The conspiracy folks are going to have fun over this: lithium in drinking water help reduce suicides

Posted on May 1st, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

Very low levels of lithium in drinking water may help prevent suicide in the general population, according to a new study. The study has prompted calls for further research into the possibility of adding lithium to drinking supplies – like water fluoridation to improve dental health.

Researchers at Oita University in Japan measured natural lithium levels in tap water in 18 communities in the surrounding region of southern Japan. Writing in the British Journal of Psychiatry, the researchers said: “Our study suggests that very low levels of lithium in drinking water can lower the risk of suicide. Very low levels may possess an anti-suicidal effect.”

There are many who claim that the whole chemtrail thing is partly to pacify the public by putting lithium in the water. If you’ve ever seen anyone who takes a lot of lithium you may have an understanding as to why people take that position.

Lithium may very well reduce suicidal tendencies but the government has no role whatsoever in modifying water supplies. Fluoride or otherwise.

Obama supports treaty which would ban reloading ammo?

Posted on April 22nd, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 9 Comments »

http://gunowners.org/…

A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn’t have the political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that didn’t keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun owners.

It’s called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the “illicit” manufacture of firearms, what does that mean?

1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition … without a license….”

Hence, reloading ammunition — or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit — is clearly “illicit manufacturing.”

Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be “illicit manufacturing.” And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy definition of “illicit manufacturing.”

2. “Firearm” has a similarly questionable definition.

“[A]ny other weapon” is a “firearm,” according to the treaty — and the term “weapon” is nowhere defined.

So, is a BB gun a “firearm”? Probably.

A toy gun? Possibly.

A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else.

If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of the other provisions in the treaty:

* Banning reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.

Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty — just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.

* Banning gun clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses — which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

* Extraditing US gun dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances.

We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico to define offenses “committed in its territory” in a very broad way. And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.

Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute through “other means of peaceful settlement.”

Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision in a pro-gun manner?

* Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition — a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost.

* Gun registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a “reasonable time,” that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database.

I’ve yet to look into this treaty but Gun Owners of America is generally pretty good. I know that there are other efforts to push the whole reloading banning and microstamping thing so I wouldn’t be surprised if this was used to push those regulations.

Gordon Brown: the socialist new world order is on its way

Posted on April 2nd, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Like Alex Jones says: he’s working off their own publications

Posted on April 1st, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://lewrockwell.com/…

This is a May 1, 2008 document issued from the world’s foremost stink tank the Council on Foreign Relations entitled:

International Institutions and Global Governance Program
World Order in the 21st Century
A New Initiative of the Council on Foreign Relations

Two excerpts:

“In each of these spheres, the program will consider whether the most promising framework for governance is a formal organization with universal membership (e.g., the United Nations); a regional or sub-regional organization; a narrower, informal coalition of like-minded countries; or some combination of all three.”

“…the country’s longstanding tradition of liberal “exceptionalism” inspires U.S. vigilance in protecting the domestic sovereignty and institutions from the perceived incursions of international bodies. Finally, the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress a critical voice in the ratification of treaties and endorsement of global institutions, complicates U.S. assumptions of new international obligations.”

You can read the entire document and then, as they like to say in sportscasting, “You make the call.”

I’d like to quote the last paragraph too:

The program’s location within the Council on Foreign Relations will prove invaluable in furthering its ambitious aims. The program will exploit the CFR’s convening power, offering forums in New York, Washington, and around the country where domestic and international opinion leaders can debate proposed institutional reforms with the Council’s membership. Through co-hosting events with partner institutions in the United State and abroad, the program will solicit input and buy-in from foreign governments and publics, as well as representatives from civil society and the private sector, for proposed recommendations on global governance. Finally, the program will serve a broader role in bipartisan consensus-building and public education by engaging administration officials and members of Congress on new directions in global governance, and by making its products widely available through a variety of media.

How can someone read that and not feel a bit of sympathy for the the likes of Alex Jones and their whole NWO views? “World governance”, “world order”, etc. As Ron Paul says this is a conspiracy of ideas. They openly and actively and progressively advocate a one world government. Dangerous and scary stuff. Hell even Fox News is starting to believe it.

H/T  David Kramer

Japanese general loses job over essay: claims country was not an aggressor in Second World War

Posted on November 2nd, 2008 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments »

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/…

Japan’s Defence Minister dismissed his air force chief yesterday for writing an essay that claims the country was not an aggressor in the Second World War and was trapped into getting involved by the United States.

Toshio Tamogami’s essay will likely upset relations with China and South Korea, which remain bitter about Japan’s wartime occupation and say Tokyo has failed to properly atone for its invasion of the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan and China.

The claims drew a swift rebuke from politicians, and Defence Minister Yasukazu Hamada said he would dismiss the general. “I think it is improper of the air force chief of staff to publicly state a view that clearly differs from the that of the government,” he told reporters after the essay was made public yesterday.

Is this guy full of it when he claims Japan was not an aggressor? Absolutely. Is there some truth in the claim the United States goaded the Japanese government? Absolutely. It’ll never be known how much was known and how much was deliberate but there are some interesting facts concerning the event. A quick Google search also reveals a History Channel special on the topic.

The topic is interesting but the reason for posting this story was what I highlighted above. The idea that a person, regardless of his association, should be dismissed due to his opinion “that clearly differs from that of the government.” Perhaps it’s a translation issue but apparently to say so succinctly that the issue was not that there was just a disagreement or that what he said was wrong but that if differs from that of the government line. Very nationalistic. Very “Country First.” Very unsurprising.

Rainbow Sprinkler Conspiracy

Posted on August 6th, 2008 by bile
Tags: , , , , , 1 Comment »

Is this FTL Paula?