Help Us Go Viral!


We no longer have the
luxury of time.







Who's Online
Guest Users: 224
Latest Videos
My Account
Please Support Us With A Purchase


Global Healing Center? is a leading natural health provider offering natural and organic supplements, cleanses, and a wealth of free natural health articles.

Global Healing Center? is a leading natural health provider offering natural and organic supplements, cleanses, and a wealth of free natural health articles.

  • Home
  • Corp. Corruption

Video: $21 Trillion Missing – U.S. Government A Criminal Enterprise

Catherine Austin Fitts


By Greg Hunter’s
USAWatchdog.com

Investment advisor and former Assistant Secretary of Housing Catherine Austin Fitts says you can add $21 trillion of missing federal money on top of the $20 trillion U.S. deficit. It’s all in a new explosive report on Solari.com.  Fitts explains, “This is $65,000 for every man, woman and child resident in America.  In addition, it is now more than the outstanding official debt on the U.S. balance sheet. . . . We know that the U.S. government has been run like a criminal enterprise from a financial standpoint.”

The new report was put together by Dr. Mark Skidmore at Michigan State University, and it is a detailed year-by-year study of DOD and HUD budgets between 1998 and 2015. The missing money is called “undocumentable adjustments,” but that may just be a polite name for theft, fraud and crime against “We the People.”  Fitts contends, “Here’s the critical issue because technology is leading us through tremendous change, and the people who get their hands on this technology and are able to subsidize the cost of capital are the ones that are going to win.  They have done that by basically hijacking the federal credit and using it to help centralize power under them.  So, we have to reverse that, and the Constitution is the tool to hold them accountable.  All their arguments just fall down when you realize they have just stolen an enormous amount of money from the federal government outside the law. . . . The U.S. Federal government doesn’t have information sovereignty, and it doesn’t have financial sovereignty.  So, we have to return it to that, and we have to keep that mechanism open long enough to get this money back.”

Fitts contends the Deep State swamp creatures do not want to give the money back and want to tear up the U.S. Constitution in order to keep all those trillions of stolen dollars. Fitts explains, “You want to preserve the Constitution because you want to have individual sovereignty, and you want your taxes to only go into things that have financial and national sovereignty.  So, that has to be restored.  The reason they want to tear up the Constitution is they don’t want to give the money back.  That’s a legal mechanism that requires us and gives us the power to reverse this. . . . They say we have $20 trillion in debt, and there is no money.  It’s a very different policy discussion if I can say, wait a minute, there’s $20 trillion in debt, but you stole $21 trillion . . . and we’re putting that back on the table for purposes of this policy discussion.”

In other words, “We the People” could pay off the entire federal deficit with the money that was stolen and still have $1 trillion left over.

Fitts also says, “Here’s the magic trick. You don’t need everybody to change this.  It only takes 5% to 10% of the population to completely turn this around.  It doesn’t take everybody, and that is one of the things that has got them so scared. . . . We don’t need to implode the federal government.  We need to take it back, clean it up and get it to run according to the law.”

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with the President of Solari.com, Catherine Austin Fitts, Publisher of “The Solari Report.”

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The Criminally Liable Supreme Court For Granting Personhood to Corporations


By Jim Kiran
Rense.com

The ghost of many criminal decisions made throughout the years has resulted in the annihilation of the planet, and the overbearing illegal influence of global-corporations that has now reached the point of impossibility for ordinary people and the end of natural life on the earth.

Corporations have been around seemingly forever. The ships that first arrived in America were commissioned by a private corporation. In those days corporations were routinely formed to accomplish particular things, after which they were officially dissolved. As time moved on corporations sought and received 'the right to exist' in perpetuity (basically they no longer had to die).

By 1886, the railroads had established: “it was "well settled" that "corporations are persons within the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." Persons that is: that unlike people did not have responsibilities nor did corporations have to die, as every person on the planet does.

By 1906: “Having blocked unlawful seizures of corporate property, the court went on to shield companies from other kinds of intrusion. Writing for the majority, Justice Henry Billings Brown found that corporations, like people, are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment (although the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination did not apply).”

2010 (Citizens United v.FEC): “In the run up to the 2008 election, the Federal Elections Commission blocked the conservative nonprofit Citizens United from airing a film about Hillary Clinton based on a law barring companies from using their funds for "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The organization sued, arguing that, because people's campaign donations are a protected form of speech (see Buckley v Valeo) and corporations and people enjoy the same legal rights, the government can't limit a corporation's independent political donations. The Supreme Court agreed. The Citizens United ruling may be the most sweeping expansion of corporate personhood to date.”

10 Supreme Court Rulings That Turned Corporations Into People

What has lately been at issue is the so-called right of corporations to become nation-states in their own right, immune from the opinions, actions, laws or responsibilities of the people they would control by taking over existing nation-states. It is against this backdrop that this comment is being made.

RT News - September 28, 2017 (12:00 MSK) beginning @ 17min 22sec and ending at 27min.

Horowitz finds this whole issue “absurd”, whereas it is he and his so-called defense of obscenely excessive corporate “rights” that have brought about the continuing destruction of most of the planet.

Why are corporations allowed to rape the earth for free, while they charge us all for what they steal, while they murder nature in the process?

Corporations Have Rights. Why Not Rivers?

The real issue here is that the supposed U.S. Supreme Court exceeded it's bounds and violated the rights of the people of the U.S. (and the world) by granting corporations so many illegal “rights” that they have now nearly killed everything needed to allow the planet to survive.

If any political-body were to be dissolved, it should be the completely-criminal U.S. Supreme Court that is and has been responsible for the global creation of the monstrous-obscenity of global-corporations that have raped, pillaged and plundered the entire planet since these “global-corporations” were first granted person-hood!  This is truly the blinded “THINKER” above, who is unconsciously playing with the fires of life, that will destroy us and the earth if people do not force their removal from this government.

 

 

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

How Nestle Makes Billions Selling You Groundwater In A Bottle


ZeroHedge.com

A few weeks ago we shared with readers a lawsuit filed in Connecticut against Nestle Waters North America, Inc. alleging that the water they marketed as Poland 'Natural Spring Water' was actually just bottled groundwater...the same water that runs through the taps of many American households. 

Now a new investigation from Bloomberg Businessweek reveals how large water bottling companies choose their plant locations based not on the steady supply of pristine, natural drinking water, as their labels and other marketing campaigns would lead you to believe, but based on which economically depressed municipalities offer up the most tax breaks and have the most lax water laws. 

As an example, even in the drought stricken state of California, Bloomberg notes that Nestle was able to strike a sweetheart 20-year supply agreement with the U.S. Forest Service to pay roughly $0.000001 for the water in each bottle that consumers blindly drop a couple bucks to purchase.

But it illuminates how Nestlé has come to dominate a controversial industry, spring by spring, often going into economically depressed municipalities with the promise of jobs and new infrastructure in exchange for tax breaks and access to a resource that’s scarce for millions. Where Nestlé encounters grass-roots resistance against its industrial-strength guzzling, it deploys lawyers; where it’s welcome, it can push the limits of that hospitality, sometimes with the acquiescence of state and local governments that are too cash-strapped or inept to say no. There are the usual costs of doing business, including transportation, infrastructure, and salaries. But Nestlé pays little for the product it bottles—sometimes a municipal rate and other times just a nominal extraction fee. In Michigan, it’s $200.

Elsewhere, Nestlé has largely prevailed against opposition. In Fryeburg, Maine, it took the company four years to successfully appeal a zoning board resolution to build a facility it said it needed for its Poland Spring line. Last year it gained rights to extract water for the next 20 years—and perhaps 25 more after that. In San Bernardino, Calif., Nestlé has long paid the U.S. Forest Service an annual rate of $524 to extract about 30 million gallons, even during droughts. “Our public agencies have dropped the ball,” says Peter Gleick, co-founder of the Pacific Institute, which focuses on water issues. “Every gallon of water that is taken out of a natural system for bottled water is a gallon of water that doesn’t flow down a stream, that doesn’t support a natural ecosystem,” he says.

Not surprisingly, Nestlé isn’t the only bottled water company playing these games. As Bloomberg notes, Pepsi and Coca-Cola bottle municipal water from Detroit for their Aquafina and Dasani brands, respectively; they pay city rates, then sell the product back for a massive profit.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

New Think Tank Emails Show “How Google Wields its Power” in Washington


By David Dayen
The Intercept

Barry Lynn, the critic of monopolies fired this week from the New America Foundation, insisted in emails to his superiors that pressure from Google got him and his Open Markets program terminated. Anne-Marie Slaughter, the think tank’s CEO,  has denied that Google played any role in Lynn’s termination from the think tank.

Last night, New America released three emails from Slaughter to Lynn. They reference two separate events: an anti-monopoly conference organized by the Open Markets program in June 2016 that featured Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., as the keynote speaker, and a series of communications in June and July 2017, involving the termination of Lynn and his group.

The emails New America released did not include Lynn’s side of the email. The Intercept obtained his responses.

The first set of emails concerned the June 2016 conference, notable because a politician of Warren’s stature made a full-throated endorsement of Lynn’s work. For 15 years, Lynn has pointed out the dangers of increasing concentration in practically every sector of the U.S. economy, including technology and internet companies.

Slaughter began the chain by asking Lynn to answer questions — which were not in the emails obtained by The Intercept — from Meredith Hanley, New America’s director of development, who is responsible for day-to-day fundraising. Slaughter mentioned that she would be meeting with Google’s top lobbyist, former Rep. Susan Molinari, R-N.Y., and she needed answers about why Lynn’s New America colleagues and Google weren’t alerted about the conference and Warren’s participation.

Google, and the family foundation of Eric Schmidt, executive chair of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, have donated $21 million to New America over the years.

Lynn responded that he did give a heads-up internally, even trying to get another group at New America, the Open Technology Institute (which works on universal internet access and net neutrality), to co-sponsor the event. OTI declined, Lynn said, but discussed having some of their representatives moderate panels. Lynn concluded that he didn’t understand how anyone at OTI or New America would feel surprised by the event.

As for Google, Lynn said it wasn’t standard practice to alert an outside company about events or articles from his team (there’s a reference to such a request from Stephanie Valencia, who works on “strategic outreach and partnerships” at Google). Moreover, the event was publicly announced, and the eventual co-sponsor, the Capitol Forum, actively sought participation from Google employees on one of the panels.

The email is collegial, and Lynn openly acknowledges the tough spot Slaughter and Hanley faced, given Google’s funding support. He adds that Warren had originally planned to give her anti-monopoly speech at New America’s annual conference that May, which Lynn discouraged because it might create high-level discomfort. So it got moved to the June conference.

Slaughter’s response to Lynn is what got published last night. “I have to say I am with Meredith on this,” she wrote. “We worked so hard with you to get you 11th Hour funding; just THINK about how you are imperilling [sic] funding for others.” There’s at least a hint in there that Google would strip funding from New America if any part of the organization hosted a popular senator warning of threats from monopolies like Google. Slaughter also references “trying to expand our relationship with Google,” and asks Lynn for some talking points to use with Molinari.

The next series of emails concern Lynn’s firing a year later. It’s generally understood that the precipitating event was a 150-word press release from Open Markets, applauding the European Union for its $2.7 billion fine against Google for violating antitrust laws with its Google Shopping tool, which preferred its own programs over that of rivals. The New York Times reported that Schmidt voiced his displeasure to Slaughter about the press release, which then was temporarily removed from the New America website. Lynn was told that Open Markets would have to separate from New America a couple days later.

New America released two of the three emails in this chain: Slaughter’s recap of the June 29 conversation informing Lynn that New America and Open Markets would part ways, and a later email where Slaughter says, “I am disappointed in your response below, as I made clear repeatedly that I am absolutely not deciding that we must part ways based on any response from Google.” Lynn’s side of the conversation was not included in New America’s email release.

In that response, Lynn took issue with Slaughter’s characterization. He accepted the attempt to work toward a swift resolution and reiterated his affection for New America and Slaughter herself. But he disagreed that he had acted in any unprofessional manner during his tenure. And he states very explicitly his understanding of the June 29 conversation, that Google’s response to the press release about the EU fine was why Open Markets had to be cast off. Slaughter denies this in her follow-up email, saying that the issue was Lynn’s behavior, which “has been troubling to myself and your colleagues for over a year.”

There is certainly a he said/she said element to these emails. Slaughter thinks Lynn wasn’t sensitive enough to giving notice internally about his team’s practices; Lynn thinks that the content of his work, not the communication of it, was the problem. Without more context it’s hard to say much definitively. But the additional emails from Lynn do not show someone dismissive of his colleagues or the tricky situation at New America. And though Slaughter protests that Google’s influence played no role in the firing, New America’s funding from the tech giant hangs over the entire set of exchanges.

“The emails clearly show the influence that Google wields over New America’s operations,” stated the Open Markets team in a statement provided to The Intercept. “What Google did in pressuring New America to suppress the work of reporters and researchers who have directly criticized how Google wields its power is common among think tanks in D.C. It is why Louis Brandeis warned tirelessly of the political dangers posed by concentrations of power. The only unusual aspect of this particular situation is that Google got caught.” (New America and Slaughter did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)

Just this week, Google said they would comply with the EU’s request to change its shopping search so it no longer discriminates against rivals.

Correction: Aug. 31, 9:18 p.m.

Due to an editing error, this story originally misidentified Molinari’s party affiliation. She is a former Republican congressperson.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

DOWN THE 'TUBE

YouTube accused of CENSORSHIP over controversial new bid to ‘limit’ access to videos


 


YOUTUBE has been accused of censorship after introducing a controversial new policy designed to reduce the audience for videos deemed to be "inappropriate or offensive to some audiences".

The Google-owned video site is now putting videos into a "limited state" if they are deemed controversial enough to be considered objectionable, but not hateful, pornographic or violent enough to be banned altogether.

YouTube is by far the world's largest video publishing platform and streams one billion hours of footage every day

This policy was announced several months ago but has come into force in the past week, prompting anger among members of the YouTube community.

The Sun Online understands Google and YouTube staff refer to the tactic as "tougher treatment."

One prominent video-maker slammed the new scheme whilst WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange described the measures as "economic censorship".

However, YouTube sees it as a way of maintaining freedom of speech and allowing discussion of controversial issues without resorting to the wholesale banning of videos.

Videos which are put into a limited state cannot be embedded on other websites.

They also cannot be easily published on social media using the usual share buttons and other users cannot comment on them.

This is the screen users are shown when they click on a video that has been 'limited'


Crucially, the person who made the video will no longer receive any payment.

Earlier this week, Julian Assange wrote: "'Controversial' but contract-legal videos [which break YouTube's terms and conditions] cannot be liked, embedded or earn [money from advertising revenue].

"What's interesting about the new method deployed is that it is a clear attempt at social engineering. It isn't just turning off the ads.

"It's turning off the comments, embeds, etc too.

"Everything possible to strangle the reach without deleting it

Criticism of YouTube's policies is most acute among people on the right of the political spectrum, who fear that Silicon Valley is dominated by the left and determined to silence opposing voices - a claim denied by tech giants like Facebook and Google.

The new YouTube rules were highlighted this week by Paul Joseph Watson, a globally famous British right wing YouTuber and editor-at-large of Infowars, who spoke out after saying a guest on his online show had one of her videos removed after the appearance.

The black female YouTuber, who uses the name RedPillBlack, made a video entitled "WTF? Black Lives Matter Has A List of Demands for White People!" in response to a member of the activist's group calls for white people to "give up the home you own to a black or brown family".

The video was part of a series which features an offensive racial term in its name, which we have decided not to publish, and criticises the BLM member's statement point by point.

We watched her video and whilst it's clear that many people might disagree with the political point she is making, the actual video did not appear to be offensive or gratuitous.

"Some people might watch the video and think I'm speaking out against black people," she said in the video.

"But what I'm doing here is speaking up for black people."

The video was allegedly banned but later reinstated following a series of tweets from Watson, which you can see below.

On Twitter, the vlogger RedPillBlack wrote: "What does it mean when a company owned by rich white ppl begins censoring black people? Is this the white nationalism I should be scared of?"

She added: "They said it was for harassment and bullying. I literally just read the girl's list [of demands] out loud."

Reddit users are now building a record of all the videos which have been put into a limited state.

Many of the videos have clearly offensive.

Others discuss controversial, contested and highly inflammatory scientific theories about the link between race and intelligence.

Nazi videos featured heavily on the current list, with Hitler's speeches and even the Nazi national anthem being limited.

But amongst material that is clearly shocking and likely to cause grave offence are videos which discuss political issues such as the migrant crisis using non-extreme language.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Here's Why "People Are So Afraid Of Google Now"


By Tyler Durden
ZeroHedge.com

Google, pardon Alphabet's efforts to influence the American political discourse (not to mention presidential election outcome) stretch far beyond the company’s penchant for subtly disadvantaging independent and conservative thinkers on platforms like YouTube. By financially supporting left-leaning policy shops, Google’s parent company has helped raise a liberal army intent on hashing out policy minutiae to help bend US policy to their benefactors’ advantage.

But what happens when these supposedly “independent” think tanks publish something that displeases their corporate master? As one researcher at the left-leaning New America think tank learned, the punishment is swift and severe.

Barry Lynn, formerly a top researcher at New America, learned that lesson the hard way after publishing a paper praising European Union antitrust regulators for fining Google nearly $3 billion for purportedly rigging its search algorithm to favor its own services over its rivals.

According to the New York Times, the New America Foundation has received more than $21 million in funding from Google, Alphabet Chairman Eric Schmidt and his family’s foundation since the think tank was first established in 1999. The money helped establish New America as an “elite voice” in policy debates on the American left.

“But not long after one of New America’s scholars posted a statement on the think tank’s website praising the European Union’s penalty against Google, Mr. Schmidt, who had been chairman of New America until 2016, communicated his displeasure with the statement to the group’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to the scholar.”

Slaughter, a close ally of the Clintons who’s best known for her 2012 Atlantic Cover Story “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” quickly caved.

The statement disappeared from new America’s website, only to be reposted without explanation a few hours later. But word of Mr. Schmidt’s displeasure quickly rippled  through New America, which employs more than 200 people, including dozens of researchers, writers and scholars, most of whom work in sleek Washington officers where the main conference room is called the “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab. The episode left some people concerned that Google intended to discontinue funding, while others worried whether the think tank could truly be independent if it had to worry about offending its donors.”

The answer to that last question, as employees of New America quickly learned, is, obviously, no, it can't. A few days after the incident Slaughter summoned to Lynn to her office, where she summarily dismissed him – along with 10 of his underlings.

“Those worries seemed to be substantiated a couple of days later, when Ms. Slaughter summoned the scholar who wrote the critical statement, Barry Lynn, to her office. He ran a New America initiative called Open Markets that has led a growing chorus of liberal criticism of the market dominance of telecom and tech giants, including Google, which is now part of a large corporate entity known as Alphabet, for which Mr. Schmidt serves as executive charman.

Ms. Slaughter told Mr. Lynn that ‘the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways,’ according to emails from Ms. Slaughter to Mr. Lynn. The email suggested that the entire Open Markets team – nearly 10 full-time employees and unpaid fellows – would be exiled from New America."

While she asserted in the email, which was reviewed by The New York Times, that the decision was ‘in no way based on the content of your work,’ Ms. Slaughter accused Mr. Lynn of ‘imperiling the institution as a whole.’”

Lynn, who eventually shared his story with the NYT, blasted Google’s aggressive tactics, which the company has denied through its communications machine.

And the punchline, which also serves as the title for this post: "Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around Washington and Brussels, and then pulling the strings.” said Lynn. “People are so afraid of Google now.

In a series of statements published on Twitter, Slaughter and New America slammed the NYT’s story as “absolutely false.”

In a separate email sent last year, Slaughter castigated Lynn for organizing a conference where he intended to criticize tech companies’ hegemonic influence.

“We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points,” Ms. Slaughter wrote in an email to Mr. Lynn, urging him to ‘just THINK about how you are imperiling funding for others.’”  

Slaughter is now reportedly helping the Open Markets team secure financing for a new, separate nonprofit entity. However, no money will be forthcoming from Google.

Google spent more than $9.5 million on lobbying during the first half of 2017, more than almost any other company. It has helped organize conferences at which key regulators overseeing investigations into the company were presented with pro-Google arguments, sometimes without disclosure of Google’s role in funding NA, according to the NYT.

The company has also donated to more than 170 groups from across the political spectrum, according to voluntary disclosures on its website.

What was that about “don’t be evil”?

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Monsanto's lawyers forgot to ask a court to suppress damning evidence about cancer and corrupt science


BoingBoing

Monsanto is facing over 100 lawsuits in a Federal district court in San Francisco brought by people who attribute their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to exposure to glyphosate in Monsanto's Roundup weed-killer, and as part of the discovery process, it submitted internal documents to the court that detailed shenanigans in the company's internal science and its dealings with regulators and the press.

Then Monsanto's lawyers neglected to a motion seeking continued protection of the confidential documents, believing that a "a standing confidentiality order" was in place, something that the plaintiff's lawyers disagree with, which is why they released a huge tranche of damning memos.

Included in the dump are memos showing that EPA regulators had a back-channel to Monsanto through which the company was kept informed of upcoming bad publicity so they could get ahead of the press cycle with prepared PR blitzes; email chains in which Monsanto executives said that it was inappropriate to describe Roundup as non-carcinogenic; email chains from Monsanto scientists declining to publish corporate findings under their own name, on the grounds that this would be "ghost writing" and "unethical"; and evidence that an outside scientist who advocates for GMOs published editorials that were ghost-written by Monsanto's employees.

Monsanto says that the opposition lawyers "cherry-picked" the evidence that they published and that "the substance and the science are not affected" by the documents.   

The documents also show that a debate outside Monsanto about the relative safety of glyphosate and Roundup, which contains other chemicals, was also taking place within the company.

In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”

In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”

She adds, however, that “we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”

 

Monsanto Emails Raise Issue of Influencing Research on Roundup Weed Killer [Danny Hakim/New York Times]

Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents [Danny Hakim/New York Times]

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Government - THE Largest Special Interest Group!


We all know special interest lobbying is a huge problem in our government.  This video presents some enlightening information about the fact that the influence of special interests reach far beyond lobbying.  It also has a profound influence on the way we vote.  The growth of government/military and the jobs that go along with it has millions of people voting to perpetuate an out-of-control government simply to protect their jobs. 

Pretty much everything in this world is driven by self-interests.  Even the charitable things we do are driven by a self-interested desire to be to be a better person, one that isn't always doing things for material gain.   When you realize the enormous number of people employed by government and those on government assistance, you realize we are in a vicious self-sustaining cycle where it's increasingly difficult to reign in an out-of-control government because so many are dependent of it being that way.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: The Corporation


This is the video the inspired the birth of the Kick Them All Out Project.  After watching this film the founder, Bruce McDonald, was so disturbed by what corporations have been allowed to do he felt he had to try and do something to stop their abuses. 

This incredibly unsettling film explores the entire history of corporations and how they've been allowed to virtually take over just about everything, from our values, to our educational system and even our government.  This film is what launched the Kick Them All Out Project.  The information in this film is an absolute must for your education.  If you truly want to be informed about why the world is as it is, you must watch this film!  It's 3 hours, but I guarantee it will be worth the investment of your time.

 

Please support the filmmakers by making a donation at:

TheCorporation.com
 
 
 


 
 

 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)
Please Support Us With A Purchase


Global Healing Center? is a leading natural health provider offering natural and organic supplements, cleanses, and a wealth of free natural health articles.

Please Make A One Time Donation
You can send a check
or money order to:
The KTAO Project
P.O. Box 1086
Crestone, CO 81131
or donate online:
Or Better Yet Become A Supporting Member
Sponsors
We have no control over
what ads google displays


Upcoming Events
There are no upcoming events
Debt Is Destroying Our Economy


National Debt Clock


Most people don't know the Federal Reserve is not a government entity. It's no more Federal than Federal Express. It's owned and controlled by the largest private banks. They are using their control of the Fed to destroy the dollar, our economy and wipe out the middle class so they can replace it with a system and currency they have even MORE control of. If we don't shut down the bankers, the Federal Reserve, this nation is history! The Congress can REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT and return control over our currency to "We The People." We have to take back control of Congress and DEMAND THIS HAPPEN in the upcoming election!

Worthy of Support










Who's Online
Guest Users: 223

Stats
1882 Pages Viewed
513 Unique Visits
Help Us Go Viral!


We no longer have the
luxury of time.







Who's Online
Guest Users: 224
Latest Videos
My Account
Please Support Us With A Purchase


Global Healing Center? is a leading natural health provider offering natural and organic supplements, cleanses, and a wealth of free natural health articles.

Global Healing Center? is a leading natural health provider offering natural and organic supplements, cleanses, and a wealth of free natural health articles.