‘Bizarre’ Cluster of Severe Birth Defects Stuns USA Health Experts, Rural Washington Area

Entry sign at Hanford Site, Washington
A scientific dispute over the cleanup of one of the most polluted sites in the country threatens to ensnare the Energy Department’s new leadership

The government’s multi-billion-dollar effort to clean up the nation’s largest nuclear dump has become its own dysfunctional mess.

For more than two decades, the government has worked to dispose of 56 million gallons of toxic nuclear and chemical waste stored in underground, leak-prone steel tanks at the Hanford Nuclear Site in southeastern Washington State. Although MANY point still to Japan’s Fukushima site
But progress has been slow, the project’s budget is rising by billions of dollars, and a long-running technical dispute has sown ill will between members of the project’s senior engineering staff, the Energy Department and its lead contractors.
The waste is a legacy of the Cold War, when the site housed nuclear reactors churning out radioactive plutonium for thousands of American atomic bombs. To clean up the site — the largest such environmental undertaking in the country — the Department of Energy (DOE) started building a factory 12 years ago to encase the nuclear leftovers in stable glass for long-term storage.

But today, construction of the factory is only two-thirds complete after billions of dollars in spending, leaving partially constructed buildings and heavy machinery scattered across the 65-acre desert construction site, 12 miles from the Columbia River.

Technical personnel have expressed concerns about the plant’s ability to operate safely, and say the government and its contractors have tried to discredit them, and in some cases harassed and punished them. Experts also say that some of the tanks have already leaked radioactive waste into the groundwater below, and worry that the contamination is now making its way to the river, a major regional source of drinking water.

Some lawmakers say Hanford has been an early — and so far dismaying — test of whether Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, previously an MIT physics professor, can turn the problem-plagued Energy Department around through improved scientific rigor and better management of its faltering, multi-billion dollar projects. They have accused his aides of standing by while a well-known whistleblower was dismissed last month.

Hanford’s 65-acre Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant
Meanwhile, DOE officials are now considering spending an extra $2 billion to $3 billion to help make the wastes safer for treatment. Doing so would delay the cleanup’s completion for years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated in December. DOE is already strapped for cash, due to the impact of the budget sequestration, likely to take billions of dollars out of its budget.

In an Oct. 9 letter to Moniz, Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., demanded that he take new steps to ensure that the project’s technical and safety experts are well-treated. Four organizations have reviewed their complaints, he said, and “all have agreed that the project is deeply troubled, and all have affirmed the underlying technical problems.”

http://newscenterd.com/bizarre-cluster-of-severe-birth-defects-stuns-health-experts

http://www.jeannemelanson.com/alarming-number-of-severe-birth-defects/

http://www.onenewspage.us/n/Health/750az3ofv/Bizarre-Cluster-of-Severe-Birth-Defects-Haunts-Health.htm

#anonymous, #banking, #birth-defects-usa, #breaking-news, #ceos, #conspiracies, #corporate-greed, #cover-ups, #elections, #fukushima, #global-stories-and-tagged-bizarre-cluster-of-severe-birth-defects-stuns-usa-health-experts, #government, #hanford-nuclear-site-in-southeastern-washington-state, #lies, #politics, #rural-washington-area-bookmark-the-permalink, #strange-stories, #wealth, #wikileaks, #world-affairs, #world-news

#FREEDOM IN JEOPARDY: “THE CASE AGAINST THE EU AND SUPRANATIONALISM”

#AceNewsServices says as most people know l believe in “Freedom of the People” so when l was offered this article by D.Andrews l was delighted and as you read you will see how his opinion of “Freedom” is now in jeopardy.

THE CASE AGAINST THE EU AND SUPRANATIONALISMAs l also see freedom of the press, internet and even our personal freedom of choice, being eroded daily by the large co-operations, conglomerates

“Show me a patriot and I will show you a true lover of humanity. Show me a man who says he loves all equally and I will show you a man who lacks discernment and loves none but himself.”

~ Fletcher of Saltoun, Scot Patriot, 1653-1716.

freedom-in-forgiveness-1024x500Freedom brings Happiness

All people desire freedom. We can only grow and learn to the degree that we are free. We can only know true fulfilment to the degree that we are free. It is only through being free that mankind can reach his potential. In short, we can only be happy to the degree that we are free, for those things which bring us true joy can only be obtained through the use of those faculties which freedom vouches as safe to us; and through experience we know that being forced or coerced is anathema to both the human spirit and human enterprise – loss of liberty brings only misery.

History of FreedomHistory is the Story of the Rise and Fall of Freedom

And yet freedom is something we can easily take for granted – and just as easily lose. History’s repeated cycles are evidence enough of this. Countless civilisations have come and gone, many of them destroyed because they surrendered their freedom little by little until it was too late. For a nation to lose its freedom there need be no military attack. It can be lost because the citizens of that nation have allowed themselves to be deceived through apathy, distractions, fear, ignorance and ebbing morals.

Britain is not immune.

There are Two Forces At Work in the World

Throughout history there have been two competing philosophies of government. One holds to the idea that sovereignty lies in the people and that people have inherent and inalienable natural rights that precede the formation of, or exist prior to, the establishment of government. This philosophy is called Common Law.

The other philosophy teaches that sovereignty lies in an absolute ruler or body of rulers and that rights exist only inasmuch as such rulers grant them. In effect there are no rights, only privileges. This philosophy has a number of names but most popularly is called Civil Law.

J . Reuben ClarkCommon Law and Civil Law are two opposites. They cannot be reconciled.

J. Reuben Clark, one of the foremost U.S. Constitutional lawyers and statesmen of the Twentieth Century, Under Secretary of State during President Calvin Coolidge‘s presidency, and author of the very skilful Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine, had this to say about these opposing philosophies of government:

“During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society, the Civil Law, and its fundamental concepts, being the instrument through which ambitious men of genius and selfishness have set up and maintained despotisms; the Common Law, with its basic principles, being the instrument through which men of equal genius, but with love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and preserved liberty and free institutions.” 

What is SoveriegntyWhat is Sovereignty?

In order to fully grasp the gulf between these two ideologies we will need to understand the meaning and importance of sovereignty.

In terms of a nation, sovereignty is the exclusive right to make and enforce its own laws, and to judge disputes of the law. Under Common Law the government can only act because the people (the creator of government) have authorised it. Hence the people are sovereign. The government derives its just powers from the governed. Such a government, based on Common Law, cannot justly possess powers that do not first exist in the individual. In other words, the people cannot authorise government to do something that they first have no right to do, and neither can government take to itself those powers the people have not specifically delegated to it.

Sovereignty can be thought of as existing on many levels but this is only representative as it ultimately resides in (and is never taken from) the people as individuals. It is the people who are the masters, government the servant.

The three cornerstones of national sovereignty are political, military and economic independence.

Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg

Though nationalism was once very similar in definition to patriotism and independence, it is now often used to refer to a negative rather than a positive concept. Supranationalism, given much more popular publicity than the latter, is the concept that the nation-state no longer matters, that interdependence is better than independence, and that it is necessary to form regions of countries into centrally controlled blocs with the probability of merging those blocs later on to form a world government. Thus supranationalism is merely the process of political globalism.

Let us now define nationalism. Perhaps one of the finest explanations came from Herbert Hoover who said:

“We must realise the vitality of the great spiritual force which we call nationalism. The fuzzy-minded intellectuals have sought to brand nationalism as a sin against mankind. They seem to think that infamy is attached to the word ‘nationalist’. But that force cannot be obscured by denunciation of it as greed or selfishness – as it sometimes is. The spirit of nationalism springs from the deepest of human emotions. It rises from the yearning of men to be free of foreign domination, to govern themselves. It springs from a thousand rills of race, of history, of sacrifice and pride in national achievement.”

Nationalism, then, is an awareness of, and a willingness to defend and promote, the character and sovereignty of our country (patriotism); it is based upon the same feeling we have to grow as individuals, to be self-reliant and to otherwise enrich our character and defend our right to self-determination.

Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower, conveyed the attitude a nation should consider regarding its own national sovereignty:

“There is one and only one legitimate goal of…foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence.”

Today the foreign departments of the major governments of the world seem to be much at odds with Benson’s belief – Indeed, the very opposite. In a time when, history’s lessons forgotten, there is again a centralist movement towards the few governing the many, we must ask ourselves if this is wise. What does history teach us? How does it measure up to tried and true principles? Does it make sense in light of self-evident truths and plain old common sense?

One of the reasons why some support the spirit of “supranationalism” (whether it be globalisation or regionalisation) is because of a Utopian or (what they suppose to be) a religious ideal. Ezra Taft Benson put straight those with such ideas in no uncertain language:

“We must put off our rose-coloured glasses, quit repeating those soothing words but entirely false statements about world unity and brotherhood, and look at the world as it is, not as we would like it to become…We would be committing national suicide to surrender any of our independence, and chain ourselves to other nations in such a sick and turbulent world.”

To those who think that changes in the world somehow change the rules of human nature and the principles of government, Benson further adds:

“The world is smaller, you say? True, it is, but if one finds himself locked in a house with maniacs, thieves and murderers – even a small house – he does not increase his chances of survival by entering into alliances with his potential attackers and becoming dependent upon them for protection to the point where he is unable to defend himself. Perhaps the analogy between nations and maniacs is a little strong for some to accept. But if we put aside our squeamishness over strong language, and look hard at the real world in which we live, the analogy is quite sound in all but the rarest exceptions.”

In conclusion to this section here are, I submit, the problems with supranationalism:

  • Centralising power from the hands of many into the hands of a few goes against the most basic tenets of wisdom and all the lessons of history; for it only makes it easier for evil men to gain control of more people; and such centralism itself provides only a stronger attraction for ambitious and greedy individuals

  • Political agreements do not change the nature of people (and thus nations). Nations become more united (and less given to war) only through free, mutual and natural relationships. In other words, political agreements play no part except as a danger to stirring up contention by employing coercion rather than influence

  • Our first love and responsibility should be toward our own nation, as with our family above other families. To not love our own country first will not engender a genuine love for all other countries. To think otherwise is to be under the delusion of a false Utopian hope based on neither principle or an understanding of human nature

  • Centralising power will diminish individual liberty; the powers of a just and free government should reside with the people mainly, with a few powers delegated to local governments, and even fewer to the central government

  • The Prime Minister (or anyone else) is not authorised under law to act within a foreign political organisation or to yield sovereignty (this is treason). He is the Prime Minister of his country, elected to that responsibility and paid by the taxpayers of his country.

A Brief History of Civil and Common LawA Brief History of Civil and Common Law

As far as modern times are concerned, Civil Law originated chiefly from the Roman Empire. For this reason it is sometimes called Roman Law. This philosophy spread over continental Europe and, in the Eighteenth Century, the Civil Law ravaged France in what became known as the Reign of Terror. Today, born of its past and present geographical sway, Civil Law is also known as European Law.

Common Law has its roots in antiquity. Some believe it to have originated from the divine law of statutes and judgements given to the Israelites by Moses. Whatever its origins, it was brought across Europe and to Britain by the Anglo-Saxons. It was a law common to all those Peoples and hence became known as Anglo-Saxon Common Law.[11] In Europe Civil Law was the legacy of the later Roman Empire, but England remained free of this influence and thus the Anglo-Saxon Common Law eventually came to be called English Common Law.

English Common Law was seriously compromised during the Norman Conquest which brought over the European Civil Law and imposed that system on Britain under the name of Feudalism. However, after long and bloody centuries, rights and freedoms were gradually won back and restored. Perhaps the primary and most notable date of this period is AD 1215 when the Magna Carta was signed – a document that is still held to be binding today as an important part of the British Constitution.

The Framers of the Constitution of the United States drew heavily upon Common Law when drawing up that remarkable freedom document. William E. Gladstone (1809-98), the British Prime Minister, was so impressed with the US Constitution that he said it was “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man”. American freedom drew many of its constituent parts from English Common Law.  Ireland, Malta, Australia, Canada and New Zealand also adopted (to some degree) the English Common Law in the founding of their own governments. The same cannot be said for Europe.

Common Law versus Corpus JurisCommon Law versus Corpus Juris

Common Law is a body of concepts and laws in harmony with natural rights and justice.Corpus Juris(Latin for “body of laws”) is a system of judicial laws or tenets rooted in Civil Law and thus based on privilege and the whims of rulers. The following table contrasts the practises (in theory) of the two systems. I have added explanatory notes in the first column in an attempt to highlight the importance of each point and its relationship to and/or effect upon natural rights.

Table 1.0 Common Law versus Corpus Juris

COMMON LAW (UK/US system)*
No arrest without evidence – thus the citizen is free from harassment by the police and other government officials
No holding of suspects for more than a fixed and very limited time unless charges presented in open court – this prevents governments from violating the liberty of citizens by unduly detaining them or holding them for reasons other than criminal.Habeas Corpus (Latin for “having the body”) is the right (formally recognised in the Magna Carta) to have the prime evidence against any suspect considered publicly by a court of law within a very short period of arrest (usually 24 hours).
Right to face your accuser and see evidence – anonymity of accusers would mean the government could fabricate testimonies; accusers (or witnesses) should be known so that they can be held accountable; the accused has no come back where this is not so. Evidence must be known to the accused or else government again could fabricate the same and give the accused no way to prove it false
Lay MagistratesRight to trial by jury of one’s peers‘Adversarial’ modelunder Common Law the really important matters are reserved to the people. It is the people of the country (represented by a jury) who act to provide a final legal check on the government by refusing to find a person guilty if they feel the law itself is either unjust or unjustly applied[14], and by limiting sentencing of criminals so that excessive punishments cannot be imposed. The people (peers) are sovereign and must make the final decision. To deprive a country of trial by jury is to deprive its people the last legal means of countering the government, leaving only the right of revolution as an option
Right to an open court – a defendant must have the right to public witnesses in a trial or else government can act illegally in secret as well as bribe those who it knows will attend. Public and free access to a trial thus helps defend the defendant against miscarriages of justice
Presumption of innocence (innocent until proven guilty) – Common Law always gives the benefit of doubt in favour of freedom. Unlike Corpus Juris it does not treat everyone like a potential criminal. This is perhaps the most important tenet, for with such an attitude of non-judgement many Corpus Juris laws would not have come into existence in the first place
Protection against double jeopardy (cannot be tried more than once for the same criminal offence) – Clearly this right protects the defendant from being repeatedly tried until he is found guilty and thus affirms his right to the presumption of innocence
Burden of proof on prosecutor (it is up to the prosecutor to prove you are guilty) – This is an integral part of the right to presumption of innocence (see above). A part of the right to free speech is to remain silent. Under Common Law there is no requirement or force used on the defendant to testify against himself. In a very real sense it is the charges themselves that are primarily on trial and the integrity of those who have brought them. If the burden was on the defendant to prove himself innocent many accusations made by enemies (knowing the burden would not be on them) could be brought to bear, and the defendant would be continually oppressed with the task of defending himself with eventually no recourse to the resources necessary to clear his name

* Sadly even these have diminished (both in the US and UK) as governments have departed from the tradition of Common Law.

It is hoped from the explanations above, and self-evident truth, that the reader will see that Common Law is founded in the liberty of the individual and Corpus Juris on the destruction of the same.

Courtesy of: D.Andrews

This not represent the views of Ace News Group but is the view of the provider.  

If you share please keep post intact thank you.    

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

#acenewsservices, #calvin-coolidge, #civil-law, #civil-liberties, #common-law, #ezra-taft-benson, #j-reuben-clark, #monroe-doctrine, #nationalism, #peoples-party, #politics, #sovereignty, #the-people-common-song, #united-states

” In the US Political System Being Right All The Time is Becoming The Key Issue”

#AceNewsServices says l pick this article up whilst browsing through a number of posts, and thought this sums up “US Political System” it is by a man called F Eric Saunders and was first published on  January 16, 2012. What l found so interesting was how right he was ,without knowing how close he was to the #truth.

Obama's Right About What? He writes as follows: 

Someone close to me recently remarked that, in his opinion, it is a serious problem that the Republicans in congress are refusing to cooperate and compromise with the President to “get anything done”.  He was, of course, just mimicking the latest load of manure being spread by the progressive/liberal media machine.  Apparently, the “plan” this time is to propose a bunch of radical legislation that will get us further into debt while doing nothing to alleviate our current problems, quietly refuse to even consider any of the proposed alternatives, and then to cry “foul” and “obstructionism” as often and as loudly as they can.  (“If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth.”)  Propaganda works!  But if you really understand what Progressives want to “get done”, then you probably think it would be tantamount to treason TO cooperate with them.  Indeed, I am frequently quite annoyed at our Republican representatives for going TOO FAR to compromise with the evil agenda.

A LOT of people, including most of our more recent gaggle of Republican presidential candidates, just don’t get it.  They seem to think that one candidate is pretty much the same as another – with just minor difference about how they would “tweek” the system.  People think that it is OK to vote for the man (or woman) they like best, while ignoring their underlying agenda.  But, in fact the Fabian/Alinsky bunch is trying their very best to take our country in exactly the wrong direction.  The “sameness” between the Republicans and Democrats is merely a result of the fact that “progressives” have to move very slowly, else people will rebel at having their freedoms taken away too suddenly – while the “conservatives” have to kowtow to the progressives by compromising with them regarding big government largess, else people will rebel at having their “entitlements” reduced, and then the conservatives would NEVER get elected.  After all, candidates get elected by what they promise, don’ they?  

Courtesy of: F Eric Saunders 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

#acenewsservices, #barack-obama, #democratic, #democrats, #eric-saunders, #political-system, #politics, #republican, #republican-party-united-states, #united-states, #us-political-system

History of Political Philosophy a Throffer is a Proposal with a Threat – Or a Coercive Control

Abuse: power & control behaviours

In political philosophy, a throffer is a proposal that mixes an offer  with a threat which will be carried out if the offer is not accepted. The term was first used in print by political philosopher Hillel Steiner, and while other writers followed, it has not been universally adopted. An example (pictured) is “Kill this man and I’ll pay you—fail to kill him and I’ll kill you instead.” Steiner differentiated offers, threats and throffers based on the preferably of compliance and non-compliance for the subject compared to the normal course of events that would have come about were no intervention made, although this approach has been criticised. Throffers form part of the wider moral and political considerations of coercion, and form part of the question of the possibility of coercive offers. The theoretical concerns surrounding throffers have been practically applied concerning workfare programmes, where individuals receiving social welfare have their aid decreased if they refuse the offer of work or education. Several writers have also observed that throffers presented to people convicted of crimes, particularly sex offenders, can result in more lenient sentences if they accept medical treatment.

Coercion

First published Fri Feb 10, 2006; substantive revision Thu Oct 27, 2011
Bullying

Bullying (Photo credit: aeneastudio)

The concept of coercion has two different faces, corresponding to the two parties involved in its most ordinary cases. On one face, it picks out a technique agents (coercers) can use to get other agents to do or not do something. On the other face, it picks out a kind of reason for why agents (coercees) sometimes do or refrain from doing something. Coercion is typically thought to carry with it several important implications, including that it diminishes the targeted agent’s freedom and responsibility, and that it is a (pro tanto) wrong and/or violation of right. Nonetheless, few believe that it is always unjustified, since it seems that no society could function without some authorized uses of coercion. It helps keep the bloody minded and recalcitrant from harming others, and seems also to be an indispensable technique in the rearing of children. A state’s legitimacy and sovereignty is sometimes thought to depend on its ability to use coercion effectively and to monopolize its use within its territory against competitors, both internal and external.

Because of its usefulness and its sometimes devastating effects, coercion is a matter of longstanding political and ethical concern. Nonetheless, there has been little sustained scholarly attention to its nature until recently; historically, many seem to have willed to accept the concept of coercion as a primitive. Since the 1970s, however, the nature and function of coercion has come in for significant philosophical discussion. This flourishing of interest may have been sparked by social unrest (including efforts to suppress it) and the success of some mass non-violent resistance movements. Also of import were tensions between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., centered on their arsenals of nuclear weapons, by which each aimed to deter the other from disastrous behaviour, including the launching of a nuclear first-strike. More recently, philosophical interest in globalization and terrorism have added to interest in coercion. The new-found interest in the topic coincides with a marked change in the way philosophers have understood its nature. Though the pace of study has slowed somewhat since 1990, the nature of coercion and its effects remains a matter of dispute.

Sometimes the term “coercion” is used in popular speech with a broad sense. For instance, one hears “coercion” used to describe social pressures (e.g., the need to conform to peer expectations or to placate one’s parents); or the constraining or manipulative effects of advertising, one’s upbringing, or the structuring of society more generally (e.g., the necessity of participating in a capitalist economy). It is also sometimes treated as a general concept encompassing almost any sort of interpersonal infringement on one’s rights. Such uses are not wholly foreign to philosophical discussions (see, e.g., Ripstein 2004). Nonetheless, the following discussion will focus on a narrower sense of the term more in line with its use by major historical philosophical writers and contemporary theorists alike. This usage will rule out, by stipulation, such things as mere disapproval, emotional manipulation, or wheedling. (What is “ruled in” is subject to dispute, as is discussed below.) This minimal setting of boundaries still leaves much room for disagreement over how best to understand coercion’s workings, its preconditions, and its effects.

1. History

Coercion

Coercion (Photo credit: phil dokas)

Historically, the use of coercion by powerful actors has been of great concern to philosophers and legal theorists. Detailed attention to understanding the concept coercion, however, is a relatively recent phenomenon. One effect of this discrepant attention is that it is sometimes difficult to determine what precise meaning earlier writers intended in their discussions of “coercion,” as well as to decide whether “coercion” captures something different from or related to other frequently used terms, such as violencecompulsionpunishmentforce, orinterference. A brief survey of a few notable thinkers suggests that coercion has commonly been understood as a use of a certain kind of power for the purpose of gaining advantages over others (including self-protection), punishing non-compliance with demands, and imposing one’s will on the will of other agents. The kind of power needed for these functions is the sort that states and other forceful or violent agents possess. One of the clearest, most important uses of coercion has been understood to be the state’s enforcement of law, either through direct uses of force or through punishments meted out to lawbreakers. The state’s use of coercion is thought to be licensed in particular for the sake of preventing private acts of violence or coercion, as well as for punishing the failure to keep agreements. These public uses of coercion are thought justified because they make possible private cooperation and peaceable coexistence among people not linked by ties of affection or blood.

Related articles

 

#acehistorynews, #acenewsgroup, #coercion, #government, #greece-town-new-york, #hillel-steiner, #organizations, #philosophy, #political-philosophy, #politics, #slut-shaming

Who is Tony Cisneros This man has been…

Who is Tony Cisneros?

This man has been posting as this man here, or he is this man here:
Tony Cisneros
2011 (& Possible 2015) Candidate For City Treasurer
City Of Chicago
State Of Illinois
United States Of America

I done this blog here, again, all over the place people know this. An old lady I know from Puerto Rico said she seen this in my blog here: http://prayingforoneday.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/major-usa-military-build-up-in-puerto-rico/
That is ALL over the internet, this is second hand news. I get an email from Tony Cisneros saying this:

“”Hello Shaun From Scotland, I Thought I’d Send You A Note On WHY THIS IS HAPPENING IN PUERTO RICO & THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA–AS PUERTO RICO IS AN ISLAND “ASSOCIATED-STATE-OF-THE-UNITED-STATES-OF-AMERICA”; AND, ALSO GENERALLY CALLED THE “COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO”–AS IT IS A TERRITORY ANNEXED TO THE UNITED STATES AS A “SPOIL” OF THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR OF THE 1890s.

Shaun, You’ll Have To Read What I’ve Posted On The Internet As “THE RENE REPORT”; As, I’ve ALSO Posted A Faithful English Translation Of The FIRST TWO (2) PARAGRAPHS OF ‘THE RENE REPORT’–Which Was Originally Written &-Or DOCUMENTED IN Late-2007/Early-2008.

Truthfully, Honestly, Sincerely Yours And Faithfully Recorded & Submitted,

Tony Cisneros
2011 (& Possible 2015) Candidate For City Treasurer,
City Of Chicago,
State Of Illinois,
United States Of America””

First there was no “THE RENE REPORT” don’t look. it doesn’t exist.
After some research, he also posted things in these blogs and articles also:
Check:
The LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK
User: http://ppjg.me This was about the DEATH OF JFK!
HE AGAIN comes into this blog about FEMA CAMPS!
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/are-fema-camps-real-or-is-it-just-another-conspiracy-theory/question-1654285/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s
HERE HE TALKS ABOUT AN ASTEROID HITTING PUERTO RICO? http://countdowntozerotime.com/2013/10/11/prophecy-asteroidtsunami-coming-to-puerto-rico-miami-usa/
Here he is talking about BODY BAGS IN PUERTO RICO! http://revolutionradio.org/?p=58121
Here he is AGAIN TALKING ABOUT THE ILLUMINATI http://hiphopwired.com/2013/03/19/virginia-rapper-attempts-to-sacrifice-friend-to-join-illuminati/
If you check, it is his replies to the subject matter. If he wasn’t claiming to be a Government Worker, I probably would not have posted this here. But there is something very strange here Ian

There are hundreds more links about “Tony Cisneros” Just who is he though?
I tracked him down here, each one is an image to where he is.

http://prayingforoneday.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/2.jpg?w=549&h=336
http://prayingforoneday.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/3.jpg?w=549&h=374
http://prayingforoneday.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/4.jpg?w=549&h=369

These two images, there are buildings belonging to this company
http://www.apartmentguide.com/apartments/Illinois/Chicago-Heights/


http://prayingforoneday.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/8.jpg?w=549&h=300

Here is what he sent me, same as I quoted above:
http://prayingforoneday.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/untitled.jpg?w=549&h=253

I am sorry there are so many links. This “Tony” is talking about JFK and other conspiracies while claiming to be 2011 (& Possible 2015) Candidate For City Treasurer, he was treasurer till 2011 in Illinois, Chicago. Here is a picture of Tony. http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=2811

So just who is Tony Lopez-Cisneros?
Thoughts anyone? There is a story here. Check the links, research yourself and see the amount of things he has said, the things he talks about, and why someone in his position would be happy to claim to be a government figure?

Debate away. Me and my friend are all over it.
Very odd story.
Also I hacked nothing, every piece of information obtained there came from research only, his face and comments, more of them were all deeply hidden in pages 100+ in Google.

Hope everyone has a good weekend.
Cheers Shaun

Citation

#annoying-things, #breaking-news, #conspiracies, #dislikes, #fun, #funny-blogs, #global-stories-and-tagged-creepy-stranger-threat, #government, #hate, #have-i-just-been-warned-by-the-usa-re-puerto-rico-blog, #jokes, #laughter, #lies, #new, #old, #pictures, #politics, #puerto-rico-and-american-military, #puerto-rico-blog, #serious, #strange-stories, #tony-casneros, #warning-message-from-usa, #who-is-tony-casneros, #world-affairs, #world-news

http www youtube com watch v=7VdwcctZ6kY Me talking…

Me talking for 8 minutes, links I mentioned in the Audio are below

http://prayingforoneday.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/to-the-people-of-the-usa-i-am-sorry-for-what-is-coming/

http://prayingforoneday.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/usa-a-military-coup-will-remove-obama/

More love, less hate

Shaun x

#audio-blogs, #bloggers-for-peace, #books, #breaking-news, #caring-sharing, #changes-to-our-world, #conspiracies, #corporate-greed-in-our-world, #fun, #global-changes, #global-stories, #government, #lies, #love, #new, #newspapers-and-more, #old, #pictures, #politics, #random, #serious, #strange-stories, #videos, #whatever-goeshappens, #world-affairs, #world-news, #you-tube

This is a SERVING Marine and he is…

This is a SERVING Marine, and he is saying what many serving men and woman know, and are saying, MUCH MORE PROOF WE NEED?

In a recent town hall meeting with Senator John McCain a Marine named Blaine Cooper fired off a few shots at the Republican Senator that visibly embarrassed him. Of course McCain’s only response was that of condescension, saying voters put him in office 8 times, as though that were even a valid metric by which to measure his fidelity to the office he holds and the Constitution he swears by. This is in regards to McCain’s involvement in Syria and that little trip he took to get a photo op with AQ aligned Syrian rebels.

He says Obama is supporting the “Muslim Brotherhood”

So did I – http://prayingforoneday.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/obama-part-of-the-muslim-brotherhood-to-take-over-the-usa/

He said the American people oppose war – So did I – http://prayingforoneday.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/alan-grayson-congressman-on-syria-and-healthcare-please-watch-and-reply/

He says the USA aids and helps the enemy – So did I – http://prayingforoneday.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/us-quietly-releases-1-6bn-in-aid-to-pakistan-after-thaw-in-relations/

Citation

#breaking-news, #corporate-greed-in-our-world, #global-stories, #government, #lies, #marine-calls-mccain-out-for-treason, #mccain, #muslim-brotherhood, #politics, #republican-senator, #senator-john-mccain, #serving-marine, #songs-and-tagged-blaine-cooper, #treason-by-the-usa-government, #usa-government-helping-the-terrorists, #videos, #world-affairs, #world-news, #you-tube