"Czech newspapers are questioning whether the shocking discovery of vaccines contaminated with the deadly avian flu virus -- distributed to 18 countries by the American company Baxter -- were part of a conspiracy to provoke a pandemic.
"Because of laboratory protocols that are routine for vaccine makers, mixing a live virus biological weapon with vaccine material by accident is virtually impossible.
"... A spokesman for Baxter said the virus material was supposed to contain a seasonal flu virus and was contaminated after "human error."
"Yet, other sources say Baxter International adheres to something called BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3). This strict set of laboratory safety protocols is in place to prevent the cross-contamination of materials, and according to some may have made it virtually impossible for the live bird flu virus to contaminate a flu vaccine by accident.
"Czech newspapers are among those questioning whether this was a deliberate act to start a pandemic, ..."
Because of the first near man-made pandemic, the same questions are now being asked about the swine flu - could it have been man-made? And why has the company that almost set off the avian flu pandemic been chosen to make the vaccines for this outbreak?
A company that delivered contaminated vaccines with live avian flu and human flu viruses earlier this year is now to lead the charge for designing vaccines for the Mexican Swine Flu outbreak.
According the Chicago Breaking News Center Baxter International, Inc. will take a leading role in creating a vaccine for the latest outbreak:
"Deerfield-based medical product giant Baxter International Inc. is working with the World Health Organization on a potential vaccine to curb the spread of the swine flu outbreak in Mexico, the company confirmed today. Baxter, which has a growing vaccine business, has worked with foreign countries in the past to develop vaccines for the H5N1 virus commonly known as bird flu. Baxter has a cell-based technology that allows the company to more rapidly produce vaccines in the event of a pandemic than a decades-old method that uses eggs to process vaccines and can take weeks or even months longer." See "Baxter to work to contain Mexico flu outbreak"
This is a significant development due to the fact that the Baxter International, Inc., is still being investigated by the World Health Organization and the European Center for Disease Control as to why, and how, they mixed live avian flu (H5H1) viruses with a human flu (H3N2) viruses, which, had they been administered, could have set of a global pandemic earlier this year. According to authorities, this contamination could not have been a mistake due to industry and government enforced lab safety protocols designed to prevent such contamination.
Is there any relationship between the swine flu and the now intensely controversial "food safety" bills in Congress? Would an animal disease at this moment affect things here politically?
Brian Snyder at PASA (Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture):
" … the things we know for sure right now are these: 1) Nearly everyone in government, partly at our own urging over the years, seems to want to do something about food safety right now; 2) Whatever happens will not come as quickly as many people fear, and will be very controversial at every step of the process. The only caveat I'll add is that if another issue as big as the peanut thing comes along anytime soon, then all bets are off – we may be entering a time when executive orders, rather than painstakingly slow legislative processes, will prevail in a perceived emergency."
One needs to understand that the "food safety" bills all mention "tracing" which triggers NAIS, an animal ID system ... allegedly intended to track animal diseases. Public fear of animal diseases could potentially make pushing the controversial bills easier, just as anthrax deaths were instrumental in pushing the Patriot Act through. What is NAIS, who is pushing NAIS, and why?
"A handful of industry stakeholders have cast their shadow over nearly every component of NAIS--past, present and future. A consortium of industry leaders--Cargill Meat Solutions, Monsanto and Schering-Plough, among others--pushed for NAIS for more than a decade and finally won the USDA's approval shortly after George W. Bush took office in 2001. The consortium, the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA), designed NAIS for the USDA and includes the USDA's NAIS coordinator, Neil Hammerschmidt, among its alumni.
"Critics contend NAIS will be the death knell for small farmers, some religious minorities and organic agriculture generally in America. Although the program will amplify American agriculture's influence in global markets, it will give commercial agriculture an unprecedented monopoly on the future of food--a brave new era of synthetic agriculture and genetically engineered animals.
"This era is not beyond some remote horizon. It has already begun. On December 19, the leading cloned livestock producers announced a program designed to monitor meat and milk products from cloned animals as they moved through the food chain. NAIS is the "tracking system" the industry will use to commercialize cloned livestock on a mass scale.
"... NAIS was designed as a marketing program to increase consumer confidence domestically and abroad, without changing any of the industry practices that have created the lack of confidence in our mainstream food supply."
"The USDA compounded public skepticism by encouraging states, with the enticement of federal funding, to impose the program on local farmers. Several states have followed Michigan's lead and implemented various aspects of the program in different ways.
"In May, Wisconsin required dairy farmers to register their farms (the step preceding registration of animals). Those with livestock are given a unique number keyed to a GPS monitoring system before they can receive dairy licenses. Many of the state's estimated 10,000 Old-Order Amish claim that participation would violate their religious principles, which bar participation in government programs.
"Scores of Amish farmers have abandoned dairy production and others have refused to participate, often forfeiting their licenses to sell milk as a result. Some of Wisconsin's most conservative Amish groups have reportedly considered a mass migration to Venezuela. The Christian Legal Society plans to challenge Wisconsin's registration law as an infringement on the Amish's religious rights.
"It's hugely painful to them," said Karin Bergener, an Ohio-based attorney and farmer who has spent two years raising awareness about NAIS among Amish communities and others. "The thing that comes to all of us is the brutality of treating these animals like widgets. That's probably the way large corporate confinement operations see the animals, but anyone who has raised them--even if you're going to slaughter them--knows that they're not widgets."
"In Pennsylvania, a Mennonite poultry farmer sued Pennsylvania's Agriculture Department in June for violating his religious rights by registering him in a state NAIS program without his consent. The state settled the lawsuit a few weeks after it was filed. The settlement terms have not been made public.
"Many farmers suspected NAIS would meet stiff opposition from the start, but few realized how aggressively the USDA and state agencies would pursue it anyway. When opposition blocked one means of implementation, some states merely changed tactics, often pushing registration through lower-profile policies. In 2006 hundreds of farmers and ranchers descended on a Texas Animal Health Commission hearing to protest a plan to make premises registration mandatory. A few months after the high-profile defeat, the commission notified farmers and ranchers in a press release that, due to a low-risk bovine disease incident, it would require "identifying all Texas dairy cattle--regardless of age--with an official or TAHC-approved identification device prior to movement within the state."
"Similar stories have surfaced in Massachusetts, Missouri and Tennessee.
""What is really unique about the NAIS is that people from the far left to the far right find it appalling," said Bergener."
... the validity and appropriateness of the order of the Administrator assessing the civil penalty shall not be subject to judicial review. [They don't have to have any relation to food at all.]
(e) Penalties Paid Into Account- The Administrator-- ...
(2) may use the funds in the account,without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation--
(A) to carry out enforcementactivities ...
(g) Remedies Not Exclusive- The remedies provided in this section are in addition to, and not exclusive of, other remedies that may be available. [They are not exclusive of torture.]
The "food safety" bills include a detested and nonsensical NAIS which has been justified by the USDA in multiple, contradictory and unconvincing ways and is blatantly destructive of farmers, and yet the USDA (and whoever is behind the "food safety" bills) has not stopped almost ferociously pressing it. Why?
" ... along comes NAIS (the National Animal Identification System)."
"... Rothschild personally conducted the monetary matters and the creation of this WORLD CONSERVATION BANK. This bank would refinance by swapping debt for assets. A country with a huge national debt would receive money to pay off the debt by swapping the debt for wilderness lands. The plan was to swap one trillion dollars of Third World Debt into this new bank. In the long term, when the countries won't be able to pay off the loans, governments from around the world will give title to their wilderness lands to the bankers. ...
"Hunt goes on to say that World Bank loans, as they stand now, are not collateralized. They're saying, we want collateral, so when we loan-swap this debt, we're going to own the Amazon if you default. They're going to make their bad loans good by collateralizing them after the fact with all of this land and somebody is going to end up with title to twelve and half billion acres. They have multi-trillions of dollars upon which they can create currencies and loans and they're going to begin to barter and counter-trade and loan-swap against the United States. The World Conservation Bank is a scheme to monetize land. This will function as a world central bank and out of that bank there will grow a one-world fiat currency. ...
"When James Baker made his keynote speech in 1987, he stated that, "No longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks." Baker's definition of federal lands includes Heritage sites, of which there are about 20 in the United States. I say "about" 20, because they are being added on a regular basis. As I write this article Congress is about to vote on a proposed Rim of the Valley National Park that would include over 500,000 acres of National Forest land and 170,000 parcels of private property including many farms and ranches. At the same time there is a bill before Congress called the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act that would increase the acreage of designated wilderness by 50% in the lower 48 states. *** While our Heritage sites take in quite a large amount of territory, such as Yellowstone National Park and Mesa Verde, the Grand Canyon and the Everglades, other countries have much greater areas. Brazil for example has the Amazon Conservation Complex and Canada has the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks. As I write this story the list includes 851 properties in 141 countries, comprising over one third of the earth's land mass. Will all this land collateralize the world's debt? Probably not, so along comes NAIS (the National Animal Identification System).
"When James Baker made his keynote speech in 1987, he stated that, "No longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks." Baker's definition of federal lands includes Heritage sites, of which there are about 20 in the United States. I say "about" 20, because they are being added on a regular basis. ... As I write this story the list includes 851 properties in 141 countries, comprising over one third of the earth's land mass. Will all this land collateralize the world's debt? Probably not, so along comes NAIS (the National Animal Identification System)
"According to the United States Department of Agriculture, "The first step in implementing a national animal identification system (NAIS) is identifying and registering premises that are associated with the animal agriculture industry. In terms of the NAIS, a premise is any geographically unique location in which agricultural animals are raised, held, or boarded. Under this definition, farms, ranches, feed-yards, auction barns and livestock exhibitions and fair sites are all examples of premises." That may be the definition some government bureaucrat will give you, but the word "premises" under the "international Criminal Court Act 2002- Sect 4, states: The word "premises" includes a place and a "conveyance." ...
'Throughout the entire Draft National Animal Identification System Users Guide, land is referred to as a premises and not property. A "Premises" has no protection under the Constitution of the United States, while property always has the exclusive rights of the owner tied to it. Property rights are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. ...
"It is quite obvious that the bureaucrats in Washington had a very good reason to use the term "premises" and never mention "PROPERTY."
"Let's take another look at the wilderness areas and the World Bank's plans to collateralize its loans. While the wilderness areas cover about one third of the earth's surface, they are wilderness areas for a good reason – they were useless or difficult to homestead, farm or use in a constructive manner. Worldwide the best and more valuable land is occupied by farmers, ranchers and people with the ambition to produce. Wouldn't the World Bankers rather have some productive property than mountains, deserts and swamps?
"I am convinced that the word "premise" will put an encumbrance on your deed. The bankers say they want to monetize land. It's your land and my land they want to monetize. ...
"The bankers are in the process of accumulating the wealth of the world. Very few privately owned assets can be termed "real wealth." According to scripture, God made Abraham very wealthy, giving him LAND, CATTLE, silver and gold. (Genesis 24:35) Four thousand years later, wealth continues to be LAND, CATTLE, silver and gold. I don't know where the world deposits of gold are stored, but I'm sure the bankers have them in their control. That only leaves LAND and CATTLE which I believe could be next on the list."
As international "institutions" or groups create situations that are taking down economies world wide and shaking loose the financial resources of country after country, what other resources are they prepared or preparing to take control of?
Do we really want the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) issuing our global currency
by Ellen Brown
"... if the vision of a global currency outside government control does not set off conspiracy theorists, putting the BIS in charge of it surely will.The BIS has been scandal-ridden ever since it was branded with pro-Nazi leanings in the 1930s.Founded in Basel, Switzerland, in 1930, the BIS has been called "the most exclusive, secretive, and powerful supranational club in the world."Charles Higham wrote in his book Trading with the Enemy that by the late 1930s, the BIS had assumed an openly pro-Nazi bias, a theme that was expanded on in a BBC Timewatch film titled "Banking with Hitler" broadcast in 1998.2In 1944, the American government backed a resolution at the Bretton-Woods Conference calling for the liquidation of the BIS, following Czech accusations that it was laundering gold stolen by the Nazis from occupied Europe; but the central bankers succeeded in quietly snuffing out the American resolution.3 ...
"Quigley wrote of this international banking network:
"[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations."
"The key to their success, said Quigley, was that the international bankers would control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government. ...
" ... it was not in the game plan that U.S. banks should escape the BIS net.When they managed to sidestep the first Basel Accord, a second set of rules was imposed known as Basel II.The new rules were established in 2004, but they were not levied on U.S. banks until November 2007, the month after the Dow passed 14,000 to reach its all-time high.It has been all downhill from there.Basel II had the same effect on U.S. banks that Basel I had on Japanese banks: they have been struggling ever since to survive.8
"Why did the BIS not retract or at least modify Basel II after seeing the devastation it had caused?Why did it sit idly by as the global economy came crashing down?Was the goal to create so much economic havoc that the world would rush with relief into the waiting arms of the BIS with its privately-created global currency?The plot thickens . . . ."