1. Googla fluoride aspartame thimerosol kosher!  (Däremot har jag inte lyckats ta reda på om amalgam, den kvicksilverbaserade tandlagningsprodukt många av oss har i munnen, är kosher.  Men inte heller denna form av långsam förintelse lär ha besparats någon enskild kategori.)
   
   
2. "Codex Alimentarius".  Men vi utsätts för många andra belastningar som förstör vårt immunförsvar och tär på vår livskraft.  Ett helt nedtystat ämne är de globala hälsoriskerna med utarmat uran, som ju används frikostigt i krig numera.  Dammet sprids globalt.
   
   
3. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
   SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
   APRIL GALLOP, for Herself and as Mother
   and Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor,
   Plaintiff,
   
   vs.
   
   DICK CHENEY, Vice President of the U.S.A.,
   DONALD RUMSFELD, former U.S. Secretary
   of Defense, General RICHARD MYERS, U.S.A.F.
   (Ret.), and John Does Nos. 1­ X, all in their
   individual capacities,
   Defendants.
   
   COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS,
   CONSPIRACY, AND OTHER WRONGS ...
   
   
4. Här en pressrelease genom militärjournalisten Barbara Honegger, ursäkta längden på denna text:
   
   From:
   Subject: New April Gallop Suit Based on Taped Under-Oath Honegger Interview with April Gallop !!!
   Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:07:59 -0500
   
   Great News !!  The new 9/11 suit filed this Monday in New York with April Gallop and her son as Plaintiffs, just on the Pentagon attack, is based on the two-hour, under-oath videotaped interview I did with April in March 2007.  The actual filing is attached, and the Press Release below.  One of the two Plaintiffs' attorneys, Dennis Cunningham, is the famous attorney who proved that the FBI was complicit in planting the bomb it said Bay Area environmentalist Judy Barry set in her own car -- proving the Federal Gov't does false flag attacks against its own innocent citizens -- which was multiplied by 3,000 on 9/11.
   
   The real Perpetrators of Sept. 11 must be literally shaking in their boots.  These lawyers are not backing down no matter what, and they know it...
   
   Barbara Honegger
   (831) 233-1032
   
   
   Press Release Mon., Dec. 15, 2008
   
   New York City, New York
   
   A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan Monday charges Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and ex-Air Force General Richard Myers, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on September 11th with "broad complicity" in the attacks of that horrific day.  The suit seeks damages, triple damages and punitive damages for an ex-U.S.Army member who, along with her two-month-old baby, was injured in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on 9/11.
   
   The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised "painful questions" about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent..
   
   The complaint alleges the three leaders and other "unknown, named" U.S. military and civilian officials engaged in a conspiracy to "facilitate and enable" the Attack on America; because they wished to bring about a "frightening catastrophe of terrorism", "a new Pearl Harbor", which would create "a powerful reaction of fear and anger in the public and in Washington".  This would generate an "atmosphere of acceptance" which would allow the longed-for neo-conservative political and military program to go forward: invade Afghanistan, pass the Patriot Act, invade Iraq, tap phones, etc; torture, lie, intimidate, etc.
   
   The plaintiff AG [April Gallop] was a career soldier, holding top secret clearance, who had an agreeable assignment in Germany until she was abruptly transferred to the Pentagon in 2000.  On September 11, 2001, she had a new baby boy, Elisha, with her on her first day back from a two-month maternity leave.  She was told by her supervisor to hurry to her desk that morning, for an urgent document-clearing job, and to drop the baby off at child care later.  She got to her office, turned on her computer, and the place blew up.  There were at least two big explosions that she heard and felt.
   
   The walls collapsed, the ceiling fell in, she was hit in the head and knocked unconscious; she came to, grabbed the baby (who was also hit in the head), and picked her way out to where daylight was showing, where the front of the first floor had been blown off.  The insides of the building were also blown out; but there was no sign of any wrecked airliner, and no burning jet fuel splashed anywhere.
   
   There is also no sign of airliner wreckage in any photograph that has been published so far; and there are many photographs that show a clear absence of wreckage, and plain evidence of blast damage.  Many internet sites carry the pictures.  See, e.g.
   
   http://www.teamlaw.org/images/Penthitista.jpg?sdgsdf
   
   http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/metcalf3.jpg
   
   Meanwhile, there are said to be some 85 videotapes from various surveillance cameras on and around the Pentagon, which the U.S. Department of Justice is withholding from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.  What do they show, or not show?
   
   The Pentagon has released two video clips from cameras showing the side of the Pentagon that was hit.  In the first, at about 1:07, just after a car passes in front, a white or silver projectile-shaped object appears at the right edge of the picture, opposite the building; and the next frames show an explosion beginning at the front of the building, followed by a fireball.  The object is indistinct, and definitely not recognizable as an airliner.
   
   In the second tape, from a camera a little further away but with the same general view, you see the car pass, and then at 25 seconds, a plume of white smoke shows on the right side, where the shape was in the first tape.  A parking lot entry ticket device in the foreground hides the object emitting the smoke, and the explosion begins in the next frame; but plainly there is no giant airliner hidden behind the parking device, about to strike the building.  Both tapes, obtained by Judicial Watch in 2006 are at: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,97499,00.html
   
   The official report suggests the plane disintegrated on impact, but also that parts of it plowed all the way through to the back wall of the "C-ring", some 300 feet from where it hit on the outside; but there are no pictures of airplane wreckage inside the building either.  See
   
   http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/punchout_rv.jpg ; http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/interior_damage1.jpg
   
   The plaintiff alleges her belief  that no airliner crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, although it appears that one swooped low over the building just when bombs went off inside, or a missile hit, or both.  These may have been controlled from E-4B, the Air Force "doomsday plane" which was shown live on CNN, circling over Washington at the time of the attack.
   
   But whether a plane hit the building or something else did, certainly there was no warning of a plane's approach; which might have saved the plaintiff and her child, many others who were hurt, and the 125 people, members of the military and civilian employees, who died in the attack that morning.  Yet flight controllers broadcast an emergency warning about the plane more than a half-four before the Pentagon was hit.
   
   The explosion(s) destroyed the interior of the building where plaintiff's office was.  When she could gather herself from the blast, with help from other survivors, they made their way out through rubble, smoke and dust.  She got to the outside, holding her baby, collapsed on the grass, and woke up later in the hospital.
   
   Officials came to the hospital and asked her what she thought happened.  She told them a bomb went off; but they said no, in fact, an airplane crashed into the building.  She asked, and has continued to ask: where were the fighter planes, that have protected America's skies for so long; that normally go up once or twice a week, at a moment's notice, to check on off-course airliners? Where were the Pentagon's defenses? Where was the alarm, to get the people out of harm's way?
   
   These are painful questions, indeed, and Rumsfeld and Cheney have not given good or even decent answers.  Their multiple stories, especially as embodied in the duplicitous Report of the Official 9/11 Commission, controlled by Bush Administration insider Phillip Zelikow, do not hold water and can be proven false.  The Report is full of errors, omissions and distortions, and has been thoroughly discredited, in the writings of David Ray Griffin and numerous others.
   
   AG went to a special Commission hearing in 2004, open only to survivors, and watched as Donald Rumsfeld gave rambling, evasive answers about the failure of the Pentagon defenses, particularly the fighter planes.  The Commissioners failed to confront his non-responsiveness, and never pinned him down.  Cheney was observed in the White House bunker that morning by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, apparently giving orders that the plane headed towards Washington be allowed to continue.  Cheney has never testified or been reasonably questioned about his actions.
   
   We brought this lawsuit for AG and her son to hold them to account...
   
   Plaintiffs' Attorneys,
   Dennis Cunningham
   and
   William W. Veale
   
   
   
5. För länge sedan skrev Barbara Honegger en artikel om Pentagon-attacken, som Mikael Wälivaara 2007-01-18 översatte till svenska.  Tyvärr fick vi sedan inget svar på våra mail till Barbara om att faktiskt få använda den översatta texten, trots att hon vid vår första kontakt lovat låta någon hon litade på kontrollera översättningen och återkomma.  Nu är jag så fräck att jag ändå lägger ut såväl översättningen som orginalartikeln (vilken jag tidigare lagt ut med Barbaras goda minne):
   
   
   • THE PENTAGON ATTACK PAPERS
     Sju timmar i september: Klockan som stoppade lögnen
     av Barbara Honegger, M.S.
     översättning: Mikael Wälivaara (2007-01-18)
     
     
   • THE PENTAGON ATTACK PAPERS
     Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie
     by Barbara Honegger, M.S.
     
     (Tidigare publicerad här på bloggen 2006-10-30, i "Pentagon under attack och biologisk krigföring mot kongressen", där det finns mer bakgrund, bl.a. om anthraxbreven, daterade 11 september fast de sändes i mitten av oktober, skickades ENBART till ledande demokrater i kongressen.)
   
   
6. Rae från freeamerica.ning.com:  "WAKE UP AMERICA !!!"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5q8khAAsiQ  och om just aspartam (giftigt sötningsmedel som nu finns 'i allt') http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV_uL0I7L8E
   
   
7. En reflektion jag formulerade i epost 2008-07-12:
   
   David Icke ramlade in i politiken.  Här ett valtal, där han talar om Storebrorssamhället, som nu hastigt införs, som av en slump 'som om det vore koordinerat', över hela västvärlden.  http://www.edgemediatv.com/icke/
   
   Det jag undrar är vilka för oss 'får' dolda hot som tvingar alla politiker att hoppa i takt, utan protest eller verklig debatt, över hela västvärlden.  Jag vill veta om hoten - de hot jag anser måste existera för att det som händer ska kunna förklaras - avser politikerna, eller om de avser hela befolkningarna.  Om de enbart avser politikerna, i så fall är de landsförrädare.  Men om hoten avser hela befolkningar, då vill jag veta naturen av dessa hot, för att vi demokratiskt ska kunna besluta hur vi ska förhålla oss till dem, snarare än att vi alla idiotförklarats och politiker beslutar över våra huvuden.
   
   
8. "Som om", 2007-04-09.
   
   
9. Kategorin "Semiter" på denna blogg; Intelligentsians blockering.
   
   
10. "Lögnokrati" (eller "lögnstyre"), 2008-05-10, och "Grupptänkande", 2008-05-10.  Våra politiker arbetar inte för vårt bästa.  De respekterar inte ens grundlagen, i deras iver att införa olika nya repressiva lagar.  Därmed har de brutit samhällskontraktet, och därmed har vi inte längre någon annan moralisk eller juridisk skyldighet att lyda statens anvisningar än strategiska hänsyn till deras maktmedel.  Många menar att det ingår i planen att vi ska revoltera.  Jag tror att det kan vara så, och att det enda framkomliga sättet är icke-våld.  Skratta dem i ansiktet, när de ljuger.  Rösta inte på dem.  Det finns i dag inget parti över 4% spärren utanför traska patrull-beteendet/grupptänkandet.  Och varje parti som befinner sig utanför traska patrull-beteendet/grupptänkandet kommer att demoniseras av massmedia, om de visar tecken på att gå kraftigt framåt.
    
    
11. "Perception - det min vän Mikael Wälivaara hade", 2008-04-06.  Till alla andra upprepar jag denna jul- och nyårshälsning: "God Jul och Gott Nytt 2009" [PDF].  Den innehåller mer än man brukar förvänta, av en sådan hälsning.

''The Hebrew word tzabar is derived from the Arabic word Sabbar, which is the name for the "prickly pear" cactus that is scattered all over rural Palestine. The allusion is to a tenacious, thorny desert plant with a thick hide that conceals a sweet, softer juicy and tasty interior. Israeli-born Jews who call themselves Tzabars are there to insist upon regarding themselves as tough on the outside, yet sweet and tender on the inside.''

''The prickly walls that shred Palestine into Bantustans are there to protect the sweet juicy image of cosmopolitan Tel Aviv. Tragically, the landscape of shredded Palestine is now a reflection of the Tzabar self-image and an extension of his identity. Israeli aggression towards its neighbours together with self-proclaimed righteousness is nothing but a reflection of the tough and the sweet fantasy.''

``Ayn Rand, Urkällan, som publicerades 1943, har sedan länge uppnått status av modern klassiker.  Miljontals läsare världen över har trollbundits av Ayn Rands oförglömliga berättelse om den kompromisslöse arkitekten Howard Roark, om hans kamp för att få skapa på sina villkor, hans passionerade kärlek till den vackra och bittra Dominique och hans strid mot de dödsfiender som till varje pris vill förgöra honom.
Urkällan ställer invanda föreställningar på ända kring etik, högtidlighet och ett gott liv.  Här är den osjälviske humanisten Ellsworth Toohey en skurk, och den kompromisslöse arkitekten Howard Roark en hjälte.  Här beskrivs den maktlystne tidningsmagnaten Gail Wynand och den hänsynslöse karriärklättraren Peter Keating som i grunden osjälviska.  Och vem kan rädda den självdestruktiva Dominique Francon från likgiltighetens bojor?'' (http://timbro.se/rand/om_boken.asp.)

Läsare: Vilket FN-uppdrag var det?
Håkan Holmberg: ..."Dom brittiska och amerikanska truppernas närvaro är numera sen ett par år sanktionerad av FN"
Läsare: "Det är inte FN-uppdrag va?"
Håkan Holmberg: "Det är möjligen hårklyveri ... det är möjligt att man skulle ha uttryckt det lite annorlunda"

Ett riktigare sätt att uttrycka saken hade varit att den brittiska ockupationsmaktens soldater utan något som helst uppdrag från vare sig FN eller det så kallade världssamfundet skickades ut på en expedition på vatten, där gränsen mellan det redan ockuperade Irak och det hotade Iran är omtvistad.  Någon internationellt erkänd gräns finnes icke.  Samt att soldaterna - då expeditionen inte var godkänd av båda de inblandade ländernas regeringar - togs till fånga.

Detta hade dock inte kunnat bygga under den centrala tesen i Håkan Holmbergs ledare: Att den iranska politiken - liksom förut den irakiska - är "konfrontationspolitik mot väst".  En tes som i dag innebär krigshets.

• Antingen kommer västvärlden i stort och politiker, media, kultur i synnerhet att bli blottade som delaktiga i en sådan här bluff - i så fall ett gigantiskt steg framåt för alla som kämpat mot osannolikt starka krafter och som vågat gå mot strömmen för en mer kärleksfull och fredlig värld.
• Eller så kommer de delaktiga - som målat in sig i ett hörn - att skapa ett "nytt" inside jobb som anledning till en massiv kärnvapenattack på Iran, etc.