An 8-Year Long Fight Ends in Victory, Yet Trouble Brews

Dr. Paul Connett, PhD, a chemist and executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is a recognized leader in the fluoride education movement, spearheading the organized efforts to remove fluoride from our water supply in the US and elsewhere.

One of the organization’s past victories took eight years to secure, namely the phasing out of sulfuryl fluoride, which is a toxic fumigant. In the face of defeat, the chemical industry has resorted to blatant political maneuvers to protect their toxic income stream.

“This was a major victory for us after [FAN] was formed in 2000. It took us eight years to get the EPA Pesticide Division to accept our objections to the use of sulfuryl fluoride by Dow AgroSciences as a fumigant on food,” Dr. Connett explains.

The idea of using sulfuryl fluoride as a food fumigant was extremely worrying as it not only leaves toxic residues on food, but can be lethal to humans in its pure gas form—the form in which it is applied to the food. According to Dr. Connett, people have died during the application of the fumigant.

When applied to food, it breaks down into free fluoride. Many American children are already heavily overexposed to fluoride, so this added source of exposure can only worsen matters. (Organic foods do not permit its use.)

FAN argued that the Food Quality Protection Act requires companies who want to market a pesticide to show that the cumulative dose—meaning the dose that will end up on the food as residues, plus already existing exposure from other sources—will not exceed the safe reference dose. Dr. Connett explains what happened in this case:

“We were able to show, very easily, that millions of children are already exceeding the safe reference dose of fluoride from a combination of sources – in the water, toothpaste and other dental products, pollution, and so on. No way should the EPA allow Dow to add more fluoride to the food supply.

Eventually, after going backwards and forwards for many years, and threatening legal action with the help of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Beyond Pesticides, we eventually got the EPA to agree to accept all our objections, and they announced that sulfuryl fluoride will be phased out in three years.”

Again, this was a major victory at the time, but Dow did not back down. Since then, they’ve done everything in their power to stop the implementation of the EPA’s decision—and in a manner that is quite worrying. First, they tried to introduce an amendment to the Farm Bill that would have allowed them to continue using sulfuryl fluoride, which meant subverting the EPA for doing its job.

“The EPA listened to the science. They agreed with us. They said, 'We’re going to phase it out.' But through the back door, Dow tried to get the Farm Bill to get it in.”

Fortunately, they didn’t succeed. Congress kept that amendment out. But, Dow came back again, this time using the 2014 House Appropriations Bill to cut back a lot of EPA’s work, including that relating to sulfuryl fluoride.¹ In essence, the bill would prohibit the EPA from obstructing Dow’s use of this pesticide/fumigant!

House Bill Will Let Dow Chemicals to Keep Spraying Fluoride Pesticide on Our Food

The fact that a company has the power to even try to write its own laws in this way, and quite literally making it illegal for a federal agency to do its job with regards to a specific product, truly boggles the mind. And while many other industries have used similar tactics, infiltrating and manipulating politicians and the federal agencies for their own benefit, at just about any cost, this example is a particularly blatant circumvention. This is where it stands at the moment... FAN has issued a bulletin to its members to write to Congress and urge your Congressman to take action to avert this atrocity. I join FAN in this call to action.  Click here to find your Congressman.

According to Dr. Connett, there’s every reason to be concerned about the use of sulfuryl fluoride gas on food, because some of the fluoride residues allowed by the EPA are “astronomical.” For example, the EPA was allowing 120 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride on wheat flour. Wheat flour is consumed in so many foods on a daily basis by most people that you not only need to be concerned about chronic effects of low-level fluoride intake, but also with its acute effects.

Dr. Connett goes so far as to say that you could potentially be in serious trouble simply by eating a pizza made from a recently fumigated batch of wheat flour. At one point, the EPA even allowed 900 ppm of fluoride on dried eggs. One-third of the eggs sold in the US are dried eggs for institutions like hospitals. If you were to eat an omelet or pancakes made with dried eggs recently treated with sulfuryl fluoride, carrying fluoride residue at 900 ppm, you’d be very close to the level of fluoride found in toothpaste, which is 1,000 ppm.

“And you know what you’re told about toothpaste: Don’t swallow; only use a pea-sized amount (which is a quarter of a milligram), and if you accidentally swallowed more, contact the Poison Control Center,” Dr. Connett says.

“I should point out that around the world, the only country that applies sulfuryl fluoride directly to food as a fumigant is Australia – no other country does it... In other words, it’s quite clear that modern agriculture can survive without using sulfuryl fluoride. You can use heat and cold control. You can use carbon dioxide. There are a number of ways.

One of the problems for America is a lot of our storage facilities and our food storage facilities, are hopelessly out of date. What we should be doing is to modernize those facilities, so that these other techniques used by most of the civilized world could be also used in America. [Using sulfuryl fluoride] is a cheap and dirty way around doing the right thing, which is to modernize food storage facilities in the US.”

Good News from Around the United States

I did promise you good news, and there is plenty to celebrate. In the US, FAN achieved a number of important victories:

• In Wichita, Kansas, they won 60 percent of the votes in the referendum, despite being considerably outspent by the fluoride proponents
• Porland, Oregon. Here,the proponents spent nearly a million dollars to get fluoridation into Portland (about three times the amount spent by the anti-fluoridation side), yet they lost the vote at 40 percent. One of the most disturbing challenges was that huge amounts of money were given to minority groups by the fluoride proponents, ostensibly to support fluoridation. Essentially, they bought the support of the very minority groups that fluoridation actually hurts the most!
• The states of Connecticut, South Carolina, and Minnesota are also looking at lifting mandatory fluoridation rulings.

Dr. Connett recently travelled to Hartford, Connecticut and gave a presentation at the Legislative Office Building in Connecticut at the request of Representative Markley, who is trying to introduce a bill to lift mandatory fluoridation in Connecticut. Markley also invited the proponents of fluoridation, including the dental society and various public health authorities, to debate the issue with Dr. Connett.

“To begin with, they said that they would do it. And then the day before, they said, no, they weren’t going to participate. They refused to debate and refused to come,” Dr. Connett says. “So, I was given a solo platform for an hour. I gave the arguments why fluoridation should never have started and why we shouldn’t use the public water supply to deliver any medicine – lithium, statins, or fluoride – because you can’t control the dose, you can’t control who gets it, and you are violating an individual’s right to informed consent to medication.

Then I gave seven relatively recent events which should have ended fluoridation... One of the key ones was when the proponents admitted that fluoride works topically – on the surface of the teeth – not from inside the body. When they admitted that, in my view, it should have ended fluoridation.”

In addition to FAN’s book, The Case Against Fluoride,^{2, 3} which contains about 80 pages worth of scientific source listings, print copies of key scientific papers were also given to those attending the meeting. (The book can currently be found on sale at Chelsea Green Publishing⁴.) All of this now easily available research clearly shows that:

1. Water fluoridation does not work to prevent cavities
2. Fluoride works when topically applied only
3. There are unacceptable risks involved in the practice of water fluoridation

With all this documentation, it’s not surprising that the defenders of water fluoridation opted out of the debate. They simply do not have the science on their side, and they know an open debate will expose that fact. In the video below, Dr. William Hirzy was invited to give testimony to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union. At the time, Dr. Hirzy was serving his sixth term as the Senior Vice-President of the Union. In his presentation, titled: "Why EPA's Union of Professionals Opposes Fluoridation," he discusses the reasoning behind the professional and official stance of his Union members, which is in direct opposition to the EPA's support of fluoridation.

Dr. William Hirzy & EPA Union on Fluoridation

The Bullies of Brooksville, Florida

A similar situation has developed in Brooksville, Florida. When Pinellas County stopped fluoridation, some of the local dentists, and one in particular named Johnny Johnson, set out to boot all of the commissioners who voted against fluoridation out of office. They succeeded. And, needless to say, put “the fear of God” into everybody else. Now they’re trying to do the same thing in the little town of Brooksville, which is about an hour from Tampa Bay.

The Brooksville mayor, Lara Bradburn, who is working on getting fluoridation out of her town, has subsequently become the victim of the same bullying tactics. After dentists accused her of being over-emotional and disregarding the science, Dr. Connett offered to hold a meeting in Brooksville, which she accepted. Johnny Johnson was invited to present his evidence alongside Dr. Connett.

“True to form, Johnny ran for cover. He has refused to participate,” Dr. Connett says. “It didn’t stop him insulting me. I just find this all so unacceptable, but it’s typical of the bullies, which are usually cowards. That’s what we’ve got in this case... Again, the reason for the cowardice is he simply doesn’t have the science.”

The proponents of fluoridation are very good at two things though:

1. Persuading you that every health and dental body in the world is pro-fluoridation. They hold the endorsement of the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the American Dental Association (ADA), the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Public Health Association (APHA), for example. All these organizations endorse fluoridation, and they cannot all be wrong, the argument goes. It appears to be a strong argument, but the fact is that most of these organizations have never reviewed the full body of available literature. Still, the argument works when addressing the general public.

2. Conveying to the public that the opponents of fluoridation are a bunch of “Looney Tunes” who get their facts from the Internet or other paranoid nut-jobs. What they do not address is the scientific literature itself, which overwhelmingly support the anti-fluoride stance. As mentioned earlier, The Case Against Fluoride lists 80 pages of references, and the FAN health database⁵ is the most extensive database on fluoride in the world. There’s no shortage of scientific evidence to back up the claims that a) swallowing fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, and b) it poses potentially very serious health risks. When was the last time you heard a fluoride proponent cite published studies in support of their own claims of benefit and safety?

Good News from Down Under

Over the past five years, a literal avalanche of Queensland communities has stopped fluoridating their water supplies. There are now 15 regional councils in Queensland that are either stopping fluoridation or refusing to start. That affects about 50 different townships. That, of course, has encouraged people not only in Queensland, but throughout Australia. In New Zealand, several communities have also stopped fluoridation over the last few years. The most recent was Hamilton, which is the second largest city in New Zealand. At the end of an exhaustive four-day process, the Hamilton council voted seven to one to stop fluoridation.

Also worthy of note is the news that the Ministry of Health in Israel recently announced it will lift the mandatory requirement for fluoridation in 2014.⁶ Not only that, but the Supreme Court of Israel also ruled that the new regulations will put an end to all fluoridation, whether mandatory or voluntary.

Take Action to Keep Fluoride Out of Our Food Supply

In closing, please take a few moments to contact your US Congressman to make sure the EPA restriction keeping sulfuryl fluoride out of your food supply remains in place. Also, of particular benefit would be to contact members of the Senate on the appropriations committee.

“That will be our last line of defense – to get the Senate to overrule the House on this issue,” Dr. Connett says. “In my talks, I close by saying, 'Affecting change is like trying to drive a nail through a piece of wood. The expert can sharpen the nail, but he or she cannot push the nail through the piece of wood. I’ve helped to sharpen the nail by giving you the facts that can end fluoridation. But we need you. We need the weight of public opinion to drive that nail home.'

---

* Landmark Fluoride Lawsuit Restarts in January: Here Are Four Reasons You Should Care

Revolution - An Instruction Manual

Revolution - An Instruction Manual - Transcript

When you have a government that operates without limits, who proclaims the right to arrest, torture and kill anyone any, anywhere, with no warrants, no trial, no due process…

When you have a government that militarizes the police and grants the armed forces the power to operate with impunity within your own borders and beyond… a government that views you, the people, as the enemy… and treats you as such...

When you have a government that lies to you takes you into wars of aggression, toppling country after country, killing countless innocent civilians, and sending your sons and daughters and your fathers and your brothers home in flag draped coffins, or disfigured and broken in mind and body… their lives destroyed in wars that serve only to line the pockets of a unelected cartel of bankers and corporations…

When you have all of this right in front of you, so blatant, so clear, you shouldn't have to be convinced that both parties in this political puppet show are owned and operated by the same interests, and you shouldn't have to be convinced that these overrated corporate popularity contests that some call elections are distractions that will achieve nothing, and with this understood, you shouldn't have to be convinced that the system you are living under must be brought to a halt.

These are obviously conclusions for those who have been paying attention, so we won't try to convince you here. This video focuses solely on how to bring that system to a halt. Think of it as an instruction manual for a revolution.

There are those who will be taken aback when you start using the word revolution.

Revolution, the act of revolting, and overturning the current power structure is an extreme measure, one that should be handled with extreme caution, and in most cases they should be avoided.

Revolutions are dangerous in every sense of the word, and it is difficult if not impossible to predict their outcome, but there are times when allowing those in control to stay in control is even more dangerous.

Right now the question you need to ask yourself is this:
Are we at that point yet?  Can the current system be reformed?

Revolutions begin with a NO and they end with a YES.

Revolutions begin when you say NO to those who claim to have power over you, and revolutions end when you accept a new status quo, a new normal, whether that new normal is an improvement or not.

The causes of revolution are numerous in form, but there is one common root, and that's discontent. Discontent is the emotion that builds and builds under the surface, it is a storm which brews in the mind of the people, just waiting to be unleashed.

The trouble is that it is much easier to unleash that storm than it is to get people in agreement as to what should come next. It's not easy to get people to see eye to eye regarding what needs to happen after the current system falls. So this is usually put off, or avoided altogether. This is a serious mistake.

Without clear objectives, chaos usually sets in soon after the old regime falls, and then in the power vacuum that is created a tyrant rises to bring order. As a result the systems that follow revolutions are often just as totalitarian or more totalitarian than those that they replace.

It should therefore be abundantly obvious that discontent is a not sufficient driving force for a revolution, that is if your goal is actually to leave a better world for your children and grandchildren. In order for an upheaval to have positive results it must be driven by a clear and realistic vision, a vision that accounts for the world and humans the way they actually are right now, not the way we wish they would be or hope that they might be, and it must differentiate between that which can and cannot be changed in the short term.

There is nothing more dangerous that armed men with utopian dreams.

So let's be realistic shall we? We the people are divided. We have divided ourselves into classes and subclasses, liberals, and conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, socialists, anarcho-socialists, minarchists, state based free market capitalists, anarcho-capitalists, Resource Based Economy advocates and more.

There is absolutely no chance that any one of you is going to convince all of the others that your way is the right way, unless of course one of you rises to political power in the fray and enforces your beliefs by the barrel of a gun. This is the way it usually happens throughout history, and this is what we must avoid repeating.

A movement is only successful if it starts with an idea that is strong enough to take root in the mind of the population and inspires and motivates people to spread it.

It is possible for a diverse and divided people to form a coalition in times of great need and unify around an idea, but it only works if that idea that meets the following 3 requirements:

1. It must articulate a clear and defined common interest which will allow the people to work together. The necessity for unification, even if that unification is temporary, needs to be evident to all stakeholders and it must be accompanied by a sense of urgency which impels people to reach out to others in their community and spread the idea.

2. A clear vision of what you are working towards. What are you going to replace the current system with? Ironing out the fine details isn't actually productive. What's needed is a broad, and abstract vision based on principles.

In human societies extreme and abrupt changes are usually destructive. All efforts must be made to retain social stability and this means steering clear of any sort of utopian phantasies. The time to rewire humanity is NOT during a period crisis. Historically such attempts usually end in tragedy.

3. A plan of action, and a clear understanding of the rules of engagement.

We'll refer to these three elements collectively as the conscious revolution paradigm.You don't have to get mystical about it, it just means think before you act.

Let's start with the common interest. Establishing our common interest is easy if you are informed and if the people around you aren't informed then your job is clear: inform them. Whether you consider yourself liberal or conservative or none of the above the bankers and corporations which hold the puppet strings of the state have placed us all on a path that leads to complete and total destruction. Our common interest is the world we are leaving our children.

The clear vision of what we are working towards is much harder. Again there is nothing more dangerous that armed men with utopian dreams, and there's no greater symptom of utopianism than the illusion that we can convince the entire world to accept one monolithic belief system. Yet at the same time all great movements are driven by an idea, they are driven by a vision.

How do we resolve this apparent contradiction? How do we find a common vision without falling for the naive phantasy that we can unify all world views?

The answer is actually pretty simple, and that's a good thing, because only very simple ideas can be transmitted from person to person without breaking down.

Our vision must start with the foundational understanding that there is not one single right way for humans to live on this planet, and that it is unacceptable to force others into any system without their consent, or to use violence or coercion to compel them to obey a set of rules that they never agreed to. That should be common sense, but it's really not for most people.

Most people like to use government thugs to enforce their good intentions. They just don't like it when it comes home to roost and the gun is pointed in their face.

When the system falls there is going to be no way to reconstitute it in its old shape and size without violence and coercion and even that probably wouldn't work. Therefore the only real, ethical option is to accept that humpty dumpty isn't going to be put back together again.

When the United States falls it's not coming back. This may not be true for smaller countries who are socially and ideologically unified.

When it's time to rebuild we don't need to figure out one system that everyone can fit under, rather we need to figure out an approach which facilitates multiple systems side by side.

What would that look like?

Imagine a network of small voluntarily formed communities bound together in loose federations that cooperate for mutual defense and trade as needed, with decision making taking place at the local level.

It's a simple concept, one that has been applied many times throughout history. The most striking example however is the Iroquois Federation, which unified 6 tribes each with their own cultures and traditions. The Iroquois Federation existed before the arrival of Collombus and lasted until 1779 when they were conquered militarily by the U.S.. Many historians believe that the Iroquois Federation served as the original inspiration for the united states. The most striking difference being that the Iroquois Federation never had a central government. No one at the top had the power to force the member tribes to do anything whatsoever, and yet this system worked well. So clearly this is not a utopian phantasy. It is a viable option, and it's the only option that can be enacted on a voluntary basis.

The final element of the conscious revolution paradigm is the the plan of action, the strategy and tactics, the short term and long term goals and the structure of the movement.

First let's start with the top level strategy and move towards tactics.

Some think of revolution in terms of bullets and bombs, but this is a misconception. Revolutions are about pulling the pillars of power out from underneath the state one by one until it falls.

“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” Thomas Paine

The state leans on three primary pillars of power:

1. Control of the group mind, ideas and beliefs
2. The control of money, finance and thereby human activity
3. The monopoly on violence, and the use intimidation to extract obedience by fear.

There are three stages of revolution. They are sequential, and they correlate directly with the three pillars of power.

The first is the ideological revolution. This is where we undermine the belief systems which support their control, this is where we systematically erode at their illusion of legitimacy, their aura of power. We expose these criminals for the scoundrels that they are and we inspire discontent among those who the state depends on for its functioning. If you're new to this, welcome to the party. It's already in full swing, and guess what we're winning. The powers that be have lost control of the dialogue, and they know it.

The second phase is of the revolution is strategic non-compliance or more accurately defiance. This can take many forms, and multiple approaches can be used at the same time. The goal of strategic non-compliance is to interrupt the chain of obedience for as long as possible as many times as possible, to publicize that interruption on as large a scale as possible, to document the police and or military brutality that follows and to distribute that footage far and wide. The purpose of this is to damage the ruling party's image, because power is all about image. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Once that image starts to break down this inspires others to disobey, monkey see, monkey do, and when this catches on and contagion sets in it becomes a force of nature, like a tidal wave. It's all about reaching critical mass.

What's crucial to understand here is that revolutions are almost entirely psychological in nature.

In this context building confidence is the most important element. Therefore it is better to do small successful operations and build up from there, than it is to start with large high stakes events.

The third stage of revolution comes when the people have built the necessary momentum to take the monopoly on violence out of the hands of the current regime. In the best of circumstances such a transition can be relatively peaceful, but this is only possible when a significant portion of the police and military have taken the side of the people.

The police and the military are the enforcement arm of the state, without them the powers that be have no power at all. Faltering governments almost always resort to brutal repression to attempt stay in power, but this is often a fatal error. Even one refusal to follow an immoral order can set off a chain reaction that destroys the illusion of authority they so carefully cultivate. Once that happens, it’s game over.

In East Germany on November 7, 1989 the communist party ordered the military to put a stop to mass protests which had been growing through out that year. The commander of the army refused and ordered his men to stand down. This sent a clear message that the communist party was no longer in control. This realization spread rapidly through the population and communism fell.

Now since this is such a crucial element in the equation it's not something that should be left up to chance. Every effort needs to be made right now reach out to the police and military, to help them wake up to what's going on and to let them know that the people will support them if they break the chain of command.

Now that we've outlined the big picture let's look at two other key elements: leadership and organizational structure.

Our current system relies on a hierarchical chain of command, a social pyramid which allows a small handful of individuals to control everyone else. In sociology this is referred to as vertical collectivism.

If our long term vision is not compatible with such a structure, it would be foolish to build a resistance movement which copies it. The ends don't justify the means, the means will determine the end result.

So if we want a decentralized, non-hierarchical federation of autonomous communities to replace the current system, the movement must be decentralized and non-hierarchal as well.

This doesn't mean that there is no place for leadership. To the contrary leadership is essential. The distinction needs to be made between leaders and rulers. Leaders walk ahead of the crowd. Rulers place themselves above the crowd.

What is needed is a vast network of leaders, independently motivated and capable of thinking for themselves working to organize groups both locally in the real world and online, unified not by obedience to a single leader, but unified by an idea.

Now while this approach does present challenges logistically it has the advantage of making it virtually impossible to destroy the organization merely by getting rid of one or two leaders. A distributed organization structure is much more resilient.

So where are these leaders?

Well don't wait for them to appear. We need you to be one of those leaders yourself. If you don't know how to be a leader, learn. Dealing with crowds is a skill, one that you can refine through practice and study. Anyone who wants to learn the basic psychology of uprisings, and how to work with the public should study the following books intensely, reading them each several times, taking notes and reflecting on what they say.

"The Crowd" and "The Psychology of Revolution" by Gustave Le Bon and "From Dictatorship to Democracy" by Gene Sharp. These books are all available online to read and download for free You will find links to these books below:

"The Crowd" by Gustave Le Bon: The Crowd read free copy.

"The Psychology of Revolution" by Gustave Le Bon: The Psychology of Revolution free .pdf copy.

"From Dictatorship to Democracy" by Gene Sharp: From Dictatorship to Democracy free audio book.

Now a word of warning: These books contain politics, opinions and prejudices that I do not endorse. Like all books, they should be read with a critical mind questioning everything that is said. However they do offer a great deal of insight as to how to take power out of the hands of a tyrant.

Leadership takes many forms and can mean many things depending on the situation, however, the primary job of leaders is to inspire people to take action, to organize people into groups so that they can be more effective than isolated individuals, and to train others to do the same.

The final element needed to start your revolution is tactics.

In the realm of violence the state has the definitive advantage and it would be foolish to engage them where they are strongest. Instead we should use tactics that engage them where they are weakest. Fortunately there is no shortage of non-violent tactics which have been proven effective in toppling dictatorships. Gene Sharp's book "From Dictatorship to Democracy" lists 198, but those are by no means the only ones that can be used.

The tactics employed by each group will depend on the mission and the specific goals of the group. The military divides itself into Army, Airforce, Navy and Marines so that each can be specialized in the tactics of the terrain where they fight, likewise a non-violent movement should have specialized groups for specific issues. This is already developing.

We have P.A.N.D.A. people against the N.D.A.A. which is a national organization that's been working to build resistance to the N.D.A.A. on the state and local levels and they've been having successes. What's most impressive is that the founder, Daniel Johnson started this organization when he was 17.

Also there's the OathKeepers founded by Stewart Rhodes, which has been reaching out to the police and military, reminding them of their oath and preparing them psychologically to disobey when unconstitutional orders are handed down. The OathKeepers have taken a definitive stand against the N.D.A.A. and they are gaining traction within the ranks.

Others are organizing social media teams to collect and spread information. Others organize street activism such as writing messages in chalk on sidewalks, or hanging up posters, or inserting small leaflets into books and magazines in the store. The possibilities are endless.

Whether you start your own group, join an existing group, or act as an individual will depend on your disposition. No one can decide that for you. The most important thing is to take the first step and to start doing something, anything. Take action and break the inertia of passivity, this is how you take back your power, one millimeter at time.

---

---

The Syrian War - What You are Not Being Told

Published: September 3, 2013

The use of chemical weapons on civilians in the Syrian conflict was a crime against humanity. As such it should be the subject of a real criminal investigation, and those responsible should be brought to justice. However, if the U.S. and NATO have their way that’s not going to happen. In their book a simple accusation is as good as a conviction and therefore there’s no point providing any real evidence. Let’s just skip right to missile strikes shall we?

This really isn’t surprising to anyone who’s been paying attention though.

The United States has had Syria and Iran in their cross hairs for a long time. The plans for these wars have been in the works for over a decade.

"The real problem is us, the American people. We do not read books, prefer game shows and sports over politics, get our information from TV networks who slant the news to whatever their political views are, have a deep fear about foreigners, etc. The wars in Vietnam and Iraq would never had happened if most of us simply paid attention to what our "leaders" are really attempting. Or simply paid attention to what is going on in the world and understood geography. Slowly a lot of people are becoming more aware to the lies being fed to us but too many of us don't care due to apathy or just ignorance. The U.S. will not attack Iran, not because of its Jewish population (a dumb and outlandish explanation) but because the Iranian people will stand together to fight back against foreign intervention. Unlike Iraq which is a fragmented society Iran is held together by a common history and heritage. There may eventually be change in this country, it does have a strong middle class and the citizens aren't Muslim hillbillies but very worldly, but it will have to come from within." Said Vincent Fisher - 7 years ago

The Syrian War What You are Not Being Told - Transcript

---

---

Nation-less Corporation’s World Domination Pyramid

Watch Thrive Documentary Film to learn more about the evil crime families, responsible for all evils befalling on all people, all over the world, collectively orchestrating and funding wars, murder and mayhem, through their central banks, nation-less corporations and other institutions, deliberately causing millions upon millions of deaths and unimaginable destruction all over the world, to rule and control planet Earth, exposed by Thrive documentary film.

Evil shall triumph, only when good people do nothing to stop it.!

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

---

---

 

CIA Whistle Blower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything! "Extreme Prejudice"

Former Congressional staffer Susan Lindauer covered Iraq and Libya at UN as a U.S. Intelligence Asset and back door channel on anti-terrorism from 1993-2003.Summer of 2001, her team warned about a major terrorist attack involving airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center.

Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government's lies about 9/11 and Iraq, and casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the Patriot Act as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents. A terrifying true story of "black budget" betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging,

EXTREME PREJUDICE(Book by Susan Lindauer) reveals one Asset's desperate struggle to survive the brutal cover ups of 9/11 and Iraq. EXTREME PREJUDICE delivers a high tension expose of the real facts surrounding the CIA's advance warnings of 9/11 and Iraq's contributions to the 9/11 investigation.

Further Review and link to the book at this Link. http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/

Susan's book "Extreme Prejudice" can be purchased on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Prejudi... She in urgent need of book sales and donations. Please consider a donation to her paypal account.

(Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the makers of this video and is presented for educational and informational purposes only)