) behind the currency? With gold backing there is something quantifiable behind our money, something of precise value that keeps money creation and thus economic growth in check.

Currently, getting more money is as easy as turning on the printing presses (incurring more debt…) printing dollars by pure fiat, ‘out of thin air’, as it were. Problem is, our government has to issue bonds to get those dollars. This arrangement is great for whoever is running The Fed… whoever is receiving the bonds… but not so great for the government that issues them. In making good on the bonds they issue, our government not only has to pay full face dollar value (on dollars that cost about 5 cents for the Fed bankers to print) but interest as well!

The US Government (i.e. you and I) gets strapped with the bill each time the “Fed” turns on it’s printing presses. In this manner, our government is taken to the cleaners by our own central bank. To add insult to injury, every time new dollars are printed and the money supply increases, your income and savings are worth less. This has been referred to as a “stealth tax”.

In lockstep, our national debt goes through the roof, increasing tens of thousands of dollars every second – billions of dollars every day. And is it a coincidence that we see a massive acceleration of national debt in the early 1970s, precisely when President Nixon announced that the government was abandoning the Bretton Woods Agreement (August 15, 1971), removing gold backing from the dollar? Check out any graph of our national debt. The correlation is pretty hard to miss.

Draw your own conclusions . . .

The 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership).

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1913), The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocation and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools ." Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education". These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share".

WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested!! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need!" This concept is pure socialism ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? ... By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America... KNOW YOUR ENEMY ...Remove the enemy from within and from among us.

U.S. Government Orders 44.75 Million Doses of Antrax Vaccine

If a catastrophic earth-based event (such as an asteroid impact, or natural mega disaster) were to occur on a future date and world governments had advanced knowledge of such an event — would the populace be warned? If the event were to be too catastrophic to recover from, and people in dense population centers were left to fend for themselves — would world governments preform an extermination of some regions in advance to avoid the total mayhem of a dynamic breakdown of society into ultimate civil unrest? One must wonder… - Shepard Ambellas & Alex Thomas, U.S. Government Gears Up To Release Bio-Weapon On Civilian Populace As Doomsday Event Looms?, The Intel Hub, October 24, 2011

Children May Be Given Death-Linked Anthrax Shots Under Bioterrorism Scare Trials

By Anthony Gucciardi, Infowars.com
October 26, 2011

Obama administration officials are debating whether or not a study should be launched which would lead to injecting healthy children with the anthrax vaccine in an experiment to “see whether the shots would safely protect them against a bioterrorism attack.”

Of course the safety of the anthrax vaccine has been questioned in the past by health professionals and the former Senate Majority Leader — also a physician. That is why the Obama administration is using the threat of bioterrorism as a method of getting the public to submit to the study through fear.

The administration had mainstream health officials touting the vaccine as a way to ‘protect’ the children from the threat of bioterrorism.

“At the end of the day, do we want to wait for an attack and give it to millions and millions of children and collect data at that time?” said Daniel B. Fagbuyi of Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, who chaired the group. “Or do we want to say: ‘How do we best protect our children?’ We can take care of Grandma and Grandpa, Uncle and Auntie. But right now, we have nothing for the children.”

Evidence shows the anthrax vaccine is dangerous

Daniel B. Fagbuyi portrays the study as a necessary means of protecting the children, but evidence shows the anthrax vaccine is actually quite dangerous — not ‘protective’ as the Obama administration officials make it out to be. In 2001 when letters containing anthrax were mailed to several congressional leaders, former Senate Majority Leader and physician Bill Frist spoke out against the shot. He told CNN:

“There are very real and potentially serious side effects from the vaccine and anyone who elects to receive the vaccine needs to be made aware of that. I do not recommend widespread inoculation. There are too many side effects and if there is limited chance of exposure - the side effects would far outweigh any potential advantage.”

In a 2007 report by the CDC in conjunction with theVaccine Healthcare Centers of the Department of Defense and the watchdog group Government Accountability found that ”between 1 and 2 percent” of vaccinated military personnel experienced ”severe adverse events, which could result in disability or death.”

Between 2001 and 2004, the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) received 4,136 spontaneous adverse event reports: 347 (8.4%) were reported as serious.

Serious adverse events include: death, hospitalization, permanent disability, or are life-threatening. There were 16 deaths.

If the anthrax vaccine is to be tested on children, perhaps it should be tested on the children of those who are calling for the study. The Obama administration should be willing to inject their own children with the anthrax vaccine if they are so confident that the test is necessary.

Ignoring the warnings of physicial Bill Frist and the 2007 CDC report, government officials are now calling for your children to be injected with the anthrax vaccine in order to ‘protect’ against bioterrorism, so why wouldn’t they want their own children to be protected? Perhaps it has to do with monetary incentive.

The almighty dollar behind the anthrax vaccine push

On May 2, 2011, mega corporation Emergent Biosolutions announced that the federal government would be purchasing 3.42 million doses of the anthrax vaccine to add to the civilian anthrax vaccine stockpile. Emergent Biosolutions was formerly known as Bioport, the manufacturer of Biothrax, which is the only anthrax vaccine approved by the FDA.

The purchase adds about $101 million to the overall contact for the DHHS’ anthrax stockpile, boosting the value to about $500 million. The company has made $2.4 billion since 2004 alone, which could climb to over $2 billion if the government purchases the 75 million doses it said it needed. This purchase is in addition to the military anthrax vaccine stockpile.

In fact, the Washington Business Journal reports that Emergent generates the majority of its profits from federal public health agencies.

‘Emergent proudly supports the U.S. government’s efforts and unwavering commitment to meet its stated need of 75 million doses of anthrax vaccines,’ said Fuad El-Hibri, chairman and chief executive officer of Emergent BioSolutions. ‘This contract is an indication that BioThrax remains a critical component of the government’s arsenal of biodefense medical countermeasures. In addition to this contract modification, we are continuing discussions with the U.S. government regarding a follow-on procurement contract, which we anticipate will cover a multi-year period.

Emergent Biosolutions also secured a $186.6 million contract for a recombinant protein antigen to combat anthrax and a $28.7 million contract for a third-generation vaccine.

The question is how did Emergent Biosolutions manage to obtain such profitable US government contracts for the anthrax vaccine?

According to political analyst Scott Lilly:

The Emergant model extracts contracts from the US government at exorbitant high profit margins, compared to the cost of manufacture. The vaccine vials expire after 3-4 years, requiring continuous replenishment–guaranteeing sales of at least $100 million / year to the manufacturer for the foreseeable future. However the expenditure throws taxpayer money into a black hole.

Is the DHHS pushing the dangerous anthrax vaccine just to justify vaccine profits?

The disturbing history of government health and vaccine trials

The history of US health and vaccine trials is so unnerving that President Obama has described one such event as ‘shocking,’ ‘tragic,’ and ‘reprehensible’. Obama made these statements in October of 2010, when he apologized to Guatemala for tests conducted during the 1940s that deliberately infected 700 prisoners with syphilis to examine the effects. The researchers went so far as to pour the syphilis-causing bacteria onto the bodies of prisoners with skin abrasions. Another method involved forcing the prisoners to sleep with prostitutes.

The 40-year long Tuskegee experiments were another gruesome ‘experiment’ of the United States government. In order to perform the study, the US Public Health Service withheld syphilis treatment from infected black men to measure the effects of the disease. Again, this took place over a 40 year period.

As you can see, the anthrax vaccine is controversial for a reason. It is a risky, dangerous, and even deadly vaccine that has a questionable history going as far back as its production.

Please visit Natural Society for more great health news and vaccine information.

Anthrax Vaccine Ordered By U.S.

An influenza vaccine that protects against all pandemic strains of the infection could be developed after a volunteer in a medical study had an unusual reaction to the flu virus.

ThirdAge.com
October 10, 2011

To protect against anthrax, the U.S. government has ordered 44.75 million doses of a vaccine from a Maryland company.

Emergent BioSolutions Inc., with headquarters in Rockville, Md., said that under the $1.25 billion award it will supply its BioThrax over a period of five years, UPI.com reported.

BioThrax is the only vaccine licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to protect against anthrax infection.

"Emergent is proud to be able to contribute to the U.S. government's program of protecting the nation from the threat of anthrax," said Fuad El-Hibri, chairman and chief executive officer of Emergent BioSolutions. "This five-year award provides for uninterrupted supply of this critical bio-defense countermeasure while addressing the government's mandate to reduce spending across all programs.

"In coming to agreement, Emergent and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention worked diligently to establish business terms that incorporate substantial price concessions."

Initial deliveries are expected to begin this year. A total of 8.5 million doses is scheduled to be delivered during the first contract year.

The company retains the ability to modify the timing of deliveries depending on manufacturing yields and other factors.

Last month, Emergent was a co-host for a bio-preparedness conference in France on the threat of anthrax.

"Emergent [was] pleased to co-host this conference as part of our efforts to raise global awareness of bio-preparedness," said Allen Shofe, senior vice president of corporate affairs, Emergent BioSolutions.

Grants Issued for Next-Generation Anthrax Vaccine -- False Flag to Come, or More Wasted Money?

Activist Post
September 22, 2011

On September 20, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it had awarded millions of dollars worth of grants to the Biomedical Advanced Research and Developmental Authority (BARDA) for the purpose of supporting the “advanced development of a novel next-generation anthrax vaccine and a new type of anthrax antitoxin.”

Although the announcement has received very little attention in the media, it is nonetheless concerning to those of us who are not apt to trust that every move made by our government is for our benefit.

The agency receiving the grants, BARDA, is located within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, which itself is a division of HHS.

BARDA manages Project BioShield, which “includes the procurement and advanced development of medical countermeasures for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents, as well as the advanced development and procurement of medical countermeasures for pandemic influenza and other emerging infectious diseases that fall outside the auspices of Project BioShield.” BARDA also oversees the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE).

As one can see, the research grants given to BARDA through HHS are emergency-minded in nature; the idea behind these particular contracts being the development of an anthrax vaccine or treatment in the event of an anthrax attack on the United States. The money provided to BARDA will be funneled from the agency to two vaccine companies who will actually be the ones to conduct the studies and manufacturing processes for the up and coming vaccines.

Vaxin Inc. out of Rockville, MD will receive $14.7 million over two years, with the possibility of an extension of up to four years, which would end up totaling $21.7 million if the extension is granted. Vaxin Inc. will be charged with the development and manufacture of a more expeditious anthrax vaccine. Elusys Therapeutics Inc. of Pine Brook, New Jersey, which will be tasked with developing an anthrax antitoxin, will receive $26.5 million for two years, or possibly $68.9 million for five years, upon the extension of the job.

Specifically, Vaxin will be in charge of determining whether or not the vaccine AdVAV can protect against anthrax with fewer doses than the vaccine that is currently licensed, which requires that the recipient take five doses within 18 months and annual boosters for continued protection. Elusys will evaluate the effectiveness of the drug Anthim in terms of its administration before or shortly after one’s exposure to anthrax.

Of course, anyone who has done cursory research into the safety and effectiveness of vaccines will be aware that vaccinations are neither safe nor effective. Vaccines have never been proven safe or effective by any real study that wasn’t connected to a vaccine maker or pharmaceutical company. In fact, vaccines have a history of causing severe health issues, particularly the one used to “immunize” against anthrax, and there are at least 100 compiled studies showing that.

For instance, in 2005, over 1,200 military personnel who were vaccinated against anthrax before going to Iraq developed serious illnesses, and there were thousands of queries about potential side effects. Just the initial symptoms of side effects to the vaccine were diarrhea, cramping, fever, sleep and memory loss, chronic fatigue, headaches, and chest pains, not to mention the long term effects that went undetected.

True to form, both the military and the medical establishment continued to hype the shots and encourage soldiers to take them. Citing, the false-flag anthrax attacks of 2001, the anthrax vaccine was promoted as being needed “now more than ever.” For example, in typical fear-mongering fashion, Maj. Brian Blalock, public health flight commander at Nellis Air Force Base in 2005, stated that,

“We’re living in a completely different era. There are terrorists who are intent on using biological agents and there are countries that certainly have the capability.”

In 2006, the Pentagon announced that it would make the anthrax vaccine mandatory for all soldiers serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and South Korea after the FDA found the vaccines to be safe and effective. Obviously, one might be justified in asking if there has ever been a vaccine that the FDA has not found found to be safe and effective but that is another topic altogether.

Yet it should be noted that the anthrax attacks of 2001 cited by the Pentagon and its spokespeople were not the act of Muslim or domestic extremists as the American public has been hammered into believing by the corporate media and government propagandists.

Microbiologist, Dr. Bruce Ivins, the unfortunate patsy blamed for the attacks and another “lone nut” who turned up dead as a result of an apparent “suicide,” was clearly not the perpetrator of the anthrax mailings, as voluminous amounts of evidence point to his innocence as well as testimony of many credible witnesses and the Department of Justice itself have revealed. Indeed, there seems to be a much more sinister agenda in this case, but, as with the vaccine safety issue, this is also another topic which requires far too much attention to discuss within the confines of this article.

It cannot go unmentioned, however, that there were an alarming number of microbiologists who had turned up dead shortly before the anthrax event. As Dr. Francis Boyle, a former government biological weapons legislator, has stated publicly,

“Ivins is only the latest dead microbiologist. You also have to tie into this the large numbers of dead microbiologists that have appeared since around the summer before these events, when the New York Times revealed the existence of the covert anthrax weapons programs run by the CIA, and that too is in the public record.”

This is the context in which the recent HHS announcement has appeared and, upon hearing of this new push regarding anthrax and the development of new “medical countermeasures” for it, one should bear close in mind the vast and obvious government involvement in weaponized anthrax and false flag terror. As a result, one must be concerned about the potential for serious mass-scale crisis creation using these available resources and methods.

Indeed, this is not the first time BARDA has been given such a task. According to the HHS press release, the agency has been given the goal of funding the development and acquisition of two anthrax antitoxins in the past. These antitoxins are now present in the Strategic National Stockpile. In addition, BARDA’s direction over the Project BioShield operation, which goes at least as far back as 2004, was relevant to the awarding of contracts to the acquisitions of countermeasures to anthrax, smallpox, botulism, and nuclear exposure as well other bioterrorist attack-related emergency supplies.

These stated goals and developmental grants were largely a result of Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13527, which was signed on December 30, 2009. This Executive Order (EO), according to the “HHS Fiscal Year 2012: Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund – Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,” makes it the policy of the federal government to plan and prepare for the timely provision of medical countermeasures to the American people in the event of a biological attack through a rapid federal response in coordination with state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments.

The policy’s goal is to mitigate illness and prevent death, sustain critical infrastructure, and complement and supplement state, local, territorial, and Tribal government medical countermeasure distribution capacity. Section 2 of the EO tasks HHS and USPS to develop a concept of operations and national postal model for other cities interested in utilizing a residential delivery system through the USPS to deliver medical countermeasures for a biological attack.

Essentially, the EO directs HHS and USPS to develop a method of distribution of “medical countermeasures” in the event of a bioterrorist attack in the United States.

Test runs for these procedures were conducted in both 2006 and 2007, as well as later in 2010. George W. Bush also signed an order to provide advance distribution of “medical countermeasures” to those letter carriers who volunteered for the program in 2008.

While one could scarcely argue that it is a bad idea to develop mechanisms for the rapid deployment of medicines and life-saving products via the Post Office or other available institutions in the event of a biological weapons attack or outbreak of a deadly disease, one must also view these EO’s and government policies with skepticism and concern. Especially when one takes into account the historical precedent set by governments (specifically the US government) in creating and exploiting just these kinds of situations.

The fact is, while these procedures appear at first glance (at least to the uninformed) to be a protective measure against foreign bioterrorism or domestically executed attacks, it is actually the US government itself that is almost always the culprit when it comes to virtually any kind of terrorism.

Whether it is the anthrax attacks mentioned above, 9/11, OKC, Swine Flu, or other more small-scale operations, it is not shoe-string extremists that have launched consecutive attacks on the United States; it is rogue elements with the US government itself.

Indeed, among those who research government false flag operations, it is well-known that there are often many potential giveaways as to their coming execution. In some instances, it is military exercises. In others, it is the implementation (or introduction) of laws or policies that would pertain to just such a situation. Therefore, when our government begins preparation for a bioterrorist attack, especially when those preparations are specific in nature, one is definitely justified in a reaction of concern in regards to what this actually means.

These new contracts for development of more advanced anthrax vaccines should cause specific concern in light of previous EO’s signed by both Bush and Obama as well as legislation designed to essentially declare Martial Law in the event of a bioterrorist attack or pandemic virus.

The EO mentioned above (Executive Order 13527) contains language regarding the escort of postal workers carrying “medical countermeasures” by law enforcement officers in order to protect them from “potentially violent crowds,” leading some to speculate as to whether or not this angry reaction would be the result of forced vaccination programs.

Interestingly enough, the Post Office has played an assisting role in the coming Martial Law program in the past. Keep in mind, USPS facilities all across the country have been constructing secretive hardened “criminal investigation rooms.” The source who revealed these room constructions also revealed plans to use these rooms in the event of Martial Law to “separate families.”

While the recent announcement of new anthrax vaccine contracts may be just another waste of taxpayer money on the faith-based scientific efforts known as vaccines, we must not be so quick to dismiss it as such without taking into account the context of these announcements. The United States government has been making plans for years regarding the final crackdown on civil liberties and the ultimate moment to fully transition to an openly authoritarian police state. A bioterrorist attack using anthrax or any other deadly or fast-spreading disease would provide the perfect pretext to do just that.

With Security Spotty, Many Had Access to Anthrax at Fort Detrick

During a two-week period in April 2002, officials at the Army’s lead biodefense laboratory at Fort Detrick discovered anthrax spores had escaped carefully guarded suites into the building’s unprotected areas. The breach called into question the ability of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases to keep its own deadly agents within laboratory walls, seven months after the terrorism attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and the anthrax mailings that autumn. The 2002 incident was considered a breach in containment because anthrax was found outside a containment suite, a group of laboratories and administrative rooms. [Read the Report: Beyond the Breach]

Security reports by independent government specialists suggest that deadly anthrax stocks may have been more accessible than investigators assumed in declaring Army scientist Bruce Ivins the perpetrator.

McClatchy Newspapers and ProPublica
October 25, 2011

The Army laboratory identified by prosecutors as the source of the anthrax that killed five people in the fall of 2001 was rife with such security gaps that the deadly spores could have easily been smuggled out of the facility, outside investigators found.

The existing security procedures -- described in two long-secret reports -- were so lax they would have allowed any researcher, aide or temporary worker to walk out of the Army bio-weapons lab at Fort Detrick, with a few drops of anthrax -- starter germs that could grow the trillions of spores used to fill anthrax-laced letters sent to Congress and the media.

The two reports, which have not been made public for more than nine years, describe a haphazard system in which personnel lists included dozens of former employees, where new hires were allowed to work with deadly germs before background checks were done and where stocks of anthrax and other pathogens weren't adequately controlled.

Fort Detrick since has adopted new bio-security measures. But the security reports by independent government specialists suggest that deadly anthrax stocks may have been more accessible than investigators assumed in declaring Army scientist Bruce Ivins the perpetrator.

The letters, mailed to two U.S. senators and at least three media outlets, panicked the nation in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Justice Department says the letter spores derived from a flask controlled by Ivins at Fort Detrick.

Marked "for official use only," the two reports were completed in 2002. One was conducted by a seven-member team from Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. The other was by auditors for the Army's inspector general's office.

The teams evaluated security at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, or USAMRIID, then the lead federal lab for developing vaccines and other medical defenses against biological weapons.

McClatchy Newspapers, the online investigative newsroom ProPublica and PBS's "Frontline," which have collaborated in an examination of the Justice Department's case against Ivins, obtained copies of both reports.

The reports are expected to be made public later this week in a $50 million lawsuit filed in federal court in West Palm Beach, Fla., by family members of Robert Stevens, a photo editor for American Media Inc., who was the first person to die from the anthrax attacks.

About time

"It's about time," said Richard Schuler, a lawyer for the family. "The public should know about the way security for deadly pathogens was being handled -- or mishandled -- by the Department of the Army and the government in the period leading up to the 2001 anthrax attacks."

A psychological report on Ivins, who committed suicide in July 2008, said Ivins had "diagnosable mental illness" when he was hired in 1980, and that his mental health should have disqualified him from obtaining a "secret-level" security clearance.

Ivins died of an overdose soon after learning that prosecutors were seeking approval to charge him with five counts of murder. The FBI case was largely circumstantial, although prosecutors say their most direct evidence was the genetic link between anthrax in the letter powder and spores in Ivins' flask of liquid anthrax.

Before posthumously declaring Ivins the killer, the Justice Department said, the FBI eliminated as suspects as many as 419 people.

Those individuals would have had access to Ivins' flask, which was stored in an airtight "hot suite" at Fort Detrick, or to spores he had shared with colleagues or outside researchers, including scientists at the Battelle Memorial Institute in West Jefferson, Ohio.

The Sandia report emphasized that terrorists had obtained germs from research labs before.

It cited a February 2001 National Defense University study that found 11 cases in which terrorists or other "non-state operatives" had acquired biological agents from "legitimate culture collections," including three research or medical laboratories.

Despite USAMRIID's sobering mission, the Sandia report said, the western Maryland lab had developed a work environment in which employees failed to make the same "indisputable commitment to security" as they did to research.

"The current biosecurity system at USAMRIID does not adequately protect HCPTs (high-consequence pathogens and toxins) and related information," wrote the Sandia team, headed by security expert Reynolds Salerno.

The report said no rules governed movement of germ specimens from one building to another, for example, and that a test tube containing some of Ivins' spores was left for weeks in a refrigerator in a second building.

Fort Detrick's personnel database failed to list 213 of USAMRIID's employees but did include 80 who had left their jobs, the Sandia report said.

A separate human resources roster listed 56 people who had left but not 12 who worked there.

Conflicting rosters didn't necessarily signal a security weakness, the Sandia team wrote, but they contributed to "perceived chaos in the personnel system" at the facility.

Even if all those things had been perfect, the examiners said, there was little way to detect diversions from flasks of germs, because a "malevolent" worker could grow more of the pathogen or find other ways to conceal the removal of a small amount.

'Hot suite' access

Asked about the studies, a Justice Department spokesman said in a prepared statement that the FBI looked at everyone who had card-key access to the "hot suites," including researchers with up-to-date vaccinations, then thoroughly investigated "all individuals with theoretical access" to Ivins' spores in advance of the mailings.

The Army auditors, who studied security throughout Fort Detrick, not just at USAMRIID, made clear that pathogens in the bio-weapons facility were "not afforded a standard, minimum level of protection" similar to that for nuclear and chemical weapons.

Although a 22-year-old Army regulation governing the management of hazardous biological substances was in effect in 2001, the Army auditors wrote, two of the three labs at Fort Detrick weren't aware of it and the other ignored it as outdated.

The Army report also said that contractor labs, such as Battelle, had limited regulation and no screening of individuals working with anthrax and other pathogens, creating "the potential for unauthorized access to these materials."

USAMRIID has long since committed to a major overhaul of its security system and adopted a comprehensive Army "biosurety program" in 2003 that included closer tracking of inventories of various germs.

Employees with access to the "hot suites," which are designed to contain anthrax and other pathogens during experiments, must now submit to regular medical, mental health and behavior screening, including monitoring of their use of prescription drugs.

"The safety of the USAMRIID staff and the security of the biological agents on which it works," spokeswoman Caree Vander-Linden said, "have always been top priority, even before the events of 2001."

Occupy Wall Street Protesters Demand Transaction Tax, Marching Straight into the Globalist Trap

Watch the Protests Live (UStream)

Robin Hood Tax: Occupy Movement Now Marching Straight into the Globalist Trap

The Robin Hood Tax is an identical transaction-tax scam to the one proposed by globalists at the 2009 UN COP15 Climate Summit in Copenhagen

By Patrick Henningsen, Infowars.com
October 25, 2011

It was inevitable that a movement which has struggled to agree on a manifesto, in the end, would do the bidding of the very elite globalist powers that they are demonstrating against to begin with.

Instead of achieving freedom from Central Bank debt enslavement, naive Occupiers appear to have taken the bait, pulling the mob towards endorsing a global taxation system, and one to be administered… by a brand new global government body.

As the Occupy Movement sets its sights on the upcoming G20 Summit in France on November 3-4, its globalist handlers behind the scenes have succeeded in carefully directing its crowds towards the Holy Grail of all socialist super-states — the celebrity supported, trendy “Robin Hood Tax”, also known as a Tobin Tax, a financial transaction tax levied on all transactions involving shares, bonds and derivatives.

It’s likely that such a blanket tax will eventually end up on the end of things like cash withdrawals and the like.

They claim that the resulting funds, counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year, would go toward popular Bono-led liberal heart-string fantasy causes like ‘reducing poverty in the third world’, social programs and— surprise, surprise — “combating climate change” and perhaps even saving polar bears — a move that would surely please desperate men like Al Gore (but a complete waste of money seeing that man-made global warming has already been thoroughly discredited).

The rallying cry for this globalist wet dream is coming directly from the supposed brain-child of the Occupy Movement, the globalist foundation-funded organization, Ad Busters, quietly shepherding its flock towards one of the biggest revenue spinning and control scams ever conceived.

Reuters reported yesterday:

“Canada-based Adbusters wants the Occupy Wall Street protest movement against economic inequality to take to the streets to call for a 1 percent tax on such deals ahead of a November 3-4 summit of the Group of 20 leading economies in France.

“Let’s send them a clear message: We want you to slow down some of that $1.3 trillion easy money that’s sloshing around the global casino each day — enough cash to fund every social program and environmental initiative in the world,” the activist group said on its website, www.adbusters.org.

Adbusters put out the initial call for Occupy Wall Street and since protesters set up camp in a park in New York City’s financial district on September 17, they have inspired solidarity demonstrations and so-called occupations around the world.”

In many ways, the Robin Hood Tax is an identical transaction-tax scam to the one proposed by globalists at the 2009 UN COP15 Climate Summit in Copenhagen, where a number of new taxes on financial transactions and new carbon taxes would be put into a giant “slush fund” to be handled by none other than the World Bank.

Ultimately, any Robin Hood Tax will most likely end up in a giant fund to “ensure that banks are adequately capitalized”, and one which will be used to bailout, or insure big bank losses and trillions in gambling derivative bets gone bad.

In reality, a Robin Hood Tax does just the opposite of what its name represents. Rather than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, it is designed to steal more money through taxation from working people — money which will end up directly in the hands of institutions like the US Federal Reserve and its cartel of Wall Street banks.

OWS losing the plot

It’s very easy for the throngs of young protesters to fall into an obvious socialist, or collectivist trap, as many naive young Americans are unable, or unwilling, to liberate themselves from the Hegelian dialectic which tells them that the government must raise taxes and spending in order to achieve any social progress.

It’s obvious that the number one and two problems in America are a lack of jobs and creeping inflation, a duel plague which is fueling poverty — and ultimately dissent in the US. Occupiers are not asking why their government allowed US corporations to ship millions of American jobs off shore, and why it never bothered to offer incentives to foreign corporations to relocate in the US. Likewise Occupiers have not identified that their own Federal Reserve is robbing them every day by creating artificial scarcity, driving the kind of boom and bust cycles which ultimately rob Americans of their life saving and assets.

Rather than demand an additional new monster system of taxation, Occupiers should first be asking if any government can be trusted to spend their tax revenue responsibly. Certainly today it seems that pork rules in Washington and Obama’s Administration is presiding over the biggest budget deficit in the history of the US. This should be cause for alarm, yet, it’s hardly mentioned by the Occupy crowd.

They might also consider asking their beloved government in Washington — and elsewhere around the globe too, where all their tax revenue actually goes right now. If they understood that at present, their Federal Income Tax (in some cases, collected at gunpoint by the IRS) goes directly to paying off the debt which their government owes on each and every dollar printed by the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank… then Occupiers would surely be wary of allowing a Federal or global government to erect a new massive taxation system.

The OWS has, to their credit, urged protesters to close their bank accounts and transfer their money to credit unions with a bank transfer day on November 5th, certainly a step in a positive direction. But is it enough?

Disengage with the financial system

OWS protesters should be talking about taking steps to completely disengage from the system that enslaves them — this might include removing their hard-earned liquidity from the system by canceling all credit cards, not taking out student loans, or pointless car and electronic loans.

Another obvious trap of the Robin Hood Tax is that it would target all transactions — including pension funds. Occupiers should instead consider not paying in their pensions and 401K’s into stock market-indexed retirement funds. For older protesters, it might be a case of shifting their IRAs into gold and silver-backed retirement funds, disallowing the speculators and gamblers on Wall Street to decimate their life savings any further.

Has their been any call for a mass protest against the IRS, who continue to defy the US Constitution by robbing each and every working American of their labor and property in order to service their national debt to the Federal Reserve cartel? Certainly this would rock the establishment overnight. The Occupy Movement would have struck the most serious — and the most obvious blow imaginable, one which would finally call into question the legitimacy of a national income tax.

Or even better, Occupiers might consider taking the total expenditure of the US military — domestically and overseas, and divide by the number of working Americans, giving them an individual figure of money which each protester will refuse to hand over to the Federal government — a peace protest combined with an intelligent liberty move by free men and women.

Sadly, none of these kind of truly revolutionary ideas have come out of the Liberty Square protests. Instead, all they could manage in the end up with is to latch on to one of the most misleading and tyrannical ponzi schemes, the Robin Hood Tax, where the 99% end up giving the 1% even more of their hard earned cash over to the banks. Ironic, but this is the current direction which the angry, but naive mob is being led.

If any of the 99% truly believe that the top tier banks would happily give away trillions per year to the new Robin Hood Taxman, then think again. Their new tax will likely be imposed most stringently on small to medium size institutions and fund managers in an effort to drive out any competition to the mega banks — who already enjoy cuts to corporate income tax, and in some cases, pay no tax at all. Big banks are safe, but smaller competition will surely be hit hard by a Robin Hood Tax — ensuring the current hierarchy stays exactly as it is. This has always been the way when blanket government regulations and punitive taxes come into play.

In typically disingenuous fashion, when a mob has no clear objective it normally plays follow the leader. In this case, the leader is foundation-funded Ad Busters, who have supplied the directionless, vague OWS movement with the master plan to its own demise.

Read More...

Obama Has Even Lost the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Crowd

By Glynnis MacNicol, Business Insider
October 29, 2011

If President Obama is hoping that his support of the Occupy Wall Street movement will help his reelection chances he may want to take a look at this poll.

The New York Times reports on a poll done by a Fordham University political science professor that reveals what some have long suspected: Occupy Wall St. is mainly made up of (very) disgruntled Obama supporters.

Check out these numbers.

Sixty percent of those surveyed said they voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and about three-quarters now disapprove of Mr. Obama’s performance as president. A quarter said they were Democrats, but 39 percent said they did not identify with any political party. Eleven percent identified as Socialists, another 11 percent said they were members of the Green Party, 2 percent were Republicans and 12 percent say they identified as something else.

Emphasis mine.

Those are brutal numbers. And suggest that essentially what we are seeing with the Occupy Wall St. movement is 2008′s unprecedented youth support for Obama grown bitterly cynical.

That Obama can win back that support with any gesture seems unlikely, but he’s certainly going to have to do a great deal more than throw obscure 99% references into phone calls by his advisers.

‘Occupy’ Forms Alliance With Obama Lobby Group

Teachers are always the first to protest, followed by students being encouraged by the teachers and their unions

By Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars.com
October 10, 2011

The “official” Occupy Wall Street website has publicly formed an alliance with yet another Obama campaign front group, the New Jersey branch of the American Federation of Teachers, the parent organization of which spent $1.9 million on Obama’s 2008 election campaign.

Fears that the OWS movement is being subverted by Democratic Party operatives will only be heightened after OccupyWallSt.org celebrated the fact that “AFT fully endorses Occupy Wall Street,” noting that the local chapter stood in “solidarity” with ‘Occupy’ demonstrators.

The American Federation of Teachers financed Obama’s 2008 campaign to the tune of $1.9 million and has also recently offered its strong support for Obama’s “Jobs Plan,” which critics have pointed out will lead to higher taxes not for the super-rich, but for middle class Americans.

The United Federation of Teachers sub-chapter of the AFT, which has also publicly backed the Occupy Wall Street protests, was rewarded for their parent organization’s support for Obama when the administration made the union representing New York City’s public school teachers the largest beneficiary of the notorious Obamacare waiver.

As we previously documented, the Occupy Wall Street website has openly embraced the likes of MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO, and SEIU, all of whom financially backed Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and have supported his bid for re-election in 2012.

Of course, the irony of ‘Occupy Wall Street’ leaders seeking alliances with Obama campaign front groups is the fact that Obama himself is the ultimate creature of Wall Street. His 2008 campaign was financed by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley. Obama is even more reliant on Wall Street for his 2012 campaign and his cabinet is stuffed with former Wall Street insiders.

Users of the OccupyWallSt.com website flooded the page on which the announcement appeared with comments, many expressing discomfort that the leaders of this “leaderless” movement were forming bonds with outfits who have aggressively supported the Wall Street-financed Obama administration.

“For OWS to accept an endorsement from Union Bosses (who interestingly enough are the same people that OWS began protesting) makes them lose so much credibility,” wrote one respondent.

“I actually was going to join one of the protests in my state because I believe in freedom and believe that corporations, INCLUDING UNIONS, should not be in control of government and politicians like they currently are. Union bosses are also the people giving politicians (specifically Obama) MILLIONS to do what is best for them and only them. If OWS steered free from endorsements from any groups, especially ones with money, they would have doubled, tripled, even quadrupled the amount of people they currently have attending these events.

“Now all the people attending these things just look like democrats who want more social programs and want MORE government control. Don’t fall for these people that try to act like they care. OWS will fail, and fail very rapidly I might add, if they accept endorsements from the people causing the problems.

Stick to the principles of freedom, free market, NOT corporatism and crony capitalism. Don’t accept endorsements from the people causing the problems. Obama came out and supported OWS today, BUT HE IS THE PROBLEM. He is the one FOR the bailout of the banks and the wall street crooks. Don’t accept their lies and their attempts to act like they truly care, because they don’t. All they want is your support for a next election. You are destined to fail and accomplish nothing if you accept support from the enemy.”

“Occupy Wall Street is well on its way to being co-opted by them all,” added another.

It’s clear that many OWS protesters are growing increasingly frustrated with brazen attempts to co-opt their “leaderless” and “non-partisan” movement by lobbying groups that are little more than campaign fronts for the Wall Street puppet Obama.

The encampments in New York and other areas are beginning to be dominated by “General Assembly” meetings where Union operatives pose as leaders and manufacture consensus amongst the demonstrators. These gatherings are also starting to take on a bizarre cult-like tone, with participants engaging in weird ritualistic chants and hand gestures.

As Webster Tarpley has outlined, the movement risks being hijacked by infiltrators who have set up steering committees with the purpose of manipulating demonstrators “into a posture of supporting the presidential candidacy of Wall Street puppet Obama.”

How Our Welfare System Has Created an Age of Entitlement (Excerpt)

Are we on the brink of another welfare revolution? In this thought-provoking article BBC Radio 4 presenter John Humphrys talks to those affected and examines the solutions on offer.

By John Humphrys, Daily Mail
October 24, 2011

...Idleness takes two forms today: one enforced and the other voluntary. One is the result of unemployment made worse by recession, spending cutbacks, growing competition from abroad and a dozen other economic factors. The other is the predictable effect of a dependency culture that has grown steadily over the past years. A sense of entitlement. A sense that the State owes us a living. A sense that not only is it possible to get something for nothing but that we have a right to do so. This, seventy years on from the Beveridge Report, is the charge many people level against it (Lord Beveridge wrote his report at a time when vast numbers of unemployed wanted to find work, in contrast to modern times when there is little incentive to do so).

I have spent the past year making a documentary for BBC2 in which I have tried to deal with that charge. In the process I have talked to people who are desperate for a job — any job — and to people for whom idleness is a lifestyle choice and are quite happy to admit to it. I have talked to assorted academics who have studied the subject for decades and arrived at entirely contradictory conclusions. I have been to the United States, where they had their own welfare revolution a few years ago, and have witnessed some of its outcomes in the soup kitchens of Manhattan. And we commissioned our own opinion poll to test the mood of the nation. Do we still want the benefits system that the welfare state has spawned and if not … why not?

Inevitably our opinions (our prejudices maybe) are influenced by our childhood. I was born in a working class district of Cardiff called Splott. My father was a self-employed French polisher and my mother had been a hairdresser and still managed to do the odd home perm in our kitchen for friends and neighbours in between bringing up five children. We were often broke but probably neither much better off nor worse off than most other families in the street. All the parents seemed to work just as hard as my own — with one exception. The father in question had lots of children and no job and nor did he seem to want one. He was happy living on the dole. Because of that he was treated with contempt.

That was more than half a century ago. When I went back to my old neighbourhood we found others like him. In the words of an old lady who lived opposite my house when I was born and who lives there still:

'If they can get money without working, they will.'

Times have changed, she told me sadly, and the 'pride in working' has gone.

The statistics seem to suggest she may have a point: one in four people of working age in this area are now living on benefits. But maybe that’s because there are no jobs to be had. I went to the nearest job centre, a smart modern building where bright young staff smile a lot and there are plenty of computer terminals to display what’s on offer. Last month there were more than 1,600 jobs advertised in Cardiff.

The centre’s manager Rosemary Gehler agreed with the rather brutal verdict of my ex-neighbour:

'There is undoubtedly less of a stigma to being on benefits and I don’t think anyone would argue with that,' she told me. 'Benefits became fairly easy to access ... too easy probably in some cases… and people taking them didn’t see themselves getting back into work. That situation has built up over the years.'

Back in my old street I talked to Pat Dale, a single mother of seven children. She was most indignant about the 'people who’ve never worked in their life… they don’t even know what a job is'.

So when did she last work? Twenty years ago. The older children don’t have jobs either. The problem, she says, is that the jobs on offer don’t pay enough.

'If I worked for the minimum wage I’d get paid £5.50 right? That means I’d lose out on my rent benefits and I’d be working for nothing. I think it’s disgusting. Honestly it is really, really disgusting.'

Her figures were slightly inaccurate — the national minimum wage is now £6.08 an hour — but she’s right about losing some of her benefits, depending on how many hours she worked. And that’s the problem. I came across it again and again as I traveled around the country.

On a pleasant housing estate outside Middlesbrough I met Steve Brown, as calm and mild-mannered as Ms Dale was defiant and angry — but equally dependent on benefits and equally unapologetic about it. He and his partner live with their three children in a comfortable, rented semi. Their household income is about £20,000 a year without, of course, any deductions for tax.

Mr Brown told me that before he could take a job he’d 'have to sit down with them and work it out whether it’s acceptable to go to work or not'.

I suggested that some people who work tor the minimum wage might do so because they reckon working is better than not working. Had he considered that?

'No, no, no… not at all. I just don’t want to be going out to work for forty hours and missing my kids if I’m only going to receive a few quid extra for it, d’you understand? I’d be missing my kids growing up.'

I’m not sure I did understand, but then again I’ve never had to try living on the minimum wage.

There are about 840,000 people in this country today who have been out of work for more than a year and are claiming Job Seekers’ Allowance (JSA). The total number of unemployed is now 2.57m. But that’s only the half of it. Literally. There are another 2.5m people who do not work and claim sickness benefits of one sort or another.

That figure was much smaller until governments in the Eighties set about hacking back the number of people on the dole by the simple expedient of transferring vast numbers of them onto sickness benefits. So the dole queues grew smaller and the number of people on the sick went through the roof. Now it works out at roughly one in eleven of the entire UK labour force.

I talked about that to Dr Sharon Fisher, who left her native South Africa ten years ago to practise in this country. Her surgery is in Tower Hamlets, one of the poorest boroughs in London. She told me the system has been exploited and that is actually harming her patients.

'I tell some patients it’s actually not in their best interests to be off sick but sometimes they’re really adamant. They say their previous doctor signed them off, or they’ve been off for a very long time. They say: ‘What’s different now Doctor? Why aren’t you giving us the time off?’

As a clinician I know that the longer a patient is off sick, the lower the chance of them ever returning to work.'

And what does she think of the statistics that say there are 2.5m people too sick to work? Unbelievable, she says. Literally unbelievable.

David Cameron has another word for it. He says we’ve been conned. 'Conned by governments' was the phrase he used at this year’s party conference. And not just by governments, apparently, because he went on:

'It turns out that, of the 1.3 million people who have put in a claim for the new sickness benefit in recent years, one million are either able to work or stopped their claim before their medical assessment had been completed.'

So the long-term unemployed and people on sickness benefits make huge demands on the welfare state.

There’s one other group — a group that Beveridge did not specifically target because it barely existed in his day. Single mothers. Today there are 590,000 lone parents on out of work benefits.

Professor Paul Gregg of Bristol University calculates that the level of support a single mother receives for a child today is about three times what it would have been twenty years ago. It was raised, he says, in a deliberate attempt to reduce child poverty. But the other side of the argument, he told me, is that 'the very creation of the safety net encourages people to exist on it longer than they otherwise would.'

So we’re back, once again, to perverse incentives.

When Beveridge wrote his report in the 1940s he saw a nation in which there were vast numbers of people who were desperate to work if only they could get a job. Now there are many who have no incentive to get one because they are better off on benefits. The Centre for Social Justice, which was set up by the welfare secretary Ian Duncan Smith, calculates that the number of households in which no-one works has doubled over the past fifteen years.

Gavin Poole, its director, told me it shows there is something wrong with a system that enables part of the population who could work to choose the option to live a life on benefits. So does he want to force people to work? He preferred to talk about 'mentoring' and 'encouraging' people, but he conceded that if all else fails, some form of sanctions might be needed.

So that’s it then? The solution is right there, staring us in the face. You cut the benefits and people who don’t want to work will have no choice. It might be tough on them, but why should hard-working taxpayers (every politician’s favourite phrase) have to work even harder to keep others in their idleness — especially when we’re all feeling the pinch ourselves these days?

It’s not as if every other European country takes the same approach.

I talked to a group of Polish building workers on the south coast, all of whom said they couldn’t find work in Poland and it was impossible to live there on benefits. They told me you can just about survive for one week on what the State pays out for a month. So they left Poland several years ago, came here and have never gone back.

But what happens in a very rich country when the government decides the benefits system is too generous?

When Bill Clinton was President of the United States he said what no British politician would dare to say: America would 'end welfare as we know it'. He declared a welfare revolution. Instead of welfare, Americans would have 'workfare'. Instead of the State paying its citizens to be idle, the citizen would have to find work. If they failed, the State would find something for them to do. And if they didn’t like what was on offer — sweeping up leaves perhaps — then that’s just too bad. No work … no welfare.

The first American state to raise the banner of revolution was Wisconsin and for a while things looked good. Other states followed. The number of people on benefits dropped by as much as 80 per cent, and the revolution took hold. Many British politicians beat a path to the revolutionaries’ door and returned, having seen the light, with shining faces.

That was fifteen years ago. I went over to New York to see if the light is still shining as brightly.

The city’s welfare commissioner Robert Doar told me there had been no alternative to workfare:

'Our system had developed a sense of entitlement in people who expected cash benefits without having to do anything in return. The benefits without work were greater than the benefits of going to work. We said: ‘We expect you to work’.'

Sound familiar? Elaine Hewitt, the manager of the Manhattan job centre told me what happens if someone doesn’t want to do the job the city offers them or, in the official lingo, 'fails to co-operate with our guidelines'. That, she said, 'results in a denial'. And that means? 'No more assistance'.

If workfare has a godfather his name is Professor Larry Mead. He says the figures prove it’s working. About 60 per cent who were on benefits before it was introduced have taken jobs. And what about the other 40 per cent?

'There is some debate about whether they are worse off or not because they are not working and they are not on welfare, but it is still clear that the overall economic effects of welfare reform are positive.'

To which the obvious answer is: not if you’re one of the 40 per cent. I talked to some of them queuing outside the soup kitchens and 'pantries' of Manhattan where people go when there’s nowhere else left. The manager of one, a fiery Irish New Yorker called Aine Duggan, described the welfare reforms as an 'atrocity'. She said:

'The safety net has literally buckled and given way under the need among families… We have used welfare reform as an excuse to cut and cut and cut and to push more and more families out of the welfare system.'

Many of the people in her soup kitchen were professional men and women who lost their jobs at the start of the recession and have become 'ninety-niners' — people who have passed the period when they are still eligible for the most basic benefits. Now they’re on their own.

Editor's Note: 'Ninety-niners' is the same term used to describe Americans in the same position — certainly not a coincidence in a world where we are in the home stretch of the globalists' plan to usher in world totalitarian government.

Elaine Huitt, an articulate, neatly dressed middle-aged woman told me her payments had 'run out' more than a year ago. When her modest savings ran out too she’d had to sell her television set and most of her jewelry and furniture and was reduced to sleeping on a mattress on her kitchen floor. She has lunch at the soup kitchen seven days a week and a nearby church has started serving free dinners as well. She told me:

'I can’t imagine how I’m going to keep paying my rent or my phone. I’m scared. I’m just hoping for a miracle.'

Professor Mead was invited to Downing Street last year to talk about welfare reform. Since then the coalition government has been putting some flesh on its own proposals. The plan is to combine Job Seeker's Allowance with other benefits into one personal allowance called universal credit.

Editor's Note: Leading us toward a cashless society and the 'mark of the beast'.

As with workfare, the aim is to encourage the jobless, and particularly the long-term unemployed, to get back to work.

Iain Duncan Smith uses tough language.

'This is a two-way street… We expect people to play their part … Choosing not to work if you can work is no longer an option… We are developing sanctions for those who refuse to play by the rules.'

What Duncan Smith and every other politician knows, though, is that fundamental reforms to the benefits system will come about only if there is the public will. It happened in the United States because of what was called, at the time, 'moral panic'. The politicians detected that taxpayers were no longer prepared to tolerate a system under which they worked hard to pay the dues of those who chose not to.

So what is the mood of this nation seventy years after Beveridge?

The first conclusion from our Ipsos Mori poll would have gladdened the old man’s heart. Fully 92% agreed that we must have a benefits system that provides a safety net for everyone who needs it. Only a trifling 4% disagreed. In polling terms, that’s as close as you get to unanimous approval.

But we got a different response when we asked whether people think the present system is working effectively. Only two-thirds think it is. Even more think there are some groups of people claiming benefits who should have those benefits cut. They were particularly suspicious of people on sickness benefits: 84% wanted stricter tests to make sure they were really incapable of working. They were pretty hawkish on housing benefits too: 57% said people who get higher benefits because they live in expensive areas should be forced to move into cheaper accommodation.

Of course public opinion changes. When a relentlessly rising benefits bill collides with the national coffers running dry it would be surprising if the public mood did not turn sour. But after a year of talking to so many people caught in the welfare trap against their wishes, I’d like to think it was as simple as people like Professor Mead seem to suggest.

The problem is, for every claimant who makes you want to scream in frustration because they’re perfectly happy to be living off the State, you meet another who makes you want to weep because they are so desperate to find work. Any work. And can you blame youngsters who can’t see the point of working if their parents have never bothered? I went to the City Gateway charity which tries to get young people into apprenticeships and off benefits. I asked a group of about two dozen who’d volunteered for training how many had a father or mother in work. Not a single hand went up.

For every single mother pilloried by the tabloids for deliberately getting pregnant so she can claim the benefits and live rent-free, you meet young women like Gemma who lives in Knowsley, the Merseyside town where the number of single mothers is nearly twice the national average. Yes, she got pregnant when she was still in school and, yes, when I first met her she seemed to fit the stereotype. She got angry when I asked about her benefits and stormed out of the interview.

But she agreed to come back and we talked at length. Her eyes filled with tears when she told me she’d been doing well at school. Then she started taking drugs because everyone was doing it and then she got pregnant and then she was 'trapped.' She didn’t look to me like a tough young woman who’d set out to milk the system and was enjoying every minute of it. She wanted a different life from the one she had, but she couldn’t see how to get there. Trapped was the right word. How does a young woman with a small child and no qualifications find a job in a depressed area that will pay the rent and all the other bills when there are close to a million other young people out of work and living on benefits across the country?

It may well be that we really are on the brink of another welfare revolution. In my decades of reporting politics I have never before seen the sort of political consensus on the benefits system that we seem to be approaching now; and our poll suggests the politicians are reflecting a changing public mood. But that consensus has yet to be converted into hard policies acceptable to the nation as a whole.

Beveridge tried to slay the fifth evil giant and, in the process, helped to create a different sort of monster in its place: the age of entitlement. The battle for his successors is to bring it to an end.