Mind Control: and Manipulation of the Military

What Henry Kissinger Thinks of Our Military
By Lisa Guliani
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=5338

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." ~ Henry Kissinger ~ January-February 2003 edition of Eagle Newsletter

The above statement given by Henry Kissinger should dispel any possible doubt or confusion in the skeptics among us as to just how little our servicemen matter to the elitist madmen calling the shots. No longer do they spew empty words to placate the masses. They are admitting outright that our soldiers are expendable and disposable. If the above statement by Kissinger doesn't make your blood run cold, then tell me, what will?

While the war-mongers relentlessly push us into a war nobody else wants, our troops are scattered far and wide, preparing for the unpredictable and seemingly inevitable confrontations which lie ahead. Some are saying this war will lead to peace. The absurdity of such a statement is apparent. Why must we engage in war to obtain peace? What will be the ultimate price of such peace? How many American lives must be sacrificed as collateral damage to purchase this "peace"? How many of our sons and daughters will die in order for the Controllers to achieve their insidious ends? It's beyond horrible to consider. . .

Americans do not believe anything can touch them or hurt them. Not really. Many of our people are still disconnected from the big picture, simply because nothing horrible is happening in their own backyards. I hearken back to 9/11/2001, and remember the disconnection of some of the people in my life to that unforgettable mass murder. I couldn't believe it then, and I still have a hard time with it. America, when are you going to realize that what happens to SOME of us happens to ALL of us?

Our young men and women are steadily disappearing into Bush's War Machine, where they will be forever changed. They don't realize just WHO they're fighting FOR. They don't know because our fine military leaders aren't going to tell them. They don't need to know - because our war-crazy leadership isn't going to tell them either. They are viewed as "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy", remember? And still they enlist, never realizing perhaps, until it's too late, that they've put their very lives in jeopardy for the true "evildoers", the plutocrats designing this war to suit their heinous schemes.

These "dumb, stupid animals" are OUR children and they're being shipped out and set up to die on foreign soil. How does this sit with you? It makes my blood BOIL. And while I will do my best to dissolve the smoke; mirrors clouding my son's thinking, the writing is already on the wall. The Machine wants to chew up another "dumb, stupid animal" - my child.

I'd like to ask Henry Kissinger to personally explain his statement to me and all the other American mothers and fathers out there whose children are gearing up to fight this obscene war under false pretenses.

My message to George Bush and the rest of the lunatic Machine is: ”I'll see you all in HELL. Don't be late.”

VIDEOS

VIDEOS

We have 1st hand knowledge that tampering with documents goes on in the Nova Scotia Courts too

Hearsay evidence is allowed in Family Court - It certainly shouldn't be BUT it is !

Finally granted a recess to leave the court and to return with a recording device to record the court.

Brother and sister have been separated since Nov.9,2006...

Although my daughter resides with me, she has had very limited contact with her brother (less than 8 hours). I have had none.

From day one, when a protection worker first stepped into my home, they have been a cure looking for a disease.

My son had been placed in a foster home by the children's aid society. He has recently been removed from there. Now he is in a Youth Crisis Center. Update November 28/07 he is now in a group home.

I am sure he is there because he is acting out his frustration caused by the emotional abuse of being taken away from his family.

This was a happy kid living in a happy home!

When social workers make mistakes it becomes more and more about covering up sloppy work and the integrety of the agency, and less and less about a "child's best interest"

False allegations, and findings being made with no evidence, must come to a stop.

I put up this video to expose the impact of Child Protective Services and the secrecy of the Family Court have on loving families.

I miss you my little man!

Same poser as the video directly above

Catholic Church Steals and Trafficks Babies and Children in Spain

Catholic Church Steals and Trafficks Babies and Children in Spain

Click here to view video Baby Market - Spain
Write-up for above video
As thousands of reports in Spain emerge of doctors having stolen babies from new mothers and sold them into adoption, we follow some of the victims in the search for their biological parents.

German Gallego shows us a photograph of a dead baby. She is frozen, her little limbs twisted as she rests in the freezer, kept so that nurses could produce her to deceive parents into thinking their child was dead. Apparently, "many doctors became very wealthy doing this". It was something they had learned from Franco's social engineering programme and turned into a money-making operation. Many of these doctors are still alive and some may even still be practising. "There is no identifying information. It has just vanished", says Randy, who was sold to an American family. The destruction of the paper trail has frustrated the search for his biological mother. For thousands of mothers in Spain, who may or may not have had their children die during the period these abductions were prevalent, it has meant anger and doubt. Nuria, whose sister apparently died stillborn, is having her sister's grave opened for a DNA check. However, for some, like Vicen, having the truth emerge and knowing there is a chance of finding her children offers hope of a new start. "I know that it is very difficult to find them but now I have a motive to continue living".
A Film By ABC Australia
Distributed By Journeyman Pictures
July 2011

Spain's Stolen Babies: Catholic Church Caught Child Trafficking
by grtv

It is no surprise that the Catholic Church has once again been caught in yet another child trafficking scheme - this time in Spain.

The Protect Your Children Foundation is keeping track and exposing the organized crime of the Catholic Church so far in order to alert and warn the nations. The Catholic Church has murdered over 50,000 native children in Canada at Residential schools administered by nuns, 500,000 children stolen by nuns in Catholic Mother-Baby homes in Australia, another 500,000 in Canada. Not to mention more than 30,000 women tortured and abused in Ireland's Magdalene Laundries and more than 30,000 children abused in the Catholic residential schools of Ireland - to name a few.

No longer can the nations deny that these are isolated cases. It is obvious that the organization known as the Catholic Church is the worst criminal organizaiton in existence, utilizing the Lord's name to gain trust and commit crimes against humanity.

Spain’s Stolen Babies / Niños Robatos (BBC, This World 2011) part 1/4

(scroll down to view Parts 2-4)

Searching for Spain’s Stolen Babies
Published On Tue Nov 8 2011

ZARAGOZA, SPAIN—In November 1974, Luisa Fernanda Marin Valenzuela stood in a doorway at a medical clinic. A male nurse held one arm and a nun held the other. About 36 hours earlier, she had given birth to a baby boy. Far across the room, she could see a tiny baby’s naked body on a table. They told her it was her dead son.

She wanted to get closer, to hold him, to cover his cold skin, perhaps even whisper his chosen name, Antonio. But the nun and nurse refused to let Luisa, who was wracked with grief, move closer to the child. Instead, they led her away.

“She’s going to faint, she’s going to faint,” she remembers them saying as they pulled her back. “Take her home.”

It was the first and only time Luisa saw the baby they said was her son. Thirty-seven years later, she is convinced it wasn’t him. She, like hundreds of other mothers across Spain, believes her child was stolen.

What began as a trickle of revelation about General Francisco Franco’s ideological cleansing by taking children from their parents is now a fully engaged scandal in a country wracked by debt, unemployment and civil unrest. As many as 300,000 babies, Spaniards have been told, were wrested from their mothers between 1960 and 1989 by a network of doctors, midwives, priests and nuns who then sold them to infertile couples for huge sums.

The scandal emerged four years ago, when a dying father revealed to his son, Juan Luis Moreno, that he and a childhood friend, Antonio Barroso, had, in fact, been bought from a priest and a nun for about 200,000 pesetas each in 1969, money that could have bought a small flat. Pesetas were the Spanish currency until 2002.

Nobody knows for sure how many children — and parents — are living false lives. Nearly 1,000 lawsuits have been filed in courts ill-prepared to handle them. And with the scandal has come a stream of shocking details — tiny corpses kept in freezers as decoys to show grieving parents; nuns with million-dollar real estate holdings and caskets exhumed after decades found empty.

Plunged into uncertainty, questioning mothers and children are paying hundreds of euros for their own DNA testing; the results are ripping their families apart.

So far, six stolen children have been reunited with their biological families, providing many with hope that their long lost children are alive. It is only now that many have even considered the prospect that they may have been told something other than the truth, including Luisa.

She is 70 now, a mother of nine and grandmother of seven. Remembering those moments long ago, she wipes tears from her eyes again and again.

“You can overcome death. It takes a long time, it’s very painful, but you can overcome it,” she says. “But the uncertainty of not really knowing . . . that really is shattering.”

The stories of the many grieving mothers bear striking similarities. Many were anesthetized during labour. When they awoke, they were told their babies had died. Many never held their babies, or even saw them.

Stolen babies have a long history in Spain. During the reign of General Francisco Franco (1936-1975) tens of thousands of children were stolen, beginning in the 1930s. Children were taken from left-leaning parents and placed with more politically suitable families to protect their “moral education.” Others were taken from single mothers and given to “proper” Catholic homes.

“In Spain, the precedent was really set during the civil war,” said Antonio Lafarga Sábado, Luisa’s husband. “But the weird thing is, it just carried on. It didn’t stop.” [Why would it?  A lot of people were making a lot of money.  This is a warning to ALL countries everywhere.  This happens everywhere because there are greedy hard-hearted people everywhere and as the economic sytem gets worse, there will be more and more people who will be willing to sell their souls and sell your children. ]

As Spain became a democracy, those with access to newborns appear to have carried on the tradition because the trade was so lucrative.

The story of Moreno and Barroso, who grew up in Vilanova i la Geltrú, a seaside town about 50 kilometres south of Barcelona, started the avalanche of current courts cases. After the elder Moreno’s deathbed confession in 2007, so much made sense. Moreno understood why he towered over his diminutive father and looked nothing like his mother.

The childhood taunts Barroso endured in the schoolyard — children claiming he wasn’t really his mother’s child — came rushing back. She’d always insisted their claims weren’t true, and even told him vivid stories about her labour pains.

When Barroso was in his teens, he went to a local registry office and pulled a copy of his birth certificate, which listed the name of his adoptive mother; the staff insisted there could be no mistake. He put it out of his mind until the confession came; by that time he was 38.

“I’d always suspected it,” Barroso, 42, says, fiddling with a copy of his inaccurate birth certificate. “When I was young, there was no real way to confirm it, but now, with DNA tests available, the whole thing becomes so much clearer that all my life has been a lie.

“I’ve been lied to and I’ve been fooled.”

The men took DNA tests that confirmed the dying man’s story. Barroso has since abandoned his career in commercial real estate. He has filed lawsuits at every level in the Spanish court system and founded the National Association for Victims of Irregular Adoptions (Anadir).

More than 1,800 people are members of the group, which maintains a DNA database for parents who fear their babies were stolen, and people who suspect they were trafficked.

About 930 lawsuits have been filed. The majority have been rejected; judges cite statutes of limitations, a lack of evidence and the fact that key witnesses are dead.

Spain’s laws have also made investigation difficult. Babies that die within 24 hours are considered aborted fetuses and are often buried together in their own section of cemeteries — making it hard to extract DNA evidence, according to Lorenza Álvarez, who is coordinating the stolen baby cases for Spain’s attorney general’s office.

Still, a small but growing number of cases are proceeding. Tiny graves are being exhumed throughout Spain. Some are empty; others contain only wads of medical gauze or bandages, not tiny bones.

In two caskets, investigators found remains that have no genetic link to their supposed parents — evidence, Barroso reasons, that the babies were swapped with those of couples who had stillborns.

One woman has told reporters that in 1969, a priest encouraged her to fake a pregnancy until a child became available for purchase. And a man who drove babies’ caskets to a cemetery in southern Spain says at least 20 of the boxes were far too light to hold children’s remains — or, for that matter, to hold anything at all.

Spanish journalists who investigated a clinic in Madrid that is listed in many legal claims found a baby’s corpse in its freezer. There have been suggestions it was kept there to show parents who demanded proof their children had died.

The scope is staggering. Barroso feels he is single-handedly leading the charge for justice. He is tired; dark circles hang beneath his eyes as he explains his frustration.

“It’s shameful that Spain, which likes to presume to be a law-abiding society, one that wants to give the impression of being a democratic, modern society, should have had this going on,” Barroso said. “You basically have to laugh so as not to break out crying.”

When Barroso learned he had been bought, his mother was ill. He surreptitiously swabbed her cheek for DNA tests that proved she was not his biological parent. She eventually confessed that a nun she had befriended did her a favour.

He and Moreno followed the trail to another nun, now 85, and in hospital. The men have visited her several times — hoping she will reveal the names of their real mothers. But she has revealed nothing.

“She remained absolutely unmoved,” Moreno says. “She said her conscience was at peace. She helped mothers in a disgraceful situation. She had nothing but peaceful thoughts.”

The nun has not been charged with any crime. The Roman Catholic Church has not commented.

Barroso and Moreno have learned that she owns seven properties, estimating her worth at one million euros (nearly $1.4 million Canadian). One of the properties was inherited and another was donated, but the remaining five appear to be outright purchases.

“How is it possible that a nun with espoused vows of chastity, poverty and obedience should be worth so much money? How has she accrued so much property?” Moreno asks.

Moreno and Barroso have presented their lawsuits at all levels in the Spanish court system, but they have been consistently rejected.

In January, Anadir presented 261 cases to Spain’s attorney general and held a rally in an attempt to draw public attention. It was then that the government took the issue seriously and began referring cases to provincial judges.

The prosecutor’s office has since authorized exhumations and some cases are proceeding, Álvarez said.

Luisa’s case is not among them. Her lawsuit was dismissed in late September because the midwife and doctor are both dead.

Sitting in her living room, surrounded by family photographs, she fingers a photocopy of the burial record from the cemetery that contains her family niche.

At the clinic, she was told her newborn had died around 11 a.m. on Nov. 24, 1974, about 36 hours after his birth. She says she refused to leave the clinic until she saw his body.

But the burial record shows that by the time staff showed her the baby’s body, he would have already been buried.

What’s more, her husband Antonio clearly remembers picking up his son’s remains and taking them to the cemetery the following day, on Nov. 25. But that date does not appear in any of the records.

The couple, who were then in their 30s, trusted their doctor and the clinic. They had already delivered two healthy girls with his help.

“All my children have been born perfectly healthy,” Luisa says.

“The likelihood here was that this boy was going to be a very healthy little boy. That’s why I think it happened to us.”

She returned to the same doctor for four more births. Strangely, he waived his fees for one birth. Did he feel guilty, they wonder.

Their flat is always bustling with activity. Down the hall, some of their daughters and grandchildren have gathered for a family lunch.

One of their granddaughters scampers down the hall for a kiss on her way to school. Luisa gives her a tight hug.

“Other people say, ‘Listen, you’ve got nine and they’re all extremely healthy,’” Luisa says. “But there’s one that’s missing.”

“There is one missing,” echoes her husband.

Spain’s Stolen Babies / Niños Robatos (BBC, This World 2011) part 2/4

(scroll down to view Parts 3-4)

Spain’s Stolen Babies / Niños Robatos (BBC, This World 2011) part 3/4

(scroll down to view Part 4)

Spain’s Stolen Babies / Niños Robatos (BBC, This World 2011) part 4/4

Grandparents

SIBLINGS TAKEN FROM GRANDPARENTS AND ADOPTED TO TWO HOMOSEXUAL MEN
From Dailymail

Two young children are to be adopted by a gay couple, despite the protests of their grandparents.

The devastated grandparents were told they would never see the youngsters again unless they dropped their opposition.

The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old - at 46 and 59.

For two years they fought for their rights to care for the children, whose 26-year- old mother is a recovering heroin addict.

They agreed to an adoption only after they faced being financially crippled by legal bills.

The final blow came when they were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them.

When the grandfather protested, he was told: 'You can either accept it, and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again.'

The man said last night: ' It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure. We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.'

Social workers themselves have admitted that the little girl is 'more wary' of men than women."

"Some local authorities forbid adoption by smokers and obese people but actively support gay fostering and adoption - even though research shows overwhelmingly that children are best brought up by a mother and father. "

"A spokesman for the Roman Catholic church condemned the council's decision last night, warning that the children's welfare could be jeopardised."

Heartbroken: The children's mother with her parents

Boy, 5, forced into adoption with gay couple pleads: 'We want to stay with our gran and grandad'
By Jonathan Brocklebank and Michael Seamark
Last updated at 4:44 PM on 29th January 2009

The mother of two children who are being adopted by gay men even though their grandparents want to care for them wept yesterday as she told of her final meeting with her son and daughter.

‘I told them, “Listen, Mummy is not going to see you for a while”,’ she said. Her son replied: ‘But Mummy, I want to come and stay with you and Granny and Grandad.’

The row over the future of the five-year-old boy and four-year-old girl intensified yesterday after the Daily Mail revealed details of the heartbreaking case. Their grandparents spent two years fighting for the right to care for the children, whose 26-year-old mother is a recovering heroin addict. She desperately wanted her parents to look after them.

But social workers said their ages – he is 59 and she is 46 – and their health – he has angina and she is diabetic – ruled them out.

The mother told the Mail that she had been ordered to say her goodbyes to the children last August during a trip to Edinburgh Zoo. ‘They told me not to cry and be strong so as not to upset the children,’ she said. ‘How can you tell a mother that when she’s never going to see her children again? ’

She voiced her anger at the decision to allow her son and daughter to be fostered by a homosexual couple.

‘I did not under any circumstances want my children to be placed with gay men. I wanted them to have a mum and a dad.

‘They can’t be telling me that, within a 60-mile radius, the only people they could find to look after my children were two men.

‘I’ve got nothing against gay people

‘I’m ashamed of what I’ve done, especially what I’ve put mum and dad through because they have been brilliant every step of the way.

‘My children deserve so much love and my mum and dad were prepared to give them it, but social work snatched them away.

‘They are a mum and dad in a million and I know they would have brought my children up brilliantly.’

The mother also revealed that social workers have asked her to meet the gay couple under their supervision. But she will not see her children – or be allowed to know where they are going to be living.

The Mail revealed yesterday how the grandparents had fought a relentless battle for the right to look after the youngsters after deciding their daughter was unfit to do so.

But they were opposed every step of the way by Edinburgh’s social work department, which believed they should go to an adoptive family.

When the grandparents eventually caved in to what they describe as ‘bully tactics’ by the social workers, the department arranged for the children to be adopted by a gay couple in the Edinburgh area. They had already decided that, whatever the outcome of the battle, the children should not see their mother owing to her unstable lifestyle and history of offences.

Recalling her final, 90-minute meeting with her children, the mother said: ‘I was told that this would be the last time. They asked me to pick a place to take them and I decided on the zoo. The social worker was with me and kept saying to me I would have to tell them I was not going to see them any more and that I had to stay strong for their sakes.

‘At one point she said that my son was the spitting image of my mum and my daughter looked like her grandad. What kind of thing is that to say at a moment like that, when I’m about to tell them I won’t see them again?

‘I told them that I loved them and I would write them lots of letters and cards [ This would NOT be allowed in US or Canada ] and that they would be going to a new house soon.

‘I got really upset and had to keep turning away so that they didn’t see me crying. The social worker said, “Just leave it there”. Ten minutes later, that was it.’

But the mother still had to help put the children in the social worker’s car. ‘My son grabbed me tightly on the leg and and would not let me go. It was just absolutely devastating.’

She said that the heartrending last meeting had happened while her parents were still fighting for full parental rights for the brother and sister, who have been staying with foster parents for the last two years pending a decision on their future.

Her parents’ last meeting with the children came two months later in October. By then, under mounting pressure from the social work department and concerned about months or years of further disruption to their lives, they had taken the agonising decision to withdraw from the legal fight.

The grandfather, a farm worker, and his wife say the social work department are effectively blackmailing them by telling them they will not see the children again unless they give the new adoptive arrangements their blessing.

Although the family desperately want to reverse the adoption procedure they do not now know how they can. Their previous solicitor has moved to a new job and would be unable to represent them in her current role. They would also need to reapply for legal aid before taking any action – and time is running out.

The children have already had several meetings with the men who are soon to become their full-time fathers. They are understood to be seeing them for a few hours daily and have recently visited their home. The men are giving them a bedroom each – and the girl’s has been decked out with a ‘princess’ bedspread. The children have also been shown the wellington boots waiting for them at the back door when they want to play outside.

Under the adoption procedure, the children will see more and more of the gay couple, spending occasional nights in their home, until they move in permanently. The social work department will remain in contact with the new parents for the first year of adoption – then, providing there are no serious problems, contact will cease.

Thereafter the only official channel the children’s natural family will have for making contact with them would be through an adoption agency. The mother said: ‘The social worker told me the kids are getting on really well with them. My daughter had apparently said to the social worker, “Come up and see my princess bed”. I just feel totally devastated.

Now they want me to meet the men. [Again, this would not be allowed in the US and Canada] Social work phoned me to ask how I was feeling now about them being adopted by a gay couple and if I had calmed down.

‘They told me that out of the couples they had on their books they were the ones who were able to cater for their needs best. I find that very hard to believe. I’ll have to say that to them when I meet them because it’s how I feel, but I don’t want the whole thing to become an argument. I will have lots of questions to ask them.’

Councillor Marilyne MacLaren, convener for education, children and families at Edinburgh City Council, said: ‘I have been assured that the professional view is that the adoptive couple will provide a safe, secure and loving environment for these children.

‘These are always very complex cases but I think it is important to say that the grandparents have been fully involved in discussions about this case over a period of time.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131200/Boy-5-forced-adoption-gay-couple-pleads-We-want-stay-gran-grandad.html#ixzz1ePHorhgu

No one said Cherie Blair was too old to be a mother at 45...Do social workers have grandparents?
By Peter Harris
Last updated at 10:14 AM on 29th January 2009

Do social workers have grandparents? One is bound to ask this question when you hear of cases like that of this Edinburgh couple aged 46 and 59 respectively.

In the minds of some social workers there seems to be a real prejudice about age which makes them turn to foster care and adoption, rather than care by grandparents.

After all, Cherie Blair was 45 when she had her fourth child, and Tony Blair was 47 - did anyone seriously suggest that they were too old to be parents?

What has happened to the Edinburgh couple is all too often reflected in some of the 8000 calls that the Grandparents’ Association advice line receives each year.

Distressed grandparents call for support and help, such calls taking 20-25 minutes, as sad stories of grandchildren being 'lost' to care and adoption are related.

Grandparents have no rights, or standing, in respect of grandchildren in England and Wales (they do in Scotland). Frequently they are ignored, or dismissed as potential carers, by social services.

Of course not all grandparents are suitable, or willing, to provide full time care for grandchildren. But many are - and will undergo financial loss by giving up work - when asked to take on the responsibility of providing a loving and secure family home for a grandchild.

The professionals who are concerned with children in crisis have to take difficult and complex decisions in a highly emotional field. Such decisions will echo down the years for a child, often well into adulthood.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1130878/PETER-HARRIS-No-said-Cherie-Blair-old-mother-45--Do-social-workers-grandparents.html#ixzz1ePWgahKa

Edinburgh Social Services Remove Young Children From Grandparents and Arrange Adoption by Gay Couple


'You'll never see your grandchildren again': Social worker's warning to couple after they spoke out over gay adoption row
By Jonathan Brocklebank and Michael Seamark
Last updated at 9:02 AM on 30th January 2009

Social Worker Heather Rush

A social worker at the centre of the gay adoption row told the children's grandparents they will never see them again because of the publicity surrounding the case.

Heather Rush telephoned the youngsters' 26-year-old mother after the family publicised their grievances with her council department.

Mrs Rush allegedly said the price they will pay for speaking out is complete loss of contact with the five-year-old boy and four-year-old girl.

The children's mother, who had been due to meet the two adoptive fathers under social workers' supervision next week, took the call from Mrs Rush on Wednesday.

The mother, who cannot be identified, said: 'She asked me if I had seen the paper and said "it does not make very good reading".

'I said I didn't think it was right that she was not letting me meet the fathers because of the story going in the paper and that she should speak to my Mum and Dad.

'She said, "No, just pass the message on." She said she didn't want to speak to them but there would be no recommendation for them to see the children twice a year.'

Last week Mrs Rush had told the grandparents they would be allowed to see the boy and girl if they gave the gay adoption arrangements their blessing.

But now the 39-year-old - who has two children herself by different fathers - appears adamant that even if they do accept the arrangements they will not be given access.

The forced adoption of the children by two gay men - and the council's decision to ignore their grandparents' request to care for them - has provoked fierce debate.

An Edinburgh councillor described the call to the vulnerable mother, who is currently taking methadone in an attempt to kick her drug habit, as 'unprofessional, inappropriate and unacceptable'.

Jeremy Balfour, a Conservative, said: 'It is not an acceptable way to treat people. It seems to me to be a case of throwing toys out of the pram.

'I don't think such a call could be motivated by the best interests of the children.'

An Edinburgh council spokesman last night denied that a social worker told the mother her parents would never see the children again.

Gillian Tee, Director of Education, Children and Families, said: 'We have no reason to doubt that the staff who have worked on this case have handled it with anything other than professionalism and sensitivity. We have not received a complaint from the family.'

Social workers gave the young mother just 90 minutes to say goodbye to her two children before they were taken away forever.

The mother was allowed to take her young son and daughter to Edinburgh Zoo before they were separated.

The mother earlier told the Mail: 'They told me not to cry and be strong so as not to upset the children.
'How can you tell a mother that when she's never going to see her children again?'

She added that the children themselves said they wanted to stay with their grandparents. She is unable to care for them as she is a recovering heroin addict.

The boy's father was a schizophrenic who killed himself two months before his son was born. The girl's father is still alive but has had nothing to do with his daughter.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1132053/Youll-grandchildren-Social-workers-warning-couple-spoke-gay-adoption-row.html#ixzz1ePe0Wtuo


Did the children torn from their grandparents to be adopted by the gay men fall prey to a politically correct social services agenda?
By Paul Bracchi
Last updated at 12:23 AM on 31st January 2009

The photograph on the mantelpiece of their grandparents' home outside Edinburgh seems particularly poignant today.

It shows a baby girl in a pretty red dress and her smiling brother enjoying ice-cream in Princes Street gardens in the city centre. Underneath someone has written: ‘You bring so much joy and laughter.’

They say the camera never lies. But this picture does; figuratively, anyway.

For just hours after it was taken, the lives of these youngsters changed for ever and a heartbreaking domestic drama turned into a scandal that is still unravelling and causing untold anguish.

Now scandal may be too strong. So too ‘blackmail’, ‘brutal’ and ‘bullying’.

Yet few who are familiar with the story — or have been caught up in the sometimes harrowing process of adoption themselves — would dispute their sentiment.

For, as many of you will be aware from our reports this week, the children’s mother is a recovering heroin addict.

The father of her five-year-old son was a schizophrenic who hanged himself two months before he was born. The father of her four-year-old daughter disappeared long ago, after making another woman pregnant.
It would be hard to imagine a more tragic or traumatic set of circumstances.

But the one — indeed only — source of stability and support in the lives of these youngsters (we can’t identify them for legal reasons but we shall call them Stewart and Fiona) were their grandparents.

They insist social workers said: ‘Stewart and Fiona’s contact with their grandparents is very positive, and it is a warm and enjoyable environment for them to be in.’

Here, for the first time, we piece together the chain of events that resulted in Stewart and Fiona being removed from that ‘warm and enjoyable environment’ and placed with a gay couple.


When the Mail broke the story on Wednesday there was a public outcry. Religious leaders and family groups were incensed. The Tory group on the Edinburgh city council has called for an inquiry. So how could it have happened?

It is certainly a harrowing journey. The love their grandparents felt for Stewart and Fiona, and they for them, is apparent to anyone who visits their bungalow, where the children were brought up almost from birth.

On the sofa are Noddy and Bunny, the cuddly toys they once played with. One card, penned in glitter, from Stewart says: ‘I love you Grandma’, another, from Fiona, says:

‘Love you Granny.’ Their christenings, first day at nursery, and trips to the beach are chronicled in photo albums.

And, of course, that picture on the mantelpiece. It was taken shortly before Stewart and Fiona saw their grandparents for the final time on October 7 last year.

At about 4.30pm that day they were dropped off at a building in Oxgangs, Edinburgh.

The graffiti-scarred concrete block, of the kind still common in Eastern Europe, is where the social services department is based, and as a metaphor for what was about to happen, these soulless surroundings are apt.

Inside was social worker Heather Rush, 39. Mrs Rush is no more or less to blame than her colleagues. Yet her attitude, you might think, typifies the brutally insensitive, bullying manner in which Stewart and Fiona’s grandparents say the children were treated.

One scene, on the ground-floor corridor of the Oxgangs building, still haunts the family. ‘Excuse me, can I speak to you?’ Stewart, politely asked Mrs Rush moments before the emotional handover.

‘Yes, what is it?’, she replied. Stewart then told her: ‘I don’t want to go. I want to stay with my granny and grandad.’ Stewart’s understandable anxiety was, says his grandfather, met with thinly disguised irritation, if not anger.

‘No, that’s not possible, you can’t stay with them,’ Mrs Rush replied curtly. ‘Now go and get your stuff.’ Instead, Stewart sat down, covered his face with his hands, and cried.

‘I thought the way Stewart was treated was appalling,’ said his tearful grandfather. ‘I told her [Mrs Rush] that she had no right to speak to a child like that. But she ignored me.’

You may wonder why Stewart and his sister had to go through this. After all, didn’t their grandparents provide a ‘warm and enjoyable environment’ for them to grow up in the absence of their mother?

Officially, at least, the couple were told they were too old to look after the children permanently — even though the grandmother is only 46, and her husband 59.

But after pressure from social services and concern about further disruption to the youngsters’ lives, the grandparents took the agonising decision to withdraw from the legal fight to keep the children.

If they knew then what they know now, they would never have done so.
The ‘incident’ in the corridor of the Oxgangs office, they soon discovered, was not an isolated one. Nor, it seems, was the attitude of Mrs Rush.

It was Mrs Rush — who has two children herself by different fathers — who contacted them again. She had some ‘good’ news. They had found a new home for Stewart and Fiona. They were to be placed with a ‘male couple’.

The children’s grandmother burst into tears. Their grandfather was furious.
You might have expected such sensitive information to have been delivered in person. In fact, it was imparted over the phone — with a warning: support the adoption or risk never seeing Stewart and Fiona again.

The family are not homophobic; they have a number of gay friends. But if believing that children are best raised by a mother and father living together constitutes homophobia, most people probably are.

In 2006, the Scottish Parliament approved adoption by gay couples — despite an official consultation that showed nearly 90per cent of Scots were against the move.

The family had not heard the last of Heather Rush. On Wednesday afternoon she was on the phone to Stewart and Fiona’s 26-year-old mother, after the story first appeared in the Mail. ‘Tell your mother, that’s it,’ Mrs Rush snapped. ‘No contact.’

The front-page article, she claimed, would not make ‘good reading’ for Stewart and Fiona when they were older. Not good for them, or not good for Edinburgh social services?

A document the family produced shortly after Mrs Rush phoned on Wednesday made rather better reading. At least for Mrs Rush.

It’s called ‘Having Your Say At Your Review — Young Person’s Report’. A review, the preamble explains, is ‘where changes can be made to your care plan’.

Respondents are encouraged to give their views by ticking a series of boxes. One such form was filled in for Stewart by Mrs Rush on November 28, 2008 — just weeks after he had broken down in the corridor.

Question: I see my social worker, too much, about right, not enough?

Answer: The ‘not enough’ box is ticked. In the space below an adult has added: ‘I’d like to see Heather more.’

Question: Are you happy with the contact you have with your family and friends?

Answer: The tick appears in the box marked ‘yes’.

Question: What decisions would you like made at your review?

Answer: ‘I would like Heather to find me a new family’ is the answer written underneath.

Are we really to believe those answers represented Stewart’s true feelings? Most children of this age are keen to please and will reply in a way they think the adult wants them to.

Listening to children and trying to meet their needs is one thing, politically correct propaganda another.

The family of Stewart and Fiona are in little doubt about which category the reports falls. In one way, the pernicious culture of political correctness is at the heart of this story.

‘This happened because the family is Scottish and working class,’ said a woman who, until recently, was a senior social services manager in the Edinburgh department.

‘Any social worker who, for example, presented the black parents of a black child with the kind of ultimatum that the family of Stewart and Fiona were given, which risked the child losing contact with cultural and family ties, would be sacked.

‘Political correctness is a big issue in local government, especially in social work. I am not aware of any official quota system, say, to ensure a percentage of adopted children go to gay parents.

But if you ask me, could it be happening informally in certain areas that like to be seen as progressive — and that usually means the big urban authorities? Then, yes, I believe it is more than possible.’

Recent figures suggest almost 3,000 drug addicts in Edinburgh have children at home who are at risk of abuse or neglect. In Edinburgh, it seems, drug addicts are thought to make better carers than loving grandparents.

The grandparents in question have seven children of their own. Two of them, aged 15 and 13, are still at school. Their 17-year-old also lives with them, while the rest of their children, who are all older, live away from home. All are making their way in life.

The mother of Stewart and Fiona is their eldest child. For the past six months she has been on a methadone programme to help her kick her longterm heroin addiction.

Over the years, she has suffered domestic abuse in a series of relationships and has been convicted of many offences, including theft and breach of the peace. She is not a bad person, just a troubled one.

‘I’m ashamed of what I’ve done and what I’ve put Mum and Dad through,’ she says.

‘They have been brilliant every step of the way.’ They are not perfect, of course. Nor would they pretend to be. Their bungalow could sometimes be a little chaotic. But it’s a happy home — or it was — and Stewart and Fiona were happy there.

Nine months after Stewart’s birth it became apparent that their mother was in no state to bring up a child (Stewart’s father had already committed suicide).

So her parents brought Stewart up as their own. When Fiona, who has never even met her own father, was born a year later, they took care of her, too.

‘We thought it was our duty as grandparents,’ said their grandmother. Duty has become a forgotten word in Britain today, and one, it seems, on which Edinburgh social services places little value.

Initially, social services appeared concerned to ensure only that the children avoided contact with their unstable mother. But gradually the emphasis changed.

The children, they suggested, should be taken into foster care, while maintaining regular contact with their grandparents. After much soulsearching, the couple agreed.

It was, after all, only temporary. But that was two years ago. The grandparents have no criticism of the foster parents. But Stewart and Fiona missed their own home terribly.

Stewart would ask his foster mother: ‘When am I going to see my granny and grandad again?’

She would put calendars in their bedroom with stars marking the dates when they would spend the weekend at their old home; strangely, there is no mention of this on Stewart’s Having Your Say report.

The weekend visits happened once a month — until social workers began to press for them to be less frequent.

Gradually, the department’s true intentions emerged. They did not believe the grandparents should look after Stewart and Fiona at all. They thought the children should be adopted.

From what the grandparents could establish, social workers were concerned about their age and health. True, the grandfather has angina and has suffered a heart attack.

But that was in 1998 when he was working up to 18hours a day on a farm. He was signed off work a year ago and now leads a normal life.

The grandmother is 46 and has diabetes. But as she points out: ‘How am I able to look after my two youngest children?’.

She is an active mother, who regularly took Stewart and Fiona swimming and bowling. Last year, she even went skiing.

She revealed: ‘At one stage they told me it was selfish wanting to look after the children. How can it be selfish to want to look after your own family?’

The couple have records from four court hearings which show that two sheriffs — the Scottish equivalent of magistrates — heard the case at different times over 18 months and were sympathetic. The sheriffs refused to remove their parental rights.

Yet eventually, the pressure from social services became overwhelming, and the couple were assured that if they gave up their parental rights, they would still have regular contact and would be involved and informed in all aspects of the children’s lives.

In August, they gave up the fight. In a letter to Edinburgh Sheriff Court, the grandfather wrote: ‘These are the reasons for making this choice, which I might say has been very difficult for us.

‘We feel that due to the time involved in this process and the various objections raised by the social work department it would be in the best interests of the children that we gracefully back out of the proceedings and give up all rights to our grandchildren.

‘I must admit that I feel bitter about the whole situation, as they [the social work department] are determined to have them adopted, regardless of our feelings.

‘We have tried very hard and have co-operated with them in every way possible. Both my wife and myself love Stewart and Fiona to bits, there is nothing we wouldn’t have done for them.’

The following month, the children’s mother said goodbye to them during a trip to Edinburgh Zoo. A few weeks later, their grandparents handed them over to Heather Rush at the Oxgangs office.

Stewart wanted a toy lawnmower as a farewell present; Fiona a bubble-making machine.

Stewart and Fiona have had several meetings with the men who are soon to become their full-time fathers. They are understood to be seeing them for a few hours daily and have visited their home.

But will their grandparents ever see the children again? ‘When they get older and ask why, we will have the necessary paperwork to prove that we both fought for them and the reasons it was not to be,’ said their grandfather.

Will Edinburgh social services department be able to do the same?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1132789/Did-children-torn-grandparents-adopted-gay-men-fall-prey-politically-correct-social-services-agenda.html#ixzz1ePmS2B8R

" a secret hearing" ! ! !

Mind Control: TV

Mind Control: TV

Mind Control: Your Thoughts are Not your Own
Steven Jacobson

www.mindcontrolinamerica.com

CIA Agent "NEVER watch television"!!

How Television Affects Your Brain

TV Mind Control For Dummies


The Truth About Television
(YOU ARE BEING BRAINWASHED!)

Television is extremely common in our western society. Children grow up with it from young to old, it gives us all our information that we assume to be reality. The one in power of this tube is definitely the most powerful individual in the world. The history of mass media dates back to american mind control experiments [Which originated with German scientists in the holocaust death camps] and nazi propaganda. And when most of the multinationals started to work for the government and the rich in a group that's concealed from public knowledge, it starts to become questionable if this information is to be trusted..

Mass Mind Control is Upon Us - It's Time to Awaken Your Consciousness

http://pupaganda.com/originals/Tv_mind_control.html

Nathan Janes

PUPAGANDA.com

Many people may not realize that when they turn on the television in their home, what they see as a constant flow of images is actually flickering. Although we do not see this consciously, the repetitive pattern of flickering images creates a state that is similar to hypnosis in the television viewer. Studies by researcher Herbert Krugman have shown that within 30 seconds of television viewing, brain waves switch from predominantly beta waves, indicating alert and conscious attention, to predominantly alpha waves, indicating an unfocused, receptive lack of attention. The brain's left hemisphere, which processes information logically and analytically, tunes out while the person is watching TV, while the right hemisphere of the brain, which processes information emotionally and non-critically, is allowed to function without hindrance. Due to this phenomenon, television transmits information, which is not actively thought about at the time of exposure, much like hypnosis. When viewing television, we do not consciously rationalize the information resonating within our unconscious depths at the time of transmission and the viewer becomes more open and suggestible.

Because of the passive, hypnosis-like viewing of television as well as its predominance in the homes of nearly all Americans, the television is one of the most powerful tools used today. As of 2009, six companies controlled all of the major media outlets in the United States. That is a very small number of people controlling all of the information that streams into millions of homes across America each day through their television sets. In recent years, a number of investigations and exposes have revealed that these giants’ silence independent voices and investigations, discourage journalism that interferes with the agendas of special interests, and eliminate diversity in the information they provide. Because of the control that these companies have over the information that most Americans receive on a daily basis, these criticisms and revelations are never known by most of the American public.

These media giants work hand and glove with the federal government as well as many multinational corporations [run by the Illuminati] to disseminate carefully planned messages. Through the television and other forms of media, they tell you what to think about, what to worry about, what to smile about, and what to be scared of. They have sold the public on the idea of the newscaster being an extension of the family, a trusted figure who encourages the acceptance of the information being presented as true and accurate. In 2008, the pentagon spent more than $2 billion compensating [paying] major media outlets for disseminating public relations messages. These messages are delivered to the television viewer as news produced by the television station, not as paid and produced by the pentagon. In the same year, pharmaceutical companies paid television outlets more than $4 billion for advertising, which included Video News Releases (VNR), specially tailored pieces that appear within the nightly news disguised as researched and reported by the local stations. No other industrialized nation in the world allows drug ads on television let alone these cleverly disguised VNRs hidden within the news.

And yet while all this has been happening behind the scenes, the American public has been duped into staking all their trust in select major media outlets as they express brand loyalty in television stations, newspapers, and magazines. Many people have been tricked into believing that the mainstream media reports only objective news while any information delivered from outside the mainstream is to always be questioned. Somehow the public has bought into the idea that the TV wouldn't lie to them. Many people will not pay any regard to information that is not covered by the major media; if they did not hear about it on the nightly news then they simply don't care. This is the mindset that the major media moguls want us to have, as we are willfully ignorant and obedient to their every direction. Our unanalytical and loyal viewership is in their best interest.

Major media news networks continually bombard us with the possibility of an endless amount of scenarios, which produce fear and then shape our reactions to real situations. This is predictive programming; it gets us familiar with an idea so that when it happens we expect it and do not react and question. Although most people refer to television programming as the shows that are aired on television, it can also refer to the programming of the people that occurs on a daily basis. Most people believe they are just simply being entertained, but they never realize that their way of life is being shaped for them and their thoughts are actually being given to them. They are being familiarized with ideas, concepts, and fear so they won't question certain interventions in the future. TV gives us what messages must be imprinted in our minds, gives us what button to push in what sequence, and if it's done the right way with the right production and the right propaganda then the public will react and do exactly as they've been programmed to do.

When one continually controls the information, one controls the people absorbing the information. The manufactured and controlled information on TV can be referred to as the signal and that constant signal is what shapes and guides the masses to their conclusions. In order to take back our minds, we must first learn to "Unplug the Signal." By turning off your TV you will realize the world that you're living in is suddenly very unfamiliar to you. You will see that news of no importance is constantly debated and analyzed, and as you listen to the conversations of people around you, you realize they're talking robots just repeating what they've heard on the news. This is exactly what Zbigniew Brzezinski talked about in his book "Between Two Ages". He said, "Shortly, the public will be unable to reason or think for themselves. They'll only be able to parrot the information they've been given on the previous night's news."

Mass Media-How They Control You -Part 1

Alan Watt-Gerald Celente and G Edward Griffin breaks down how the controllers use the mass media-sports-Madison ave and Pavlovian Dialectic to condition the Sheeple (you!).

Mind Control In America part 1

TV begins 2:37

TV is Mind Control

Their number one tool of controlling us. Via TV clip from Network 1976 recommended movie.

Operation Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation

By Mary Louise
PRISON PLANET.com


The CIA's secret activities, covert missions, and connections of control are all done under the pretense and protection of national security with no accountability whatsoever, at least in their minds. Considering the public is held accountable for everything we think, say, and do there is something seriously wrong with this picture. The CIA is the President's secret army, who have been and continue to be conveniently above the law with unlimited power and authority, to conduct a reign of terror around the globe.

The "old boy network" of socializing, talking shop, and tapping each other for favors outside the halls of government made it inevitable that the CIA and Corporate America would become allies, thus the systematic infiltration and takeover of the media.


Under the guise of 'American' objectives and lack of congressional oversight, the CIA accomplish their exploits by using every trick in the book (and they know quite a few) that they actually teach in the notorious "School of the Americas" , nicknamed the "School of Dictators" and "School of Assassins" by critics. The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that 6 million people had died by 1987 as a result of CIA covert operations, called an "American Holocaust" by former State Department official William Blum. In 1948, the CIA recreated its covert action wing called the Office of Policy Coordination with Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner as its first director. Another early elitist who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961 was Allen Dulles, a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller empire and other trusts, corporations, and cartels.

Photo fron http://www.newswatch.org/

Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40's), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort to recruit American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda, was headed up by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Philip Graham (publisher of The Washington Post). Wisner had taken Graham under his wing to direct the program code-named Operation Mockingbird and both have presumably committed suicide.

Media assets would eventually include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International (UPI), Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service, etc. and 400 journalists, who have secretly carried out assignments according to documents on file at CIA headquarters, from intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens. The CIA had infiltrated the nation's businesses, media, and universities with tens of thousands of on-call operatives by the 1950's. CIA Director Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale with figures like George Herbert Walker Bush from the "Skull and Crossbones" Society.

Many Americans still insist or persist in believing that we have a free press,[not true!] while getting most of their news from state-controlled television, under the misconception that reporters are meant to serve the public. Reporters are paid employees and serve the media owners, who usually cower when challenged by advertisers or major government figures. Robert Parry reported the first breaking stories about Iran-Contra for Associated Press that were largely ignored by the press and congress, then moving to Newsweek he witnessed a retraction of a true story for political reasons. In 'Fooling America: A Talk by Robert Parry' he said, "The people who succeeded and did well were those who didn't stand up, who didn't write the big stories, who looked the other way when history was happening in front of them, and went along either consciously or just by cowardice with the deception of the American people."

Major networks are primarily controlled by giant corporations that are obligated by law, to put the profits of their investors ahead of all other considerations which are often in conflict with the practice of responsible journalism. There were around 50 corporations a couple of decades ago, which was considered monopolistic by many and yet today, these companies have become larger and fewer in number as the biggest ones absorb their rivals. This concentration of ownership and power reduces the diversity of media voices, as news falls into the hands of large conglomerates with holdings in many industries that interferes in newsgathering, because of conflicts of interest. Mockingbird was an immense financial undertaking with funds flowing from the CIA largely through the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) founded by Tom Braden with Pat Buchanon of CNN's Crossfire.

Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care, pharmaceutical, and technology companies. Until the 1980's, media systems were generally domestically owned, regulated, and national in scope. However, pressure from the IMF, World Bank, and US government to deregulate and privatize, the media, communication, and new technology resulted in a global commercial media system dominated by a small number of super-powerful transnational media corporations (mostly US based), working to advance the cause of global markets and the CIA agenda.

The first tier of the nine giant firms that dominate the world are Time Warner/AOL, Disney/ABC, Bertelsmann, Viacom/CBS, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation/Fox, General Electric/NBC, Sony, Universal/Seagram, Tele-Communications, Inc. or TCI and AT&T. This is just the head of the octopus which has its second and third tier tentacles working together in unison or feigned division. This would include The Washington Post/Newsweek, The New York Times/Weekly Standard, Tribune Co., US News, Gannett/USA Today, Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Knight-Ridder, etcetera.

A good site to visit for more information is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a public interest media watchdog group, at www.fair.org/index.html, www.fair.org/mediafiles/index.html  and www.fair.org/extra/9711/gmg.html. Media propaganda tactics include blackouts, misdirections, expert opinions to echo the Establishment line, smears, defining popular opinions, mass entertainment distractions, and Hobson's Choice (the media presents the so-called conservative and liberal positions).

"Who Controls the Media? The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA, The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation Mockingbird", "The CIA: America's Premier International Terrorist Organization", and "Virtual Government: CIA Mind Control Operations in America" by Alex Constantine are an excellent source of information on this topic: www.alexconstantine.50megs.com/the_cia_and.html  and www.alexconstantine.50megs.com . David Guyatt has written books and many articles including one entitled "Subverting the Media" at www.deepblacklies.co.uk/subverting_the_media.htm. Then there are two articles called "A Timeline of CIA Atrocities" and "The Origins of the Overclass" by Steve Kangas that are very informative although from a more liberal perspective. Steve will not be writing anymore articles as he is no longer with us, having unfortunately met his untimely death that was 'apparently' from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. If you read about him on his web page that is still available, you will see that he did not seem like a person who was suffering from deep depression. In his memory, please take the time to read what he wrote at www.korpios.org/resurgent/CIAtimeline.html, www.korpios.org/resurgent/CIAtimeline.html, and www.korpios.org/resurgent/index.html.

CNN aired "Valley of Death" in June of 1998 and Time magazine (both owned by Time-Warner) ran a story about a secret mission called Operation Tailwind and the activities of SOG, Studies and Observations Group, a secret elite commando unit of the Army's Special Forces that used lethal nerve gas (sarin), on a mission to Laos designed to kill American defectors. Suddenly the network was awash in denials and the story was hushed up, as usual. Acknowledged use of this gas coming at a time when the U.S. government was trying to get Saddam to comply with weapons inspections, was an embarrassment to say the least. What hypocrisy! Having actually used the weapons on our own troops, then complaining and accusing Saddam of potential use of stored similar weapons, of which some were manufactured in and supplied by the U.S. The broadcast was prepared after exhaustive research and rooted in considerable supportive data. To decide for yourself what the truth is read Floyd Abrams' report on the CNN site at www.cnn.com/US/9807/02/tailwind.findings/index.html .

Journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward broke the stories on Watergate (late 70's) in the Washington Post, having gained access to what the CIA was trying to keep from congress about its program of using journalists at home and abroad, in deliberate propaganda campaigns. It was later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House and knew many insiders including General Alexander Haig. A high-level source told Bernstein, "One journalist is worth twenty agents." CFR/Trilateralist Katharine Graham, in a 1988 speech given to senior CIA employees at Agency headquarters said, "We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows." Maybe that's another reason why folks get the impression that a suspicious agenda lurks behind the headlines. "25 Ways to Suppress Truth: Rules of Disinformation" and "8 Traits of the Disinformationalist" at www.proparanoid.com/truth.htm , sums it up very well.

Ralph McGehee was a CIA agent for 25 years, mainly in South-East Asia where he witnessed bombing and napalming of villages, which caused him to examine closely what the CIA was really all about. He has written about Vietnam's Phoenix Program www.vwip.org/articles/m/McGeheeRalph_VietnamsPhoenixProgram.htm  and after a long battle with CIA censors, he published the book "Deadly Deceits" in 1983. Ralph has been harassed by the CIA and FBI, involving bodily injury, and his CIABASE website was shut down on Spring of 2000. He copied some reports that can be found at http://serendipity.magnet.ch/cia/ciabase_report_1.htm  (and 2.htm), http://serendipity.magnet.ch/cia/death_squads.htm , and www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Deadly_Deceits.html . He concluded that the CIA is not now nor has it ever been a central intelligence agency but rather the covert action arm of the President's foreign policy advisors, of which disinformation is a large part of its responsibility and the American people are the primary target of its lies.

One of the primary reasons John F. Kennedy was assassinated had to do with the fact he dared to interfere in the framework of power. Kennedy was intent on exercising his ELECTED powers and not allowing them to be usurped by power-crazed individuals in the intelligence community, threatening to "splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind." There were four things that filled the CIA with rage and sealed his fate; JFK fired Allen Dulles, was in the process of founding a panel to investigate the CIA's numerous crimes, put a damper on the breadth and scope of the CIA, and limited their ability to act under National Security Memoranda 55.

There is such an overwhelming amount of information pertaining to the CIA that it is impossible to cover it all in one book, much less an article. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the media is not only influenced by the CIA.....the media is the CIA. Many Americans think of their supposedly free press as a watchdog on government, mainly because the press itself shamelessly promotes that myth. One of the first tenets for the control of a population is to control all sources of information the population receives and mostly because of the pervasive CIA and Operation Mockingbird, the mainstream American Press is a controlled multi-national corporate/government megaphone. They are up to their eyeballs in dirty deeds and there will never be an end to the corruption that prevails unless the CIA is abolished. Otherwise, the CIA will just keep on using their tricks of propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, drug trafficking, sexual intrigue, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, demolition and evacuation procedures, death squads, and politically motivated assassinations. The CIA is the epitome of organized crime run amuck!


The Alex Constantine Article


Tales from the Crypt

The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.php
by Alex Constantine

Who Controls the Media?

Soulless corporations do, of course. Corporations with grinning, double-breasted executives, interlocking directorates, labor squabbles and flying capital. Dow. General Electric. Coca-Cola. Disney. Newspapers should have mastheads that mirror the world: The Westinghouse Evening Scimitar, The Atlantic-Richfield Intelligentser . It is beginning to dawn on a growing number of armchair ombudsmen that the public print reports news from a parallel universe - one that has never heard of politically-motivated assassinations, CIA-Mafia banking thefts, mind control, death squads or even federal agencies with secret budgets fattened by cocaine sales - a place overrun by lone gunmen, where the CIA and Mafia are usually on their best behavior. In this idyllic land, the most serious infraction an official can commit __is a the employment of a domestic servant with (shudder) no residency status.

This unlikely land of enchantment is the creation of MOCKINGBIRD.

It was conceived in the late 1940s, the most frigid period of the cold war, when the CIA began a systematic infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets.

In this period, the American intelligence services competed with communist activists abroad to influence European labor unions. With or without the cooperation of local governments, Frank Wisner, an undercover State Department official assigned to the Foreign Service, rounded up students abroad to enter the cold war underground of covert operations on behalf of his Office of Policy Coordination. Philip Graham, __a graduate of the Army Intelligence School in Harrisburg, PA, then publisher of the Washington Post., was taken under Wisner's wing to direct the program code-named Operation MOCKINGBIRD.

"By the early 1950s," writes formerVillage Voice reporter Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great, "Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all, according to a former CIA analyst." The network was overseen by Allen Dulles, a templar for German and American corporations who wanted their points of view represented in the public print. Early MOCKINGBIRD influenced 25 newspapers and wire agencies consenting to act as organs of CIA propaganda. Many of these were already run by men with reactionary views, among them William Paley (CBS), C.D. Jackson (Fortune), Henry Luce (Time) and Arthur Hays Sulzberger (N.Y. Times).

Activists curious about the workings of MOCKINGBIRD have since been appalled to f__ind in FOIA documents that agents boasting in CIA office memos of their pride in having placed "important assets" inside every major news publication in the country. It was not until 1982 that the Agency openly admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field.

"World War III has begun," Henry's Luce's Life declared in March, 1947. "It is in the opening skirmish stage already." The issue featured an excerpt of a book by James Burnham, who called for the creation of an "American Empire," "world-dominating in political power, set up at least in part through coercion (probably including war, but certainly the threat of war) and in which one group of people ... would hold more than its equal share of power."

George Seldes, the famed anti-fascist media critic, drew down on Luce in 1947, explaining tha__t "although avoiding typical Hitlerian phrases, the same doctrine of a superior people taking over the world and ruling it, began to appear in the press, whereas the organs of Wall Street were much more honest in favoring a doctrine inevitably leading to war if it brought greater commercial markets under the American flag."

On the domestic front, an abiding relationship was struck between the CIA and William Paley, a wartime colonel and the founder of CBS. A firm believer in "all forms of propaganda" to foster loyalty to the Pentagon, Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the behest of his close friend, the busy grey eminence of the nation's media, Allen Dulles. Paley's designated go-between in his dealings with the CIA was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961.

The CIA's assimilation of old guard fascists was overseen by the Operations Coordination Board, directed by C.D. Jackson, formerly an executive of Time magazine and Eisenhower's Special Assistant for Cold War Strategy. In 1954 he was succeeded by Nelson Rockefeller, who quit a year later, disgusted at the administration's political infighting. Vice President Nixon succeeded Rockefeller as the key cold war strategist.

"Nixon," writes John Loftus, a former attorney for the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, took "a small boy's delight in the arcane tools of the intelligence craft - the hidden microphones, the 'black' propaganda." Nixon especially enjoyed his visit to a Virginia training camp to observe Nazis in the "special forces" drilling at covert operations.

One of the fugitives recruited by the American intelligence underground was heroin smuggler Hubert von Bl�cher, the son of A German ambassador. Hubert often bragged that that he was trained by the Abwehr, the German military intelligence division, while still a civilian in his twenties. He served in a recon unit of the German Army until forced out for medical reasons in 1944, according to his wartime records. He worked briefly as an assistant director for Berlin-Film on a movie entitled One Day ..., and finished out the war flying with the Luftwaffe, but not to engage the enemy - his mission was the smuggling of Nazi loot out of the country. His exploits were, in part, the subject of Sayer and Botting's Nazi Gold, an account of the knockover of the Reichsbank at the end of the war.

In 1948 he flew the coop to Argentina. Posing as a photographer named Huberto von Bleucher Corell, he immediately paid court to Eva Peron, presenting her with an invaluable Gobelin tapestry (a selection from the wealth of artifacts confiscated by the SS from Europe's Jews?). Hubert then met with Martin Bormann at the Hotel Plaza to deliver German marks worth $80 million. The loot financed the birth of the National Socialist Party in Argentina, among other forms of Nazi revival.

In 1951, Hubert migrated northward and took a job at the Color Corporation of America in Hollywood. He eked out a living writing scripts for the booming movie industry. His voice can be heard on a film set in the Amazon, produced by Walt Disney. Nine years later he returned to Buenos Aires, then D�sseldorf, West Germany, and established a firm that developed not movie scripts, but anti-chemical warfare agents for the government. At the Industrie Club in D�sseldorf in 1982, von Bl�cher boasted to journalists, "I am chief shareholder of Pan American Airways. I am the best friend of Howard Hughes. The Beach Hotel in Las Vegas is 45 percent financed by me. I am thus the biggest financier ever to appear in the Arabian Nights tales dreamed up by these people over their second bottle of brandy."

Not really. Two the biggest financiers to stumble from the drunken dreams of world-moving affluence were, in their time, Moses Annenberg, publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer, and his son Walter , the CIA/mob-anchored publisher of the TV Guide. Like most American high-rollers, Annenberg lived a double life. Moses, his father, was a scion of the Capone mob. Both Moses and Walter were indicted in 1939 for tax evasions totalling many millions of dollars - the biggest case in the history of the Justice Department. Moses pled guilty and agreed to pay the government $8 million and settle $9 million in assorted tax claims, penalties and interest debts. Moses received a three-year sentence. He died in Lewisburg Penitentiary.

Walter Annenbeg, the TV Guide magnate, was a lofty Republican. On the campaign trail in April, 1988, George Bush flew into Los Angeles to woo Reagan's kitchen cabinet. "This is the topping on the cake," Bush's regional campaign director told the Los Angeles Times. The Bush team met at Annenberg's plush Rancho Mirage estate at Sunnylands, California. It was at the Annenberg mansion that Nixon's cabinet was chosen, and the state's social and contributor registers built over a quarter-century of state political dominance by Ronald Reagan, whose acting career was launched by Operation MOCKINGBIRD.

The commercialization of television, coinciding with Reagan's recruitment by the Crusade for Freedom, a CIA front, presented the intelligence world with unprecedented potential for sowing propaganda and even prying in the age of Big Brother. George Orwell glimpsed the possibilities when he installed omniscient video surveillance technology in 1948, a novel rechristened 1984 for the first edition published in the U.S. by Harcourt, Brace. Operation Octopus, according to federal files, was in full swing by 1948, a surveillance program that turned any television set with tubes into a broadcast transmitter. Agents of Octopus could pick up audio and visual images with the equipment as far as 25 miles away.

Hale Boggs was investigating Operation Octopus at the time of his disappearance in the midst of the Watergate probe.

In 1952, at MCA, Actors' Guild president Ronald Reagan - a screen idol recruited by MOCKINGBIRD's Crusade for Freedom to raise funds for the resettlement of Nazis in the U.S., according to Loftus - signed a secret waiver of the conflict-of-interest rule with the mob-controlled studio, in effect granting it a labor monopoly on early television programming. In exchange, MCA made Reagan a part owner. Furthermore, historian C. Vann Woodward, writing in the New York Times, in 1987, reported that Reagan had "fed the names of suspect people in his organization to the FBI secretly and regularly enough to be assigned 'an informer's code number, T-10.' His FBI file indicates intense collaboration with producers to 'purge' the industry of subversives."

No one ever turned a suspicious eye on Walter Cronkite, a former intelligence officer and in the immediate postwar period UPI's Moscow correspondent. Cronkite was lured to CBS by Operation MOCKINGBIRD's Phil Graham, according to Deborah Davis.

Another television conglomerate, Cap Cities, rose like a horror-film simian from CIA and Mafia heroin operations. Among other organized-crime Republicans, Thomas Dewey and his neighbor Lowell Thomas threw in to launch the infamous Resorts International, the corporate front for Lansky's branch of the federally-sponsored mob family and the corporate precursor to Cap Cities. Another of the investors was James Crosby, a Cap Cities executive who donated $100,000 to Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign. This was the year that Resorts bought into Atlantic City casino interests. Police in New jersey attempted, with no success, to spike the issuance of a gambling license to the company, citing Mafia ties.

In 1954, this same circle of investors, all Catholics, founded the broadcasting company notorious for overt propagandizing and general spookiness. The company's chief counsel was OSS veteran William Casey, who clung to his shares by concealing them in a blind trust even after he was appointed CIA director by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

"Black radio" was the phrase CIA critic David Wise coined in The Invisible Government to describe the agency's intertwining interests in the emergence of the transistor radio with the entrepreneurs who took to the airwaves. "Daily, East and West beam hundreds of propaganda broadcasts at each other in an unrelenting babble of competition for the minds of their listeners. The low-price transistor has given the hidden war a new importance," enthused one foreign correspondent.

A Hydra of private foundations sprang up to finance the propaganda push. One of them, Operations and Policy Research, Inc. (OPR), received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the CIA through private foundations and trusts. OPR research was the basis of a television series that aired in New York and Washington, D.C. in 1964, Of People and Politics, a "study" of the American political system in 21 weekly installments.

In Hollywood, the visual cortex of The Beast, the same CIA/Mafia combination that formed Cap Cities sank its claws into the film studios and labor unions. Johnny Rosselli was pulled out of the Army during the war by a criminal investigation of Chicago mobsters in the film industry. Rosselli, a CIA asset probably assassinated by the CIA, played sidekick to Harry Cohn, the Columbia Pictures mogul who visited Italy's Benito Mussolini in 1933, and upon his return to Hollywood remodeled his office after the dictator's. The only honest job Rosselli ever had was assistant purchasing agent (and a secret investor) at Eagle Lion productions, run by Bryan Foy, a former producer for 20th Century Fox. Rosselli, Capone's representative on the West Coast, passed a small fortune in mafia investments to Cohn. Bugsy Seigel pooled gambling investments with Billy Wilkerson, publisher of the Hollywood Reporter.

In the 1950s, outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of the CIA's covert operations budget. Some 3, 000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost of disinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the combined expenditures of Reuters, UPI and the AP news syndicates.

In 1977, the Copely News Service admitted that it worked closely with the intelligence services - in fact, 23 employees were full-time employees of the Agency.

Most consumers of the corporate media were - and are - unaware of the effect that the salting of public opinion has on their own beliefs. A network anchorman in time of national crisis is an instrument of psychological warfare in the MOCKINGBIRD media. He is a creature from the national security sector's chamber of horrors. For this reason consumers of the corporate press have reason to examine their basic beliefs about government and life in the parallel universe of these United States.

First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico as spill cover-up goes Orwellian

http://www.naturalnews.com/029130_Gulf_of_Mexico_censorship.html

Saturday, July 03, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) As CNN is now reporting, the U.S. government has issued a new rule that would make it a felony crime for any journalist, reporter, blogger or photographer to approach any oil cleanup operation, equipment or vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone caught is subject to arrest, a $40,000 fine and prosecution for a federal felony crime.

CNN reporter Anderson Cooper says, "A new law passed today, and back by the force of law and the threat of fines and felony charges, ... will prevent reporters and photographers from getting anywhere close to booms and oil-soaked wildlife just about any place we need to be. By now you're probably familiar with cleanup crews stiff-arming the media, private security blocking cameras, ordinary workers clamming up, some not even saying who they're working for because they're afraid of losing their jobs."

Watch the video clip yourself at NaturalNews.TV: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=203

The rule, of course, is designed to restrict the media's access to cleanup operations in order to keep images of oil-covered seabirds off the nation's televisions. With this, the Gulf Coast cleanup operation has now entered a weird Orwellian reality where the news is shaped, censored and controlled by the government in order to prevent the public from learning the truth about what's really happening in the Gulf.

The war is on to control your mind

If all this sounds familiar, it's because the U.S. government uses this same tactic during every war. The first casualty of war, as they say, is the truth. There are lots of war images the government doesn't want you to see (like military helicopter pilots shooting up Reuters photographers while screaming "Yee-Haw!" over the comm radios), and there are other images they do want you to see ("surgical strike" explosions from "smart" bombs, which makes it seem like the military is doing something useful). So war reporting is carefully monopolized by the government to deliver precisely the images they want you to see while censoring everything else.

Now the same Big Brother approach is being used in the Gulf of Mexico: Criminalize journalists, censor the story and try to keep the American people ignorant of what's really happening. It's just the latest tactic from a government that no longer even recognizes the U.S. Constitution or its Bill of Rights. Because the very first right is Freedom of Speech, which absolutely includes the right to walk onto a public beach and take photographs of something happening out in the open, on public waters. It is one of the most basic rights of our citizens and our press.

But now the Obama administration has stripped away those rights, transforming journalists into criminals. Now, we might expect something like this from Chavez, or Castro or even the communist leaders of China, but here in the United States, we've all been promised we lived in "the land of the free." Obama apparently does not subscribe to that philosophy anymore (if he ever did).

So how does criminalizing journalists equate to "land of the free?" It doesn't, obviously. Forget freedom. (Your government already has.) This is about controlling your mind to make sure you don't visually see the truth of what the oil industry has done to your oceans, your shorelines and your beaches. This is all about keeping you ignorant with a total media blackout of the real story of what's happening in the Gulf.

The real story, you see, is just too ugly. And the government has fracked up the cleanup effort to such a ridiculous extent that instead of the "transparency" they once promised, they're now resorting to the threat of arrest for all journalists who try to get close enough to cover the story.

Yes, this is happening right now in America. This isn't a hoax. I know, it sounds more like something you might hear about in Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela or some other nation run by dictators. But now it's happening right here in the USA.

As Anderson Cooper reported on CNN:

"Now the government is getting in on the act. Despite what Admiral Thad Allen promised about transparency just nearly a month ago.

Thad Allen: "The media will have uninhibited access anywhere we're doing operations..."

Anderson Cooper: The Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers, reporters and anyone else from coming with 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches. What this means is that oil-soaked birds on an island surrounded by a boom, you can't get close enough to take that picture. Shot of oil on beaches with booms? Stay 65 feet away. Pictures of oil-soaked booms uselessly laying in the water because they haven't been collected like they should? You can't get close enough to see that. Believe me, that is out there. But you only know that if you get close to it, and now you can't without permission. Violators could face a fine of $40,000 and Class D felony charges."

See the video yourself at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=203

Welcome to the (censored) club

All I can say to CNN is: Welcome to the club! This kind of censorship, intimidation and tyranny has been going on for decades in the field of health, where the Orwellian FDA has treated the entire U.S. public to a nationwide blackout on truthful health information about healing foods and nutritional supplements. CNN has never covered that story, by the way. Most of the mainstream media has, in fact, gone right along with censorship of truthful health information by the FDA and FTC.

Now they're suddenly crying wolf. But where was the media when the FDA was raiding nutritional supplement companies and arresting people who dared to sell healing foods with honest descriptions about how they might help protect your health? The media went right along with the cover-up and never bothered to even tell its viewers a cover-up was taking place.

You see, even CNN is willing to tolerate some Orwellian censorship, as long as its advertisers are okay with it. The only reason they're talking about censorship in the Gulf of Mexico right now is because oil companies don't influence enough of their advertising budget to yank the story.

Censorship is not okay in a free society

I like the fact that CNN is finding the courage to speak up now about this censorship in the Gulf, but I wish they wouldn't stay silent on the other media blackouts in which they have long participated. Media censorship is bad for any nation, and it should be challenged regardless of the topic at hand. When the media is not allowed to report the truth on a subject -- any subject! -- the nation suffers some loss as a result.

Without the light of media scrutiny, corporations and government will get away with unimaginable crimes against both humanity and nature. That's what's happening right now in the Gulf of Mexico: A crime against nature.

Obama doesn't want you to see that crime. He's covering it up to the benefit of BP. He's keeping you in the dark by threatening reporters and photographers with arrest. How's that for "total transparency?"

The only thing transparent here is that President Barack Obama has violated his own oath of office by refusing to defend the Constitution. By any honest measure, in fact, these actions, which are endorsed by the White House, stand in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. And that means this new censorship rule in the Gulf, which suspends the First Amendment, is unconstitutional. It also means those who decided on this rule are enemies of freedom.

They are the ones who should be arrested and hauled off to federal prison, not the CNN reporters who are trying to cover this story.

The seeds of tyranny

The loss of life in the Gulf of Mexico isn't the only catastrophe taking place here, you see: Now we're losing our freedoms while our government tries to intentionally blind us all from the truth of what's happening on our own public beaches.

When those who seek truth are branded criminals by the government, it is only a matter of time before that government expands its criminalization labeling to include anyone who disagrees with it. These are the seeds of tyranny, and Obama is planting them at your doorstep right now.

What BP did to the Gulf Coast, Obama is now doing to your freedom.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/029130_Gulf_of_Mexico_censorship.html#ixzz29KVLf7Hw