The Tonka Report

Real News In A Changing World

Archive for February 20th, 2010

A Cap And Trade Carbon Tax? Here’s A Better Climate Change Bill

leave a comment »

February 20, 2010: Sam Ryan / The Philadelphia Inquirer – February 10, 2010

As the mid-Atlantic region faces yet another massive blizzard, the problem of unregulated snow can no longer be ignored. It’s time for Congress to set limits on the crystalline mayhem descending through the atmosphere and disrupting the lives of hardworking Americans.

Certainly, snow-control legislation would require political will and bipartisan support. But if today’s policymakers don’t put an end to snowstorms, these boom-and-bust blizzards will continue to undermine our nation’s growth and prosperity.

Consider the facts: Local governments such as Philadelphia’s are struggling to deal effectively with the amount of snow we’re getting. With Washington in the path of a major storm again, essential federal services will be shut down. And weatherpersons “predict” snow, but they don’t do anything about it.

Snow is also costly for taxpayers. Salt, plows, and workers on overtime gobble up revenue and break strained budgets. Philadelphia’s cleanup of the season’s first major storm cost $3.4 million.

And those costs are insignificant compared with the billions in lost economic activity. Traffic comes to a standstill, public transit seizes up, and airports close. Snowbound businesses shut their doors, and consumers don’t shop.

Because snow is a global phenomenon, banning it will require international cooperation. But the first step is regulating it in the United States. Worldwide initiatives invariably require U.S. leadership and support.

Even regulating domestic snowfall won’t be easy. There are several constitutional and practical challenges, but none of them is insurmountable.

The most obvious question is whether the federal government actually has the authority to ban snow. Die-hard federalists, who claim that virtually any Washington regulation intrudes on states’ rights, would no doubt challenge the ban, citing the 10th Amendment.

But a Supreme Court challenge predicated on states’ rights is unlikely to succeed for one obvious reason: Snow is not confined to individual states. The Constitution’s commerce clause empowers the federal government to regulate matters that extend – or, in this case, drift – across state lines.

The bigger problem, of course, is practical. Regulating precipitation – or even banning it entirely – won’t actually stop snow from falling. Virtually all meteorologists agree that, given certain atmospheric conditions, snow will continue to fall from the sky regardless of federal law.

To address this, Congress should appoint a blue-ribbon panel of experts (with at least one labor representative) to study the problem and submit recommendations in four years, at which time a more effective law would be passed.

The committee would be funded by a penny-per-shovel tax. Some might argue that this tax would exacerbate the snow problem by discouraging Americans from buying shovels, but that can also be fixed with legislation. Congress should simply mandate that all Americans purchase shovels.

Yes, there would have to be a Medicaid-style program for those who cannot afford shovels, and perhaps a carve-out for Nebraskans who already own shovels to get Ben Nelson’s vote. But those minor details could be worked out in conference committee.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Albeit satire, it’s no less outrageous than to ban carbon dioxide (CO2). Shall we ban dihydrogen monoxide as well? (Ahem)…- SJH

Link to original article below…

The US Government Poisoned Alcohol During The ‘Prohibition Era’

with 3 comments

February 20, 2010: Deborah Blum / Slate – February 19, 2010

It was Christmas Eve 1926, the streets aglitter with snow and lights, when the man afraid of Santa Claus stumbled into the emergency room at New York City’s Bellevue Hospital. He was flushed, gasping with fear: Santa Claus, he kept telling the nurses, was just behind him, wielding a baseball bat. Before hospital staff realized how sick he was—the alcohol-induced hallucination was just a symptom—the man died. So did another holiday partygoer. And another. As dusk fell on Christmas, the hospital staff tallied up more than 60 people made desperately ill by alcohol and eight dead from it. Within the next two days, yet another 23 people died in the city from celebrating the season.

Doctors were accustomed to alcohol poisoning by then, the routine of life in the Prohibition era. The bootlegged whiskies and so-called gins often made people sick. The liquor produced in hidden stills frequently came tainted with metals and other impurities. But this outbreak was bizarrely different. The deaths, as investigators would shortly realize, came courtesy of the U.S. government.

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

Although mostly forgotten today, the “chemist’s war of Prohibition” remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was “our national experiment in extermination.” Poisonous alcohol still kills—16 people died just this month after drinking lethal booze in Indonesia, where bootleggers make their own brews to avoid steep taxes—but that’s due to unscrupulous businessmen rather than government order.

I learned of the federal poisoning program while researching my new book, The Poisoner’s Handbook, which is set in jazz-age New York. My first reaction was that I must have gotten it wrong. “I never heard that the government poisoned people during Prohibition, did you?” I kept saying to friends, family members, colleagues.

I did, however, remember the U.S. government’s controversial decision in the 1970s to spray Mexican marijuana fields with Paraquat, an herbicide. Its use was primarily intended to destroy crops, but government officials also insisted that awareness of the toxin would deter marijuana smokers. They echoed the official position of the 1920s—if some citizens ended up poisoned, well, they’d brought it upon themselves. Although Paraquat wasn’t really all that toxic, the outcry forced the government to drop the plan. Still, the incident created an unsurprising lack of trust in government motives, which reveals itself in the occasional rumors circulating today that federal agencies, such as the CIA, mix poison into the illegal drug supply.

During Prohibition, however, an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place. As the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1927: “Normally, no American government would engage in such business. … It is only in the curious fanaticism of Prohibition that any means, however barbarous, are considered justified.” Others, however, accused lawmakers opposed to the poisoning plan of being in cahoots with criminals and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy. “Must Uncle Sam guarantee safety first for souses?” asked Nebraska’s Omaha Bee.

The saga began with ratification of the 18th Amendment, which banned sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the United States. High-minded crusaders and anti-alcohol organizations had helped push the amendment through in 1919, playing on fears of moral decay in a country just emerging from war. The Volstead Act, spelling out the rules for enforcement, passed shortly later, and Prohibition itself went into effect on Jan. 1, 1920.

But people continued to drink—and in large quantities. Alcoholism rates soared during the 1920s; insurance companies charted the increase at more than 300 more percent. Speakeasies promptly opened for business. By the decade’s end, some 30,000 existed in New York City alone. Street gangs grew into bootlegging empires built on smuggling, stealing, and manufacturing illegal alcohol. The country’s defiant response to the new laws shocked those who sincerely (and naively) believed that the amendment would usher in a new era of upright behavior.

Rigorous enforcement had managed to slow the smuggling of alcohol from Canada and other countries. But crime syndicates responded by stealing massive quantities of industrial alcohol—used in paints and solvents, fuels and medical supplies—and redistilling it to make it potable.

Well, sort of. Industrial alcohol is basically grain alcohol with some unpleasant chemicals mixed in to render it undrinkable. The U.S. government started requiring this “denaturing” process in 1906 for manufacturers who wanted to avoid the taxes levied on potable spirits. The U.S. Treasury Department, charged with overseeing alcohol enforcement, estimated that by the mid-1920s, some 60 million gallons of industrial alcohol were stolen annually to supply the country’s drinkers. In response, in 1926, President Calvin Coolidge’s government decided to turn to chemistry as an enforcement tool. Some 70 denaturing formulas existed by the 1920s. Most simply added poisonous methyl alcohol into the mix. Others used bitter-tasting compounds that were less lethal, designed to make the alcohol taste so awful that it became undrinkable.

To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to “renature” the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far more deadly.

By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable poisons—kerosene and brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. The Treasury Department also demanded more methyl alcohol be added—up to 10 percent of total product. It was the last that proved most deadly.

The results were immediate, starting with that horrific holiday body count in the closing days of 1926. Public health officials responded with shock. “The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol,” New York City medical examiner Charles Norris said at a hastily organized press conference. “[Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes, although it cannot be held legally responsible.”

His department issued warnings to citizens, detailing the dangers in whiskey circulating in the city: “[P]ractically all the liquor that is sold in New York today is toxic,” read one 1928 alert. He publicized every death by alcohol poisoning. He assigned his toxicologist, Alexander Gettler, to analyze confiscated whiskey for poisons—that long list of toxic materials I cited came in part from studies done by the New York City medical examiner’s office.

Norris also condemned the federal program for its disproportionate effect on the country’s poorest residents. Wealthy people, he pointed out, could afford the best whiskey available. Most of those sickened and dying were those “who cannot afford expensive protection and deal in low grade stuff.”

And the numbers were not trivial. In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol; 400 died. The following year, deaths climbed to 700. These numbers were repeated in cities around the country as public-health officials nationwide joined in the angry clamor. Furious anti-Prohibition legislators pushed for a halt in the use of lethal chemistry. “Only one possessing the instincts of a wild beast would desire to kill or make blind the man who takes a drink of liquor, even if he purchased it from one violating the Prohibition statutes,” proclaimed Sen. James Reed of Missouri.

Officially, the special denaturing program ended only once the 18th Amendment was repealed in December 1933. But the chemist’s war itself faded away before then. Slowly, government officials quit talking about it. And when Prohibition ended and good grain whiskey reappeared, it was almost as if the craziness of Prohibition—and the poisonous measures taken to enforce it—had never quite happened.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: At virtually every turn, the U.S. government is involved in one atrocity after another against both it’s own citizens and humanity at large. I was in high school during the Mexican Paraquat scare back in the 1970’s and quite frankly, that’s when Hawaiian, Jamaican, and Colombian really hit the market, as well as did mainland hydroponic growing begin to gain in popularity. Apparently, the Mexican druglords were not paying their cut to the CIA… – SJH

Link to original article below…

United States Propaganda To Strike Iran Is Now Bordering Insanity

leave a comment »

February 20, 2010: Kurt Nimmo / Infowars – February 20, 2010

It looks like years of incessant propaganda about Iran seem to have paid off. According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans consider Iran to be the “least liked” nation on the planet. “Canada retained its top position in Gallup’s annual country ratings, with 90% of Americans viewing it favorably, unchanged from 2009. Iran continues to rank last, with 10% this year,” Gallup reports. Even the reclusive totalitarian state of North Korea fared better than Iran.

Is there a rational reason for Americans to rate Iran unfavorably? Most Americans know little to nothing about Iran beyond what they are fed by the corporate media. I bet most of them would be unable to find the country on a map. In addition, according to a recent CNN poll, an astounding 71 percent of Americans believe Iran currently has nuclear weapons, a belief that is seriously at odds with the facts. The poll is testament to the effectiveness of unrelenting propaganda pushed by the corporate media.

The corporate media has increasingly called for bombing Iran. For instance, on February 9, the supposed liberal New York Times ran an editorial calling for crippling economic sanctions on the Iranian people and hinted at the prospect of attacking the country. “Enough is enough. Iran needs to understand that its nuclear ambition comes with a very high cost,” the newspaper opined.

The New York Times, with the neocon operative Judith Miller on-board, ran a number of propaganda pieces making the case that Iraq had WMDs when in fact it did not. Miller resigned from the newspaper and now appears as a regular on Fox News.

Our rulers hate Iran because it refuses to take orders from the bankers and their international organizations such as the United Nations and the loan sharking operations known as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Saddam Hussein found out what happens when Muslims are too proud and refuse to take orders from Wall Street and the City of London.

The leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, said recently that “the Iranian nation’s resistance to the West set an example for the generation to come of how to confront pressure by reliance on its own capability and a divine source,” reports Press TV.

Khamenei said Iran’s resistance will “awaken the spirit of dignity in the whole Islamic Umma as our nation’s efforts have led to the Islamic vigilance” among other Muslim nations.

The United States and its junior partner Israel have pushed the specter of an Iranian nuclear weapon and the supposed threat this would pose to the world for several years now. During the Bush years, this insane notion was primarily confined to the neocons, but since the election of Obama it has spread to liberals and Democrats. The bomb Iran chant is now becoming a nearly universal mantra within the political establishment.

Liberals and Democrats quite naturally oppose war and illegal mass murder campaigns when they are proposed by neocons and Republicans. But as Clinton’s invasion of Yugoslavia revealed, Democrats are all for serial murder when the call is made by the leader of their party.

A new regime at the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency has produced a report saying Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon. In the recent past, the IAEA said there was no evidence Iran was attempting to build a nuclear weapon. This conclusion was backed up by a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate from the U.S. intelligence community that said Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program years ago. “When asked if the White House believes the IAEA report or the 2007 NIE estimate, officials had no comment except to suggest that they were looking forward to the new NIE on Iran, which they said was in the works,” reports The Washington Post.

In other words, the next NIE estimate will probably agree with the IAEA. Critics of NIE estimates complain that the reports are subject to political polarization. Case in point: the October, 2002, NIE argued that Iraq had an active WMD program. Assertions that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons were essentially the same conclusions reached by the United Nations and numerous intelligence services.

It turned out Iraq did not have WMDs. It was all propaganda designed as a pretext to invade and occupy a country decimated by more than a decade of sanctions that resulted in the death of more than a million Iraqis, 500,000 of them children.

The United States is now pushing for crippling sanctions against Iran. “The White House has begun circulating sanctions against Iran as part of its pursuit of United Nations-backed punishment for Iran’s secretive pursuit of nuclear weapons,” Fox News reported on Friday. “We are internally and with partners beginning the process of thinking through what are the appropriate elements of pressure,” said Susan Rice, Obama’s foreign policy adviser and United States Ambassador to the United Nations. “And that will be a process that will continue over a period of time and I think we should be realistic about the pace.”

The U.S. cranked up the pace on sanctions after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Iran is sliding into a military dictatorship. Two days later, on February 16, Clinton said Iran is working toward the development of a nuclear weapon. Clinton made her remarks after Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated that Iran was ready to suspend enrichment if it could exchange its low-enriched uranium stockpile for processed fuel rods from abroad.

On February 9, Obama declared that he’s “bent over backwards” to engage Iran in “constructive” dialogue and the U.S. will push in the United Nations to sanction the country. Bush era leftover Robert Gates at the Pentagon added the White House has gone further than any administration to reach out to Iran.

Mohammad Nahavandian, an Iranian businessman, said today that sanctions will not cripple the country’s economy. “It has been proven that the Iranian economy is not sanctionable… the stated goal of sanctions is political, which has never been achieved,” Nahavandian told Reuters in an interview.

Nahavandian said Iran was increasingly dealing with non-western countries, including Asian and regional countries. China, a veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security Council, is reluctant to approve further sanctions on Iran. Trade between Iran and China is now over $28 billion. “With indirect trade, it may be about $31 billion, which is above the trade with the European Union,” Nahavandian noted.

Bush era neocons are pushing hard for a mass murder campaign against Iran. “America’s central focus must be to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons in the first place,” Bush era UN ambassador John Bolton wrote for The Wall Street Journal on February 9. “Doing so requires decisive, and likely military, action now, since there is essentially no likelihood that an Obama-inspired ‘regime of sanctions’ will achieve that objective. The U.S. must rigorously avoid ’sanctions’ or ‘pro-democracy’ rhetoric becoming excuses for American nonaction.”

It remains to be seen if the U.S. will attack Iran or simply muddle along with ineffectual economic sanctions. If the U.S. does attack Iran, however, the consequences will be great, as Russia’s General of the Army Nikolay Makarov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, said recently. Makarov warned that an American attack on Iran now, when the US is bogged down in two wars, might lead to the collapse of the United States.

Makarov made the remarks in Vzglyad on Friday, February 19, 2010, and they were translated or paraphrased by the USG Open Source Center:

“Makarov also commented on the recent rumors about the possibility of an attack upon Iran by the United States. In his opinion, this would be complete madness on the part of the American military. He said: ‘Admiral Michael McMullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said that, in the United States, there is a plan for carrying out strikes against Iran but the United States clearly understands that now, when it is conducting two military campaigns, one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan, a third campaign against Iran would simply lead to a collapse. It would not be able to withstand the strain.’

“Nevertheless, in proportion to the winding down of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, (the plan for) a war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the opinion of General Makarov, may again come out to the foreground.

“‘General Makarov, Chief of the General Staff, said: “The consequences of such an attack will be terrible not only for the region but also for us. Iran is our neighbor and we are very carefully following this situation. The leadership of our country is undertaking all measures in order not to allow such a (military) development of events.’”

A collapse of the United States? Now that would put a definitive end to the murderous insanity that prevails in this country regardless of the regime in power.

It would also play into the hands of the global elite. They are determined to reduce the once great United States into just another third world backwater where poverty and immiseration reign supreme. Such an economic and military collapse of the world’s last remaining super power would set the stage for a world government long dreamed of by the globalist bankster cartel.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: First of all, 20% enrichment of uranium is in complete compliance with the NNPT for medical isotopes, which Iran under treaty is a member of, unlike Israel. Secondly, the leap from 20% enrichment of uranium to 98% which is needed for a nuclear bomb is like building a spaceship out of a bicycle. Third, Iran has not provacatively attacked another sovereign nation in 200 years… Wake up, America!SJH   

Link to original article below…

The Double Headed Eagle – Hanseatic League To New World Order

leave a comment »

February 20, 2010: Jurriaan Maessen / – February 20, 2010

Some unsavoury stars glowed in the sky above Oosterbeek, the Netherlands, where a meeting at the Bilderberg hotel was convened in 1954. A club of wealthy robber barons met under the inspired chairmanship of a Prussian prince named Bernhard von Lippe-Biesterfeld, a confessed Nazi and acclaimed ne’er-do-well. Discussed was the formation of a new Anglo-American pact, or so it was stated. In line with the elite’s habit of using bold euphemisms, the group was officially presented as an informal transatlantic think tank. As we know, the real setup was much more sinister.

A Band Of Robber Barons

Top military figureheads met with the representatives of European and American banks to forge a new road ahead since the Austrian painter of picture-postcards had paved the way for them before splattering his brains across his bunker ceiling. Both the military and economic arm flared up under the careful supervision of European royalty, and intertwined to form a single flame (with a cloud of political moths hovering around it), enveloping the European continent under an ominous cloud. Prime focus of the meeting was the gradual abandonment of sovereignty in favour of a great international government. To quote the complaining prince: ‘It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing some of their sovereignty to a supra-national body’. Bernhard was not the only one cherishing this vision. In the following decades the Bilderberg group would attract likeminded psychopaths to work tirelessly on wiping out existing borders as they went along. All this would have to be achieved with the help of well organised military, economic and political components, carefully placed inside key locations of the infrastructure to grease the wheels of globalism. An ambitious plan for sure. But they would not have to start from scratch.

Rise Of The Hanseatic League

Around the year 1175, somewhere in the vast forests of Northern Germany, a similar plan was contrived. An unsuspecting peasant who would have happened to walk past would have seen- glimmering through the dark tree trunks- a wild fire ablaze and some intimidating looking men warming their hands around it. Several Germanic merchants and noblemen were gathered in secret to discuss an idea that was already years in the making. Although initially the plan was probably still as shapeless as the forest deities they praised, it slowly grew into more than just a plan that would have great implications for Northern Europe in the centuries to come. Ancient trading guilds from all over Germany, Hansas as they were called, set out to build a great unified trade organisation. This new organisation was out to gather as many European towns under its wing as possible, offering all kinds of trading privileges along the Baltic and North Sea and in return demanding free access through all ports along the great inland rivers. Good news, it seemed, for the impoverished forts of the Low Countries in the west, for now they were able to trade more goods over longer distances. But the local riverside lords had unknowingly entered into an agreement with a cunning serpent. Over the next three centuries the League would dictate economic policy in Western Europe and therefore exert influence on the everyday politics of those days. Playing cities and counties off against each other, the organisation held medieval North-West Europe in a tight economic stranglehold that would last for the better part of the Middle Ages.

In the course of this time the number of towns that swore (or were forced to swear) allegiance to the League rose to a staggering 200. A bewildering number when we take into account we are still in the dirty depths of the Dark Ages. The League realised however that controlling and expanding her monopoly would require more than just relying on the weapon of economic boycott. The new trade organisation would enforce its rule with the help of an industrious military arm, clearing the way for hanseatic settlements in the remotest of areas.

The Teutonic Order

Founded in 1189 on the shores of the Holy Land, the Order of the Teutonic Knights of St. Mary’s hospital in Jerusalem was forced into being under the sails of the seafaring tradesmen. In order to legitimize this military arm of the Hanseatic League, it was cleverly streamlined with the lucrative crusades in the Holy Land that were already in full swing around the time of its founding. To have taken part in the Holy War meant an enormous boost in prestige back home in Europe; and besides, conducting operations under the papal seal enabled the Teutonic swordsmen to go ahead with their real business of interest: setting up a military system not in pagan-infested Outremer, but in North-West Europe along the trading routes of their sister organisation, the Hanseatic League. But first they had to present themselves on the battlefield, though somewhat reluctantly and not exactly in solidarity with the Holy War or with the armies waging it (Teutonic Knights were not very idealistic, nor were they particularly religiously motivated).

After receiving the required stripes the ‘fighting monks’ quickly lowered their flag and scurried off back to Germany, leaving the doomed Templars to do the fighting in their stead. Back in the heimat the Order wasted no time doing what it had intended to do from the very start: to become the Hanseatic League’s iron hand, enforcing its trading monopoly wherever it was needed and effectively setting up a military dictatorship to suppress potential rivals lurking in the background. This time, the Teutonic knights were summoned to secure important strategic areas in the east, where unyielding Prussian tribes blocked the trading routes that the League had set its sights on. The Order contrived a great converting with the bloody sword of Christendom as a pretext to go in- which they did as soon as the approval from Rome came through. Without having to worry about overzealous cardinals interfering, the slaughter began. In a series of heavily subsidised manhunts, the Teutonic knights butchered thousands of Prussians and installed themselves as sovereign rulers. At the same time the Order gave a heads-up to the Hanseatic League in their wake to sail on in and trade away. The continent had not seen such a coordinated and confident effort of a military and economic order since the Roman Empire had evaporated almost a millennium earlier.

The Order State

To project this confidence to their enemies and adequately install fear into their hearts, both the Order and the League printed a black double headed eagle firmly on their respective banners. The chosen symbol could not have been more fitting: one body, symbolizing a common purpose, from which two heads peered greedily eastward and westward, depicting the two divisions with which to accomplish that purpose. The eagle would later evolve into the black cross of the Prussian Order state- a symbol that would ultimately survive as the black swastika within a white circle: the black sun of the Nazis. It is no coincidence that the failed architect from Braunau often referred to the lebensraum-philosophy of his Teutonic predecessors to explain his ambitious policies to a mesmerised German people.

At the beginning of the 15th century the lands formerly inhabited by the conquered Prussian tribes were ruthlessly transformed into the Teutonic Order State, better known as Prussia. Looking at a map of Northern Europe around that time, we see a red stain filling up the space, expanding in all directions with blood dripping off the edges. Although the Holy Roman Empire was not at all generous when it came to competing forces rising up in the neighbourhood, the new Order State was clearly the exception to the rule as it was feared like a snake but treated like a king. Whenever the Order State required a favour, the Empire granted it without debate. Several royal families such as the Hohenzollerns- long time members of both the League and the Order- were appointed by the double headed eagle to rule the new Order State in the east and rule it mercilessly. The west was brought under the control of the German house of Nassau and the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’s. It is no coincidence that these very same families appear prominently on the membership list of Bilderberg. Needless to say they rarely miss a meeting.

The New World Order

Over time both the Hanseatic League and the Teutonic Order changed shape, broke apart into largely ceremonial fragments, finally losing their original significance altogether. By the time Napoleon stood pounding at the gates of Prussia in 1806, the Order State had already morphed silently into a network of royal families and loyal bloodlines, who could without exception trace their roots back to the Prussian hinterland. The transition generally went flawless. The old, borderless order guaranteed its survival by doing what it had always done: to operate under the cloak of world events, and even expanding its operations underneath it.

Unbound by any geographical restrictions, the royals took as little heed of sovereignty as they ever did. They were always alert not to become an empire with clear defined borders, for empires often leave themselves wide-open for invasion. As representatives of an ancient Germanic death cult they proceeded to manipulate events with a relentlessness that would draw blood from a leach. Although the robes of old are replaced by ties and waistcoats, the agenda continues just as it did in days past. If the Bilderberg group (and affiliated ‘think tanks’) is successful, the Order State will envelop the entire globe in the near future, seizing countries like flies stuck to a web, until all the world is under its control.

A gloomy prospect if ever we saw one. However all-powerful the Bilderbergers may seem though, history quickly shakes us out of any sense of hopelessness that might creep in. It gently lays an encouraging hand on our shoulder and beckons us to take heart.

We are not the first to find tyranny at our door. And we certainly won’t be the last. In fact we are just a link in the chain of humanities’ struggle against the rule of tyrants. As is the case with modern day globalists, the old order would never fully be free from resistance, especially from people that valued their independence, seeking no conflict outside their borders but not hesitating to defend their tribe, their family, if push came to shove. For every creature that was captured in the claws of the double headed eagle, there was one that got away, never to be grabbed again. If the new world order is to be forestalled, methinks two heads need to roll: both the private central banks and the military industrial complex must be addressed for one is attached to the same body as the other. Now we witness the animal screeching and waving its heads about, feverishly arming subservient nations and engineering economic crises worldwide while screaming for a single world government in the same breath.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Understanding real history is the key to understanding the present. One cannot possibly comprehend what the future may hold without this knowledge… – SJH 

Link to original article below…

Texas Congressman Dr Ron Paul: The Revolution Is Alive And Well

leave a comment »

February 20, 2010: Andy Barr / Politico – February 19, 2010