In July 1942 Lieutenant General Rudolf Brandt, Himmler’s personal advisor (Strzelecka 1996), contacted Clauberg, asking on behalf of Himmler, [how long it would take] to sterilize 1000 Jewesses. The Jewesses themselves should not know anything about it. As the SS Reich Leader [Himmler] understands it, you could give the appropriate injection during a general examination.
... since the 1920s the Rockefeller Foundation had funded the eugenics research in Germany through the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institutes in Berlin and Munich, including well into the Third Reich. They praised the forced sterilization of people by Hitler Germany, and the Nazi ideas on race “purity.” It was John D. Rockefeller III, a life-long advocate of eugenics, who used his “tax free” foundation money to initiate the population reduction neo-Malthusian movement through his private Population Council in New York beginning in the 1950s.
California led the nation, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little or no due process. In its first 25 years of eugenics legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as 'bad girls,' diagnosed as 'passionate,' 'oversexed' or 'sexually wayward.' At the Sonoma State Home, some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or labia.
In 1933 alone, at least 1,278 coercive sterilizations were performed, 700 on women. The state's two leading sterilization mills in 1933 were Sonoma State Home with 388 operations and Patton State Hospital with 363 operations. Other sterilization centers included Agnews, Mendocino, Napa, Norwalk, Stockton and Pacific Colony state hospitals.
Even the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, 'It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.' This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman.
The idea of using vaccines to covertly reduce births in the Third World is also not new. Bill Gates’ good friend, David Rockefeller and his Rockefeller Foundation were involved as early as 1972 in a major project together with WHO and others to perfect another “new vaccine.
The results of the WHO-Rockefeller project were put into mass application on human guinea pigs in the early 1990s. The WHO oversaw massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines. Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, became suspicious of the motives behind the WHO program and decided to test numerous vials of the vaccine and found them to contain human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or hCG. That was a curious component for a vaccine designed to protect people against lock-jaw arising from infection with rusty nail wounds or other contact with certain bacteria found in soil. The tetanus disease was indeed, also rather rare. It was also curious because hCG was a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. However, when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulated formation of antibodies against hCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, a form of concealed abortion. Similar reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones came from the Philippines and Nicaragua.
This 1974 memorandum drafted by Henry Kissinger led directly to the unleashing of experimental vaccines on the unsuspecting public. It sighted countries as targets for 'initial population reduction experimentation to be implemented around the year 2000'. They identified India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia & Columbia for study. 3 million Filipinos ages 12-48 were given a test vaccine that ruined their health. North American Black & Native American Women were each given the same vaccine resulting in sterility rates of 25% & 35% respectively. The directive came from the WHO and was directly tied to Kissinger's report. [Emphasis added.]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6474391/Henry-Kissinger-Population-Control
Documenthttp://www.danielestulin.com/ver.php?id=160
http://www.danielestulin.com/ver.php?id=161
As a favor to utility and coal industries, America's largest mercury dischargers, the EPA sat for nine months on a report exposing the catastrophic impact on children's health of mercury, finally releasing it in February 2003. Among the findings of the report: The bloodstream of one in twelve US women is saturated with enough mercury to cause neurological damage, permanent IQ loss and a grim inventory of other diseases in their unborn children.
The Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs (CoMeD) exposes communications between Centers for Disease Control (CDC) personnel and vaccine researchers revealing U.S. officials apparently colluded in covering-up the decline in Denmark's autism rates following the removal of mercury from vaccines. ....
In the final draft version of the publication submitted to Pediatrics, the data from 2001 showing a decline in autism was not mentioned. Ignoring this omission, the CDC continued to endorse the article and, in a December 10, 2002 recommendation letter to the editor of Pediatrics, encouraged expedited review and publication of the article. The misleading Danish article was published by Pediatrics in 2003.
Dr. Poul Thorsen, one of the co-authors and 'scientist in residence' at the CDC 2000-2002, subsequently was terminated by Aarhus University and indicted in Atlanta for embezzlement this year in relation to his $11 million grant from the CDC."
It's profoundly disappointing to see the Obama administration proposing changes to FOIA that would allow federal agencies to lie about the very existence of information being sought.
That's not progress, and it's certainly not transparency, a principle the president has repeatedly and publicly pledged allegiance to.
The worst among [the proposed changes], in our estimation, is the proposed change that would allow the government to tell those requesting information under FOIA that the material does not exist when, in fact, it does.
(...)
Moving from a Glomar denial to outright deceit would have even broader ramifications if the person denied information were to decide to take the matter to court.
In that case, would the government be in a position of lying to the court about the existence of information?
If agencies are exercising legally allowable exceptions to the law and withholding certain records, they can just continue to do as they do today: neither confirm nor deny the information's existence....
