December 28, 2007
Ms Bhutto – the first woman PM in an Islamic state – was leaving an election rally in Rawalpindi when a gunman shot her in the neck and set off a bomb.
At least 20 other people died in the attack and several more were injured.
President Pervez Musharraf has urged people to remain calm but angry protests have gripped some cities, with at least 11 deaths reported.
There were no immediate claims of responsibility for the attack. Analysts believe Islamist militants to be the most likely group behind it.
Nawaz Sharif, also a former prime minister and a political rival, announced his Muslim League party would boycott the elections.
He called on President Musharraf to resign, saying free and fair elections were not possible under his rule.
The United Nations Security Council held an emergency session and later said it “unanimously condemned” the assassination.
Scene of grief
Ms Bhutto’s coffin was removed from hospital in Rawalpindi and has now arrived by plane in Sukkur in Sindh province for burial in her home town, Larkana.
| Extremist groups have in their sights all those committed to democratic processes in Pakistan
UK foreign secretary
The attack occurred close to an entrance gate of the city park where Ms Bhutto had been speaking.
Police confirmed reports Ms Bhutto had been shot in the neck and chest before the gunman blew himself up.
She died at 1816 (1316 GMT), said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of the PPP who was at hospital.
| It was only a matter of time before the darker forces… carried out this action
Protests erupted in other cities as news of the assassination spread, with reports of 11 deaths in the PPP’s heartland province of Sindh, including four in provincial capital, Karachi.
More than 100 cars were burned in Karachi, while cars and a train were reportedly set on fire in Hyderabad.
In other violence:
Mr Musharraf has announced three days of national mourning. All schools, colleges, universities, banks and government offices will remain closed.
Earlier on Thursday, at least four people were killed ahead of an election rally Mr Sharif had been preparing to attend close to Rawalpindi.
Ms Bhutto’s death has plunged the PPP into confusion and raises questions about whether January elections will go ahead as planned, the BBC’s Barbara Plett in Islamabad says.
The killing was condemned by India, the US, the UK and others.
US President George W Bush telephoned Mr Musharraf for what the White House would only describe as a “brief” conversation on the situation.
Father led Pakistan before being executed in 1979
Spent five years in prison
Served as PM from 1988-1990 and 1993-1996
Sacked twice by president on corruption charges
Formed alliance with rival ex-PM Nawaz Sharif in 2006
Ended self-imposed exile by returning to Pakistan in October
Educated at Harvard and Oxford
He had granted an amnesty that covered the court cases she was facing.
But relations with Mr Musharraf soon broke down.
On the day of her arrival, she had led a motor cavalcade through the city of Karachi.
It was hit by a double suicide attack that left some 130 dead.
Rawalpindi, the nerve centre of Pakistan’s military, is seen as one of the country’s most secure cities.
Many analysts say attacks like those on Thursday show the creeping “Talebanisation” of Pakistan.
Radical Muslims calling for Islamic law, and fiercely opposed to the US, have become increasingly active in Pakistani politics in recent years, analysts say.
THE ASSASSINATION OF BENAZIR BHUTTO
1. Benazir Bhutto had addressed a rally of thousands of supporters in Rawalpindi’s Liaqat Bagh Park
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2007/12/27 22:28:10 GMT
© BBC MMVII
December 25, 2007
retrieved from http://www.rense.com 25 dec 07
By Jay Weidner
- Between Huckabee’s “Paul is dead” quote and Tim Russert’s admonition to Ron Paul on Meet The Press to “Stay safe on the campaign trail” it is time to say that there can be no doubt about it: These are threats. The establishment is delivering a big time message to Ron Paul.
- They know what is really going on. They know the real poll numbers.
- Ron Paul is doing very well and they are very worried.
- The reason that the Ron Paul revolution is so worrying to the members of the Establishment is because this revolution is the most disturbing in history.
- What I mean is that this revolution is the most disturbing to them.
- The Ron Paul Revolution is the first web based revolt. This is the first truly post-modern political movement.
- Pundits declare that Ron Paul is the Internet’s choice for the Presidency. But when I drive to the store, in my very liberal town, I don’t see any yard signs for Rudy, Hillary or anyone but Ron Paul and he has five signs. If this is an Internet revolution ii is now threatening to break through to the larger outside world.
- The meaning behind being the Internet’s choice is what is interesting here. Like it or not, in my own decidedly unscientific polling of people, I have decided that those people who get most of their information about current events from the internet are better informed. I have also discovered that those people who get most of their information from TV or the newspapers are the most ill informed.
- So if Ron Paul is the Internet’s choice, and the people who get their information from the internet are better informed, than that can only mean that Ron Paul is the choice of the best informed of Americans.
- And this is what is rubbing Paul the wrong way with those in charge.
- This is not a revolution like anything that has occurred in the past. This rebellion, best personified by Ron Paul, is a knowledge-based revolution.
- This is a rebellion based on the facts.
- In a sense it is the worst possible nightmare for the elites.
- This is a rebellion by the most intelligent of the population.
- And they will out-think everyone else.
- This is a rebellion of the intelligent against the plans of those who are also intelligent.
- But unfortunately for them we have the numbers. There are more of us than them. And we are also putting up our own money for this rebellion.
- Because the elites know all of this they are stymied. They don’t want to resort to violence, yet, but they are resorting to threats. They are trying to unnerve Ron Paul. But history is on our side and we have a candidate who is smart, like us.
- Give your money to Ron Paul. Write to Tim Russert and tell him what you think. Thank the universe every day for the Internet and do everything you can to make sure that the monkeys in Congress don’t let anything happen to it.
- But most importantly join the Ron Paul revolution.
December 25, 2007
- Dr. Russell Blaylock MD
- Dr. Blaylock Warms Again About NutraSweet/Aspartame
- Parents – Avoid NutraSweet for Your Kids
- Dr. Russell Blaylock MD
- My wife and I were standing in the supermarket checkout line when I noticed that the young mother in front of us was giving her 6-month-old baby sips of diet cola. The baby loved it and kept grabbing the bottle for more, which the mother allowed.
- My wife could see that I was about to have an apoplectic episode. However, I maintained my demeanor and shared with the young mother some of the more important dangers of what she was doing.
- While I plan to discuss the dangers of aspartame and the other artificial sweeteners in a future newsletter, for now I just want to warn all mothers concerning the special dangers of feeding aspartame to newborns and small children.
- In 1958, a report appeared in an ophthalmology journal in which widespread destruction of the nerve cells in the retina of the eye was described following exposure of newborn mice to MSG (monosodium glutamate).
- A follow-up study in 1968 found that MSG also destroyed many cells in the brain as well. Especially sensitive to this toxin were a group of nerve cells (called a nucleus) in the hypothalamus of the brain responsible for controlling an animal’s weight. Injury to this nucleus caused the animals to become grossly obese for a lifetime. Dozens of new studies have confirmed this early finding.
- Aspartame has been shown to produce this very same destructive effect. Humans are five times more sensitive to this toxin (called an excitotoxin) than are mice, the animals used in the original study.
- We are also 20 times more sensitive than the rhesus monkey. In addition, the original study done by the maker of aspartame found that feeding the product to test animals in doses approximating human consumption produced a 47-times increase in brain tumors as well as tumors in multiple organs. And newborns are 4 times more sensitive than adults.
- A repeat study found that the tumor-causing chemical was a metabolic breakdown product of aspartame called diketopiperizine (DKP). Aspartame quickly breaks down into this tumor-causing product and by one week very high levels are seen. The makers of diet colas know this, and this is why they began to date the drinks. It is not a freshness issue; it is a toxin issue.
- The newborn child is especially vulnerable to this cancer-causing product.
- If all this is not enough, we also know that another component of the aspartame molecule, phenylalanine, can severely damage the baby’s brain during this critical developmental stage of brain formation. This damage can lead to seizures, mental retardation and abnormal behavior.
- All of this has been shown experimentally. Clinical studies have revealed some real horror stories. Therefore, mothers, don’t give your babies or children aspartame! Claims of safety are pure lies. And adults shouldn’t consume it either.
- Dr. Blaylock, MD
December 23, 2007
Hoover sent his plan to the White House on July 7, 1950, 12 days after the Korean War began. It envisioned putting suspect Americans in military prisons.
Hoover wanted President Harry S. Truman to proclaim the mass arrests necessary to “protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage.” The F.B.I would “apprehend all individuals potentially dangerous” to national security, Hoover’s proposal said. The arrests would be carried out under “a master warrant attached to a list of names” provided by the bureau. Read the rest of this entry »
December 20, 2007
In ancient times, when an empire or nation defeated tribes or other nations in war or battle, the winning nation would punish the losers. The punishment would often occur in degrading and abusing the captured women, mandatory requirement to work, and taxing the working people a percentage of their income.
The first known system of taxation was in Ancient Egypt between 3000-2800 BC, the first dynasty of the Old Kingdom. Ancient records document how the Pharaoh would travel Egypt every 2 years, collecting a percentage of revenues from the people. Before this time in ancient civilization, human beings faced tribal governments with no enduring problem of taxation.
As an example of a high tax, medieval serfs of the Middle Ages paid 25% of their earnings to their landlords. In ancient Israel, any income over 10% was considered usury or taxable at a high interest. When the Romans took over and occupied the region of Judah and Israel, they began to punish the Jews through forced taxation. In the days of Jesus, there was hatred and disgust towards tax collectors, especially those of Jewish descent.
According to the Bible, Jesus, a mystical and prolific spiritual teacher, was charged for tax protesting crimes and inciting disobedience against the Roman oppressors and authorities. Luke 23:1-2 (NIV) explicitly states: Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.”
Even the most famous spiritual teacher known to humanity blatantly opposed taxation.
Thousands of years later the American Revolution began. Contrary to popular belief, the Colonists’ did not revolt due to a tea tax. The British Monarchy was imposing a 3-5% income tax on the Colonists’ earnings. The revolution consisted of killing, maiming, property destruction and expensive battles for eight years, but the bitter relations lasted decades. All of this destruction because the British Monarchy would not cease their practices of taxation and slavery.
After the new union was set apart from Britain, there was no individual income tax for 124 years. Except for two brief periods, during 1862-1872 (an “income duty” to pay for the Civil War) and 1874-1875 (until the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional), the United States thrived without a national income tax imposed on its population. Americans were free to earn, save, spend, build, invest, and donate their money as they wished, without limitation, nor fear of taxation. The United States was able to support itself through tariffs on imports and exports, excise taxes on liquor, and by issuing government bonds.
To this day, the federal government of the United States of America, continues to tax the income of hard-working citizens. All states within the union, except seven (including Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming), require a mandatory state income tax. In addition to the seven, there is two states (New Hampshire and Tennessee) that only tax dividends and earned interest on income. How is it possible for a state to not require taxes, but the federal government does? How would a state support itself and its population without the steady flow of taxes?
The United States of America has been committing unconstitutional crimes of taxation and enslavement against its growing population (currently, 303 million citizens) since 1913.
If national income taxes were abolished, not only in the United States, but elsewhere, a nation’s economy would thrive due to a free market of earning, spending, saving, and investing. Economic crisis would be a thing of the past while nations became more stable and free. A person would have more money in their pocket to do as they wanted. It would no longer be difficult to finanicially survive in this lifetime while feeding and sheltering one’s family, loved ones, and self.
How can a government take from you what they do not own or have properly earned themselves? When you earn money through your skills, abilities, and strengths, you are the rightful owner of that income until you decide to spend or give that money to another person, business, or organization. Through a monetary system, the energy exerted and time spent working is converted into an adequate finanicial substitution. The money we earn is money that belongs to us; no man or government has the right to take it.
Do not give in helplessly subjecting yourself and your innately human rights to a government’s whims and unnecessary spending. You are the people of your nation; in the highest reality, you are essentially a free human being.
Retain your freedom, defeat the system!
December 18, 2007
Elitist sons would carve up the planet into different thiefdoms, “something really behind the joke,” admits biographer
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The elitist Rockefeller sons would sometimes “joke” about which parts of the world they would each control according to biographer Peter Collier, carving the world up into different thiefdoms. Collier’s admission that there was “something really behind the joke” is an understatement considering the revelations of the late Aaron Russo about what Nicholas Rockefeller told him.
The admission is taken from a segment of a History Channel documentary about the Rockefeller family which hit You Tube today.
“Sometimes they would joke about it, they would say well David gets Europe, Nelson’s gonna have Latin America, and you know John D. the third gets Asia and then they’d make some joke about what Winthrop got, you know which would be something like Arkansas – but nonetheless there was something really behind the joke,” states Peter Collier, who wrote a glowing biography of the family with top Neo-Con and former Marxist David Horowitz. Watch the clip.
Of course the so-called “joke” was a thin veil for the fact that by the end of the 1950’s the Rockefellers had become the pre-eminent elitist family and controlled huge swathes of economies, infrastructure, media and business worldwide.
Revelations on behalf of the late Aaron Russo concerning what Nicholas Rockefeller told him about his family’s predatory control of the planet were explicit in their honesty and scale.
Nick Rockefeller told Russo in advance that an “event” would precipitate the invasion of Afghanistan so the U.S. could run pipelines through the country before invading Iraq and establishing military bases throughout the Middle East. He also stated that we would see soldiers looking in caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan for Osama bin Laden and that there would be an “Endless war on terror where there’s no real enemy and the whole thing is a giant hoax,” so that “the government could take over the American people,” according to Russo, who said that Rockefeller was cynically laughing and joking as he made the astounding prediction. This was all related to Russo nearly a year before 9/11 happened.
Rockefeller also related how members of the elite were obsessed by creating a world identification society where people had to carry ID cards and prove who they were at all times.
During one conversation, Rockefeller asked Russo if he was interested in joining the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) but Russo rejected the invitation, saying he had no interest in “enslaving the people” to which Rockefeller coldly questioned why he cared about the “serfs.”
“I used to say to him what’s the point of all this,” said Russo, “you have all the money in the world you need, you have all the power you need, what’s the point, what’s the end goal?” to which Rockefeller replied (paraphrasing), “The end goal is to get everybody chipped, to control the whole society, to have the bankers and the elite people control the world.”
Rockefeller also told Russo that his family’s foundation had created and bankrolled the women’s liberation movement in order to destroy the family and that population reduction was a fundamental aim of the global elite.
December 17, 2007
Ron Paul’s presidential campaign raised over $6 million on December 16th, 2007 on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.
December 16, 2007
After you’ve donated, keep your eye on the Tea Party ’07 real-time donation graph.
December 14, 2007
Best-selling author and Bilderberg sleuth says intelligence sources told him highest levels of U.S. government discussing what result would be if Congressman was killed
Paul Joseph Watson
Best-selling author and Bilderberg sleuth Daniel Estulin says he has received information from sources inside the U.S. intelligence community which suggests that people from the highest levels of the U.S. government are considering an assassination attempt against Congressman Ron Paul because they are threatened by his burgeoning popularity.
Estulin, whose information has unfortunately proven very accurate in the past, went public with the bombshell news during an appearance on The Alex Jones Show today.
“I am getting information from my sources that there are people involved from a higher level of the American establishment who are seriously considering – this has not been confirmed – but assassination is definitely on the agenda and I pray to God that this is not the case,” said Estulin. Read the rest of this entry »
December 12, 2007
Wednesday, Dec 12, 2007
Congressman Ron Paul has been declared the emphatic winner of the first ever National Presidential Caucus, a collation of results from Democrat, Republican and “open” caucus groups that were organised independently online and caucused face-to-face across the nation on December 7th.
Results were tallied from 19 independently formed caucus groups (Republican, Democrat, and open) that met on Friday, December 7th, 2007 in the following locations:
Dallas, TX (2D); Sarcoxie, MO (O); Boise, ID (R); Needham, MA (D); Carthage, MO (O); Manhattan, KS (D & R); Pineville, MO (O); Richmond, MO (O); Costa Mesa, CA (O); Springfield MO (R); Winston-Salem, NC (O); Overland Park, KS (R); New York City, NY (O); and Joplin, MO (R), Warrensburg, MO (R), Roselle Park, NK (D), and Philadelphia, PA (O).
While some groups were small informal gatherings, others attracted hundreds of people including some party officials and campaign staff. Before voting was undertaken, discussions were held on several key issues with deliberation on the stance of individual candidates factored in.