OBAMA: "GO AHEAD! HAVE A VOTE! I WILL VETO!"

 

Obama Dares GOP: Go Ahead!  ‘Have a Vote on Whether What I’m Doing Is Legal…I Will Veto’ AFTER ALL I AM KING OBOZO....     By Craig Bannister | 11 hours ago
DING A LING Obama is daring Republicans to vote on whether or not his executive actions are legal. Discussing opposition to his executive amnesty orders at an immigration town hall meeting Wednesday, Obama said he would veto their vote because his actions are “the right thing to do”: “So in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote.  I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.” This man’s arrogance…and dictatorial behavior….is a new phenomenon in American politics.....Many politicians seem to be having a hard time dealing with such overt unconstitutionality…..   GO HERE TO SEE 2 VIDEOS ON THIS BLITHERING IDIOT AND ALL THE DUMB ASS PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE AUDIENCE CLAPPING FOR THIS MORON.....TOTALLY AMAZING!!   THE WHOLE AUDIENCE IS ON FLOURIDE....MAYBE PROZAC... Obama openly declares he is above the law. Listen to him:   http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-go-ahead-have-vote-whether-what-i-m-doing-legal-i-will-veto

FLOURIDE RESPONSIBLE FOR A MULTITUDE OF HEALTH ISSUES AND IT IS POISON!!!!!

      

Yet More Scientists Blame Fluoride for Underactive Thyroid Issues, Depression, Weight Gain, and More

Melissa Melton                    

             

(Truthstream Media) A new study out of the UK shows once again just how dangerous water fluoridation is. This time, a look at 98 percent of GP practices found that high rates of underactive thyroid were 30 percent more likely to show up in areas with, surprise surprise, the greatest degree of water fluoridation.


Via Fluoride Action Network:

[The study] found a relatively strong and statistically significant effect, with General Practice (GP) areas being 62% more likely to have high rates of diagnosed hypothyroidism if their drinking water fluoride levels were above 0.7ppm compared to areas with fluoride levels below 0.3ppm.  This was after researchers had accounted for key confounders, which are other factors that influence hypothyroid rates.

Via The Telegraph:

…new research from the University of Kent suggests that there is a spike in the number of cases of underactive thyroid in high fluoride areas such as the West Midlands and the North East of England…

It could mean that up to 15,000 people are suffering needlessly from thyroid problems which can cause depression, weight gain, fatigue and aching muscles.

And that, of course, is just the number of people in those areas studied.


Obviously, artificial water fluoridation is a dangerous and underestimated practice.


If weight gain and depression fit the bill, it might help to explain why the United States – the most fluoridated nation on the planet – is also the world’s most obese as well as the world’s most medicated country, with anti-depressants prescribed more than any other drug. Of course, there are many other factors at play as well.

Underactive thyroid, or hypothyroidism, is a condition where your thyroid doesn’t produce enough hormone. Your thyroid regulates all sorts of processes in your body, including your metabolism, your body temperature, and even your heartbeat. If your thyroid isn’t working properly, your whole body slows down, resulting in a bevy of other health problems the least of which is actually weight gain and fatigue.


Studies have shown that fluoride inhibits iodine, which is necessary to keep your thyroid functioning  On top of that, people don’t realize how many pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides we ingest which also contain fluoride in addition to what’s in our water. In studies, these have shown to negatively impact the pituitary gland as well, a pea-sized gland known as the “master” of our endocrine system that secretes thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH).


“Underactive thyroid is a particularly nasty thing to have and it can lead to other long term health problems. I do think councils need to think again about putting fluoride in the water,” Lead author Professor Stephen Peckham, Centre for Health Service Studies, said.


And again, these researchers like so many before them concluded there are safer ways of improving dental health these days that don’t involve dumping the artificial chemical byproducts of the fertilizer industry into our water supply, but our governments time and again just keep repeating the motto “safe and effective” over and over like the fluoridated zombie robots they are.


Did you know that not only was the flagship World War II Grand Rapids fluoride study “tinkered with” to throw out data showing children who did not drink fluoridated water had healthier teeth, but artificial fluoride’s “healthiness” was actually pushed via a massive government propaganda campaign run by none other than Edward Bernays?

“Almost overnight…the popular image of fluoride – which at the time was being widely sold as rat and bug poison – became that of a beneficial provider of gleaming smiles, absolutely safe, and good for children, bestowed by a benevolent paternal government. Its opponents were permanently engraved on the public mind as crackpots and right-wing loonies.” 

Yes - Bernays, the propaganda king who, among so many other ideas that exploited humanity, convinced women smoking was just a fabulous idea.


Why World War II?


Gee, I don’t know.  Could it have anything to do with the fact that huge quantities of fluoride were necessary to generate the bomb-grade uranium and plutonium essential in atomic bomb production during the Manhattan project? All that excess fluoride waste had to go somewhere… Why not in your water?


Government documents have since been made public which show atomic scientists were secretly ordered to help provide “evidence useful in litigation” against defendants suing over fluoride damage in court. These are the same government scientists who organized studies showing fluoride is “safe and effective.” Can you say “conflict of interest?”


The bottom line isn’t even how obviously false the science was that water fluoridation was based on in the first place. We’ve been lied to and for obvious reasons, that much is on record.
Even before we get to the lies, even looking at water fluoridation superficially, how did we ever accept a program that mass medicates the population via a route that delivers the same amount of chemicals to everyone everywhere without taking into account age, weight, previous medical history, and the amount much a person ingests per day? This isn’t just  ]negligent.  It’s downright stupid.


Think about any medicine ever, right down to vitamins or over-the-counter cough syrup. There are at the very least dosages based on age, right?


How come water fluoridation is some magical process with a chemical that transcends all logic and reason into a one size fits all policy where nothing else ever does?


And that’s before we even get to the rant about how when you drink a glass of water, it only makes contact with the surfaces of your teeth for a brief moment before it is ingested and makes contact with every other system in your body, including your organs and soft tissues. Does everything in your body need to be fluoridated? Does your kidneys, liver, intestines and brain get cavities? It’s not like fluoride, which can cause dental fluorosis, is somehow such a smart molecule it knows it should quarantine itself to only affecting your teeth and nothing else but your teeth.


How we are still dumping artificial fluoride into our water when studies come out again and again showing the deleterious effects of the stuff is beyond me. Fluoride makes people sick and stupid, but beyond that, it’s a poison. It’s poisonous.


How much more proof do you need that a poison is poisonous?
Purify your water. Stop drinking poison.

RECORD US FARMERS SWITCHING (back) TO NON-GMO CROPS

RECORD US FARMERS SWITCHING TO NON-GMO CROPS IN 2015

CONTINUE TO VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR!

“Non-GMO is More Profitable” This is the rising sentiment among farmers of the US as a confluence of factors urges them to become pro-organic. From falling GMO grain prices to a rising tide of public distrust of genetically modified ingredients, failing GMO traits, higher GMO seed prices, and the premium prices that people willingly pay for quality food over toxic junk, the conventional farmer is changing his tune when it comes to Big Ag practices. Even if profit is the cornerstone on which this change is based, it is still telling. After all, experts project over $35 billion in sales for organic, non-GMO foods in 2015, and as GMO corn, soy and other GM grain prices rise, along with the costs to grow them (associated with more pesticide and herbicide use to control super weeds, for example) farmers are looking past the GMO propaganda which promised higher yields and more cash for farmers who grew their poison crops. This phenomenon is explained clearly in “The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science” (full text available for download here) published in The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food. Gilbert Hostetler, president of Illinois-based Prairie Hybrids commented: “Our non-GMO seed sales are significantly higher than last year.” Mac Ehrhardt, president of Minnesota-based Albert Lea Seed, reports that he is selling more conventional (he describes conventional corn as non-GMO) corn seed by the end of November than he did all of last year. He says that farmers are turning to non-GMO to cut costs and to earn more money for their non-GMO yields. Ehrhardt says: “There is a continued increased demand for non-GMO." His observations are corroborated by Wayne Hoener, vice president of sales for eMerge, an Iowa-based seed company, as well as Tim Daley, an agronomist at Stonebridge, Ltd., an Iowa-based buyer of non-GMO soybeans who are also seeing a marked demand for non-GMO seed by farmers. Daley says: “Some companies have seen a 50 percent increase in sales of non GMO seed, and some have said they’ve sold more non-GMO seed this year than in the last five.” Oddly, Morrie Bryant, senior marketing manager at Pioneer Hi-Bred, which sells non-GMO corn and soybean seeds but sells more GMO seeds says he doesn’t see a big difference. “On (non-GMO) corn, we’ve got a slight increase on sales over last year,” he says. “Non-GMO has emerged as the new niche. It’s about 4-5 percent of total corn production.” If consumer demand for organic is any indication, farmers would be smart to step up their organic seed purchasing, and ditch Monsanto, Dow and Syngenta seeds completely. Non-GMO Economics Farmers find non-GMO seed appealing this year for several reasons, but mostly economics. Grain prices are low with corn selling at about $4 per bushel and soybeans aren’t going for much higher at around $10. Conversely, a premium is being shelled out for non-GMO corn and soybeans. “(Non-GMO) seed costs less, and there are premiums for non-GMO corn and soybeans in some areas,” Daley says. "Some farmers don’t want to pay technology fees (for GMO seeds) and non-GMO gives them a marketing opportunity,” Bryant says. Failing GMO Crops Other farmers are considering the switch because they are tired of super-weeds. One corn breeder who preferred to remain anonymous for a recent interview stated: “The insect and herbicide traits are losing effectiveness with increased resistant rootworm and weed species. Growers are tired of paying for input costs that are reduced in efficacy and funding additional forms of crop protection.” Iowa State University weed specialist Bob Hartzler seconds that sentiment in an interview with Iowa Farmer Today. “You have people questioning the value of the Roundup gene. How many are doing it (making the switch) because of that concern, I don’t know.” Non-GMO Outperform GMO Seeds http://www.infowars.com/record-us-farmers-switching-to-non-gmo-crops-in-2015

What's getting set to Happen in the Middle East

Intel From Israel on What's getting set to Happen in the Middle East

Received tonight from a friend:

"My brother and his family live in Jerusalem - he is a minister - his office is close to one of Israel 's largest underground military bases.

He called me last night which is very unusual - usually it is email.

He called to tell me that he is sending his family back to the US immediately due to what he is seeing happen within the last week and what he is being told by his military contacts in both the Israel and US military.

He said he is seeing with his own eyes military movements the likes of which he has never seen in his 20+ years in Israel.

What he called a massive redeployment and protective tactics of forces is underway.

Over the last two days he has seen anti-aircraft missile deployments throughout the Jerusalem area, including 3 mobile units that he can see from his office windows.

In addition, he has seen very large Israeli armored columns moving fast toward the Sinia where Egypt has now moved in armor.

There are reports of the top military leaders meeting with Israel 's Sr. Rabbi which is something that has happened preceding every prior military campaign.

His admonition is to watch carefully and pray for Israel and its people.

He is convinced that, barring something extraordinary, Israel will attack Iran - with or without the US - and very soon.

It is the belief in Israel that Obama does not stand with Israel but with the Arab countries.

He has told me before that Israel will saber rattle from time to time but that this time is very different from what he is seeing and hearing.

He was at the Wailing Wall 2 days ago and there were hundreds of IDF soldiers there.

As he was leaving, he passed at least 20 military buses full of soldiers en route to the wall.

He has never seen this before, either.

Just thought I would pass this along.

My brother is not an alarmist by any means.

When he talks like this, it gets my attention for sure and usually I find he knows more than he shares.

There are reports that Israel is asking Obama to come to Israel immediately but they are being answered with silence.

My opinion is that I see the making of the perfect storm."

The Programming Of Society To Reject Those Who Question - "Conspiracy Theorists'

The Programming Of Society To Reject Those Who Question

February 25, 2015  

                  

The society we have existed in has been conditioned very effectively to marginalize any that question the government.

No matter how big and glaring the lies are from the criminal cabal that runs our country and the planet, most citizens still do not wish to stand out from "the herd." Their programming is for the moment too strong for them to overcome.

As George Bush so clearly said "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Such a statement has a tremendous impact on many people both consciously and unconsciously.

Only when unimaginable challenges are forced upon populations and comfort zones are shattered can the programming be broken.

Such conditions are unfolding now by the day.

When a critical mass of the population fully realize what is unfolding and what has been done to them, our paradigm will overturn.

The article below is historical documentation of the intentional mental conditioning of US populations to reject those who have the courage to question.

Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org       

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative

  Submitted by George Washington on 02/23/2015

Conspiracy Theorists USED TO Be Accepted As Normal

Democracy and free market capitalism were founded on conspiracy theories.
The Magna Carta, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other  founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories. Greek democracy and free market capitalism were also based on conspiracy theories.  But those were the bad old days …Things have now changed.

The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967

That all changed in the 1960s.


Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories.  The dispatch was marked “psych” –  short for “psychological operations” or disinformation –  and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.


The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.


The dispatch states:

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.
 
***
 
The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
 
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by …  propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

 
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
 
***
 
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
 
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.
 
***
 
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …
 
***
 
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.
 
***
 
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.
 
***
 
f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
 
g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….
 
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.


Here are screenshots of part of the memo:


   

Summarizing the tactics which the CIA dispatch recommended:

• Claim that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy

• Have people friendly to the CIA attack the claims, and point back to “official” reports

• Claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable

• Claim that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”

• Ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active

• Claim that it’s irresponsible to speculate

• Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories

• Accuse theorists of being politically motivated

• Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories

In other words, the CIA’s clandestine services unit created the arguments for attacking conspiracy theories as unreliable in the 1960s as part of its psychological warfare operations.

But Aren’t Conspiracy Theories – In Fact – Nuts?

Forget Western history and CIA dispatches … aren’t conspiracy theorists nutty?
In fact, conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be disproven or proven based on the specific evidence:

Federal and all 50 state’s codes include specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and providing the punishment for people who commit conspiracies.
 
But let’s examine what the people trained to weigh evidence and reach conclusions think about “conspiracies”. Let’s look at what American judges think.
 
Searching Westlaw, one of the 2 primary legal research networks which attorneys and judges use to research the law, I searched for court decisions including the word “Conspiracy”. This is such a common term in lawsuits that it overwhelmed Westlaw.
 
Specifically, I got the following message:

“Your query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a large number of documents.”

From experience, I know that this means that there were potentially millions or many hundreds of thousands of cases which use the term. There were so many cases, that Westlaw could not even start processing the request.
 
So I searched again, using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy”. I hoped that this would not only narrow my search sufficiently that Westlaw could handle it, but would give me cases where the judge actually found the defendant guilty of a conspiracy. This pulled up exactly 10,000 cases — which is the maximum number of results which Westlaw can give at one time. In other words, there were more than 10,000 cases using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy” (maybe there’s a way to change my settings to get more than 10,000 results, but I haven’t found it yet).
 
Moreover, as any attorney can confirm, usually only appeal court decisions are published in the Westlaw database. In other words, trial court decisions are rarely published; the only decisions normally published are those of the courts which hear appeals of the trial. Because only a very small fraction of the cases which go to trial are appealed, this logically means that the number of guilty verdicts in conspiracy cases at trial must be much, much larger than 10,000.
 
Moreover, “Guilty of Conspiracy” is only one of many possible search phrases to use to find cases where the defendant was found guilty of a lawsuit for conspiracy. Searching on Google, I got 3,170,000 results (as of yesterday) under the term “Guilty of Conspiracy”, 669,000 results for the search term “Convictions for Conspiracy”, and 743,000 results for “Convicted for Conspiracy”.
 
Of course, many types of conspiracies are called other things altogether. For example, a long-accepted legal doctrine makes it illegal for two or more companies to conspire to fix prices, which is called “Price Fixing” (1,180,000 results).
 
Given the above, I would extrapolate that there have been hundreds of thousands of convictions for criminal or civil conspiracy in the United States.
 
Finally, many crimes go unreported or unsolved, and the perpetrators are never caught. Therefore, the actual number of conspiracies committed in the U.S. must be even higher.
 
In other words, conspiracies are committed all the time in the U.S., and many of the conspirators are caught and found guilty by American courts. Remember, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy theory.
 
Indeed, conspiracy is a very well-recognized crime in American law, taught to every first-year law school student as part of their basic curriculum. Telling a judge that someone has a “conspiracy theory” would be like telling him that someone is claiming that he trespassed on their property, or committed assault, or stole his car. It is a fundamental legal concept.
 
Obviously, many conspiracy allegations are false (if you see a judge at a dinner party, ask him to tell you some of the crazy conspiracy allegations which were made in his court). Obviously, people will either win or lose in court depending on whether or not they can prove their claim with the available evidence. But not all allegations of trespass, assault, or theft are true, either.
 
Proving a claim of conspiracy is no different from proving any other legal claim, and the mere label “conspiracy” is taken no less seriously by judges.

It’s not only Madoff. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy. See this, this, this, this and this.
Time Magazine’s financial columnist Justin Fox writes:

Some financial market conspiracies are real …
 
Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists, by the way.

And what about the NSA and the tech companies that have cooperated with them?

But Our Leaders Wouldn’t Do That

While people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies – they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.
But powerful insiders have long admitted to conspiracies. For example, Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, wrote:

Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials ….

But Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans

A common defense to people trying sidetrack investigations into potential conspiracies is to say that “someone would have spilled the beans” if there were really a conspiracy.
But famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explains:

It is a commonplace that “you can’t keep secrets in Washington” or “in a democracy, no matter how sensitive the secret, you’re likely to read it the next day in the New York Times.” These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn’t in a fully totalitarian society. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

History proves Ellsberg right. For example:

• One hundred and thirty thousand (130,000) people from the U.S., UK and Canada worked on the Manhattan Project. But it was kept secret for years

• A BBC documentary shows that:

There was “a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression”

Moreover, “the tycoons told General Butler the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers.” Have you ever heard of this conspiracy before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?

• 7 out of the 8 giant, money center banks went bankrupt in the 1980′s during the “Latin American Crisis”, and the government’s response was to cover up their insolvency. That’s a cover up lasting several decades

• Banks have been involved in systematic criminal behavior, and have manipulated every single market

• Governments have been covering up nuclear meltdowns for fifty years to protect the nuclear industry. Governments have colluded to cover up the severity of numerous other environmental accidents. For many years, Texas officials intentionally under-reported the amount of radiation in drinking water to avoid having to report violations

• The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this.) But the public didn’t learn about it until many years later. Indeed, the the New York Times delayed the story so that it would not affect the outcome of the 2004 presidential election

• The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took office. Dick Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And it has now been shown that a handful of people were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. These facts have only been publicly disclosed recently. Indeed, Tom Brokaw said, “All wars are based on propaganda.” A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy

Moreover, high-level government officials and insiders have admitted to dramatic conspiracies after the fact, including:

• Supporting terrorists to promote geopolitical goals

• Supporting false flag terror

The admissions did not occur until many decades after the events.
These examples show that it is possible to keep conspiracies secret for a long time, without anyone “spilling the beans”.


In addition, to anyone who knows how covert military operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a “need-to-know basis”, along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call the shots and most people helping won’t even know the big picture at the time they are participating.


Moreover, those who think that co-conspirators will brag about their deeds forget that people in the military or intelligence or who have huge sums of money on the line can be very disciplined. They are not likely to go to the bar and spill the beans like a down-on-their-luck, second-rate alcoholic robber might do.


Finally, people who carry out covert operations may do so for ideological reasons — believing that the “ends justify the means”. Never underestimate the conviction of an ideologue.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that some conspiracy claims are nutty and some are true. Each has to be judged on its own facts.
Humans have a tendency to try to explain random events through seeing patterns … that’s how our brains our wired. Therefore, we have to test our theories of connection and causality against the cold, hard facts.
On the other hand, the old saying by Lord Acton is true:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

Those who operate without checks and balances – and without the disinfectant sunlight of public scrutiny and accountability – tend to act in their own best interests … and the little guy gets hurt.


The early Greeks knew it, as did those who forced the king to sign the Magna Carta, the Founding Fathers and the father of modern economics. We should remember this important tradition of Western civilization.


Postscript: The ridicule of all conspiracy theories is really just an attempt to diffuse criticism of the powerful.


The wealthy are not worse than other people … but they are not necessarily better either. Powerful leaders may not be bad people … or they could be sociopaths.


We must judge each by his or her actions, and not by preconceived stereotypes that they are all saints acting in our best interest or all scheming criminals.  And see ...


 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge