McCain Declines Secret Service

Sorry right now I’m to busy to complete my latest blog called “The Elites Cult of Death” but its coming soon and in the mean time enjoy this Hilarius McCain video from the Onion.

 

MICHAEL MOORE IS A FRAUD!

LOOSE CHANGE FINAL CUT

The Magic Bullet

 The following is an excerpt from a book I highly recommend called “The JFK Assassination Debate:Lone Gunman versus Conspiracy.”by Prof.Michael L. Kurtz,published in 2006 by University Press of Kansas along with my own commentary.If this topic interests you but you don’t wont a long winded book and you wont the anylasis to be fare then please pick this up.

“One of the most critical pieces of evidence in the entire Kennedy assassination case,the bullet the warren commission called bullet 399,also found its evidentiary value destroyed by haphazard,careless,and neglectful handling. This was the bullet (supposedly) fired from Oswalds rifle that the commission claimed entred the back of JFKs neck,exited from the front of his throat,then entered Goevernor Conallys(The man directly in front of the president in the motorcade.)back,passed through his chest,exiting just below his right nipple,then entered the underside of his right wrist and exited from the top of it,and finally lodged in his left thigh…”

The strange discovery of Bullet 399 however made it unlikely that is had anything to do with the actual assassination  though the warren commission choose to believe it was the bullet that killed Kennedy.

(At the Hospital) “Darrell Tomlinson,a senior hospital engineer,got on the elevator and wheeled the now empty gurney Gov.Conally had been lay on into a corridor on the ground floor and placed it next to another gurney that had nothing to do with the assassination.The first gurney blocked the mens restroom.About 45 minutes later,Tomlinson, accompanied by his friend ,Nathan Pool, returned to the ground-floor corridor and noticed that the original gurney,not Conallys,was blocking the corridor because someone had used the mens room and had failed to return the gurney to its original position. When Tomlinson pushed that gurney back against the wall ,he and Pool noticed that a bullet,which had apparently been lodged under the mat,rolled out.”

That is literally how the bullet was found.And immediately after he informed the Secret Service Agent guarding JFKs body he was told to pick it up. He got O.P. Wright,the hospital security director to do it and that man took it to Agent Richard Johnsen who mearly put it in his pocket. No photograph of the exact spot it was found was taken,No one signed there initials on it,no one even though to pick it up with a handkerchief all standard practises in murder investigations of the time.

After several layers of people handling and miss-handling the missile it was used in the warren commission as evidence.That is if bullet 399 was even the original bullet found by Tomlinson.Agent Richard Johnsen and Secret service Director James Rowley,both of whom handled and observed the stretcher bullet,refused to identify bullet 399 as the one they turned over to the FBI.Even if they had it wouldint have mattered though since Tomlinson believed he had found the bullet on the other gurney not Conallys.

“Nevertheless, Warren Commission junior counsel Arlen Spector concluded that the bullet came from Governor Conallys stretcher. In his questioning of Darell Tomlinson ,Spector convinced the hospital engineer to admit the possibility that he found the bullet on Conallys strecher,even though Tomlinson originally believed that he had discovered it on the other gurney, one that had no connection to the assassination. In sharp prosecutorial tones, Specter interrogated Tomlinson almost as if he were a hostile witness,because Tomlinson’s original scenario had the bullet discovered on a gurney that had nothing to do with either President Kennedy or Governor Conally.This,of course, would have inevitably raised the possibility of the bullets having been planted,thereby demonstrating the existence of a conspiracy.”

After that Tomlinson spoke publicly about bullet 399 twice more and both times said he found it on the Gurney that had nothing to do with the assassination.

Now there is loads of things I could add for example how did bullet 399 change direction in mid-air and hit Governor Conally but I think the strange discovery and mishandling of the bullet alone is enough to convince most that there was indeed a Conspiracy.  Id like to add that Arlan Specter ,who is now a senator, almost single hadedly created the Magic bullet theory and had a great deal to do with the cover up.If you would like to “thank” him feel free to contact him using the information below:

Website: specter.senate.gov

 

Washington, D.C. Office:

711 Hart Senate Office Building SH-711
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20510-3802
Phone: (202) 224-4254
Fax: (202) 228-1229

 

Philadelphia Office: (more district offices) 

600 Arch St., #9400
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Phone: (215) 597-7200
Fax: (215) 597-0406

WeAreChange confronts Arlen Specter and asks about the Kennedy Assassination and the Magic Bullet among other things:

This is a little video I made about Pandemics…

David Icke entry from Uncyclopedia

David Icke

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search

The reader should be aware that this article is not, and may never be, as funny as the truth. Still, we have time on our hands. See this article on Wikipedia.

FNORD! This article is too close to the TRUTH! Citizens should begin to feel uneasy now, otherwise report for therapy. See more about Fnord.

David Godzilla Icke, to whom evidence is nothing more than a foreign word, is a well respected former footballer, member of the Green Party, philosopher and award-winning stunt skateboarder whose widely-accepted theories have enlightened mankind to throw off the shackles placed on us by our shapeshifting reptilian overlords. It is noted that his name, appearance and beliefs bear more than a passing resemblance to David Duke. Also a closet Joo.

David Icke should not be confused with The Real David Icke.

What David Icke really does look like? – Nobody knows. Maybe he doesn’t exist.

Contents [hide] 1 The Man: The Genius, The Schmenius, The Shitfaced Cockamaster 1.1 Biography 1.2 The Beliefs 1.3 The Problem 1.4 The Reaction 1.5 The Final Solution 2 Books 3 Music 4 Videos 5 Further reading on reptilians

[edit] The Man: The Genius, The Schmenius, The Shitfaced Cockamaster

[edit] Biography

David Icke. What must be said, what can be omitted?

Born at 6:15 PM on April 29th, 1952, in Leicester, England. Desperately poor, quit school to become a soccer player. Washed out of soccer due to frailty, sexual inadequacy and inability to take the ‘punishment’. Blames it on bad knees. “Mad Davey” as he is affectionately known to fans, then embarked on a serries of careers: tv presenter, politician, green hippy, author, model for turquoise clothes, laughing stock and eventually new age guru.

• Father: fake moustache salesman, not very successful. A self-hating half reptile in denial.
• Mother: only lesbian walrus in Leicester to become pregnant without a turkey baster. Also, his father’s niece.
• Twin brother: eaten alive by David before birth.

What cannot be left unsaid about David Icke?

---

Prophet Icke channeling a Higher Power. (Bad image, will try to upload again later–OEJ.)

His own words: “As I looked at the mound, a voice in my head began to say: ‘Come to me, come to me, come to me.'”

More of it: “Only by breaking free from the shackles of {sanity} could I now be going around the world talking about shape-shifting reptilians occupying the positions of global power.”

Monumentally abused: “I have taken 20 years of monumental abuse and misrepresentation on a scale that few have ever experienced. So what is said about me by anonymous goons on websites is like a fly on an elephant’s back – irrelevant to me. But if others who are targets of this vicious abuse want to take legal action in response, that is entirely up to them.”

Voices in the head, mistaken for reality and then mixed into a dreadful skakny porridge of calumny, slander, and fruitcakery.

[edit] The Beliefs

David Icke has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a silver Illuminati pyramid lodged in his small intestine, just above his kidneys. David Icke believes that Prince Charles is an iguana. David Icke believes that he himself is the Cosmic Diamond of Truth. David Icke believes in monatomic gold. David Icke believes in crystal power, astrology, and eating the anal glands of civet cats for good health. David Icke believes that Mr T pities the fool.

According to his insanity majesty-of-conspiracy, Illuminati is a mainstay of reptilians from some planet or star or something called XinsenzilliamilliaBob. Oh, we’re really sorry, Uncyclopedia mistook that name with the one the SIBology guys talk about. He actually names the place they’re from as “Sirius 6 in the Aformsa galaxy.” Anyway, Icke believes that Illuminati doesn’t yet own the entire world, only the small software company, Opera. He maintains that Opera plans on terrorising Microsoft with hydrogen bombs as well as Opera singing until it succumbs and gives away the source code to Windows as well as all rights to the most-crashing OS, so Opera can take over the IT world and extort all non-Macintosh offices for billions of dollars. After this, Illuminati intends to reinstall the Y2K bug for all computers, even the thousand Apple Macs in the world, and change the bug so it implodes computers on December 21, 2012. Icke says the machines will actually explode and reduce the worlds population to 533 million people. The insidious plans then proceeds to kick off the New World Order where reptilians will be slaves for the poor, and crocodiles will be hunted again as Steve Irwin is resurrected and becomes the figurehead of the New World Religion.

Socrates once asked Agathon, “Since you produce crap, does that make you an asshole?”

Agathon answered, “We are like apple trees that drop turds instead of apples.”

David Icke believes that if he can produce enough crap he will be rich. Richer. Richest.
Icke claims vindication for his views from a number of indisputable facts:

• That the royal family, George Bush, the Rothschild family and other wealthy people he claims are evil slobbering shapeshifting reptiles have not come forward for blood tests. He claims that Prince Charles uses his large ears as a communication device to communicate with his reptillian brethren on Sirius 6 in the Aformsa glaxy.

• That no-one has tried to debunk Icke’s well-researched claims.

• That everyone richer than he is an evil sex-obsessed reptile, hence being able to keep the public under their spell.

David Icke believes that all who do not believe in him and his message of “Infinite Love” are as follows:

• “I couldn’t care less what they say because they are a bunch of irrelevant, self-indulgent navel-contemplators who are doing the Illuminati’s job for them by seeking to undermine any researcher who commits the crime of actually getting the information out to the mainstream public.”

• “They are just cowards who hide behind log-in names to spew out their hatreds from their gutless anonymity. They have balls the size of processed peas and the word pathetic does not even begin to suffice.”

• “Why should I, or anyone else, care what such people say about me or anyone? They are utterly irrelevant and they have made themselves so by their child-like and gutless behaviour.”

David Icke also believes that:

• “I have already done more to inform the public worldwide, and change lives for the better, than most people will do if they live to be a thousand.”

[edit] The Problem

The problem is, you can hardly write a proper Uncyclopedia article about David Icke. He is already too preposterous.

The problem is David Icke and he is not the reaction. But someone, maybe David Icke, always goes on about Problem-Reaction-Solution. In reality, that is codespeak for the abbreviation PRS, which stands for Painful Rectal Syndrome. First, something becomes painful, then an ass or in the rectum, the painfulness reacts to create a syndrome, which you can complain about for the rest of your life until you become an old fart.

The problem: David Icke is clearly mad.

[edit] The Reaction

The reaction that David Icke found out about, is that O sometimes meets two H’s and in a bout of *censored* polygamist action creates the horrible substance H₂O, which is a conspiracy by the Illuminati to make us all soft and mushy if the substance enters our live bodies. This is unless the reality of the theories of Masaru Emoto is applied to the H₂O so it turns towards the positive vibrations of Love. In its initial state, H₂O is negative by the godly powers of the Illuminati.

The Reaction: Only equally mental people entertain David Icke’s psychosis, the others just think that he’s mad.

[edit] The Final Solution

Someday, someone will pull David Icke’s finger. And with a sound like two cheeks clapping he will deflate, leaving only a faint odour of bullshit hanging around the edges of the paranormal huckster scene.

There are impressive, interesting frauds, and there are pathetic frauds. Somewhere, Aleister Crowley is laughing his arse off.

The Solution: Ignore David Icke’s madness or you may become mad, too.

[edit] Books

• Fruitcakes and other assorted tea-time fancies. (2008)
• The David Icke Guide To Life, The Universe and Everything(2007)
• Godzilla is alright with me: The Lizards We CAN Trust! (2006)
• Infinite Truth Is the Only Love: Every Illusion is something Else (2005)
• Tales from the infinite Time Loop: The Most Comprehensive Expose of the Global Conspiracy Ever Written (until I write a better one)(2003)
• Bin Laden in Wonderland (2002)
• Children of The Matrix (2001)
• So – You Think You’re Reptilain? (2001)
• Big ears and no soul: Prince Charles and the Reptillian Endgame (2000)
• Maybe your boss has scales (2000)
• My Biggest Secret: That Time In The Elevator… It Was Me Who Farted (1999)
• Oh My God! My Parents Are Lizards! (1998)
• Reptiles Ate My Baby (1997)
• And the Truth Shall Cost A Fee (1996)
• OMG It’s Like Everyone In Teh World Is A Robot Except Me!!1 (1992)
• It doesn’t have to pee like this (1990)
• My completely normal autobiography about me. (No Lizards involved) (1989)

[edit] Music

• Any bitchpunk with scales I’m sure to impale (2003, HipHop collaboration with 50 cent)
• Fo Shizzle My Nizzle that Reptizzle had Scizzles, it owned the Bizzle and Contrizzled the Wizzle (2002, HipHop collaboraration with Ludicris and Nas.)

[edit] Videos

• The Reptilian – A Gender Bender (2004)
• David Icke – Secrets of The Matrix (Parts 1 -3)
• David Icke: The Female Toad (2004)
• David Icke: Darkness at the edge of town (2002)
• David Icke: Revelations of Mother Goose (2001)
• David Icke feat. Ozzy Osbourne, Live in Vancouver: From Prison to Paranoid

All released by Illuminati Productions

DAVID ICKE JUST WONTS YOUR MONEY.

ALEX JONES IN WAKING LIFE

Learn all the Myths about Marijuana;the near harmless plant the Government loves to hate.

Myth: Marijuana is a Dangerous Drug Any discussion of marijuana should begin with the fact that there have been numerous official reports and studies, every one of which has concluded that marijuana poses no great risk to society and should not be criminalized. These include: the National Academy of Sciences’ “Analysis of Marijuana Policy”(1982); the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (the Shafer Report) (1973); the Canadian Government’s Commission of Inquiry (Le Dain Report) (1970); the British Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency (Wooton Report) (1968); the La Guardia Report (1944); the Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (1916-29); and Britain’s monumental Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1893-4). It is sometimes claimed that there is “new evidence” showing marijuana is more harmful than was thought in the sixties. In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana’s safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems. The current consensus is well stated in the 20th annual report of the California Research Advisory Panel (1990), which recommended that personal use and cultivation of marijuana be legalized: “An objective consideration of marijuana shows that it is responsible for less damage to society and the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes.” References: The National Academy of Sciences report, “Marijuana and Health” (National Academy Press, 1982), remains the most useful overview of the health effects of marijuana, its major conclusions remaining largely unaffected by the last 10 years of research. Lovinger and Jones, The Marihuana Question (Dodd, Mead & Co., NY 1985), is the most exhaustive and fair-handed summary of the evidence against marijuana. Good, positive perspectives may be found in Lester Grinspoon’s Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine (Yale Press, 1993) and Marihuana Reconsidered (Harvard U. Press 1971), which debunks many of the older anti-pot myths. See also Leo Hollister, “Health Aspects of Cannabis,” Pharmacological Reviews 38:1-20 (1986).   Myth: Marijuana is Harmless Just as most experts agree that occasional or moderate use of marijuana is innocuous, they also agree that excessive use can be harmful. Research shows that the two major risks of excessive marijuana use are: (1) respiratory disease due to smoking and (2) accidental injuries due to impairment. Marijuana and Smoking: A recent survey by the Kaiser Permanente Center found that daily marijuana-only smokers have a 19% higher rate of respiratory complaints than non-smokers.1 These findings were not surprising, since it has long been known that, aside from its psychoactive ingredients, marijuana smoke contains virtually the same toxic gases and carcinogenic tars as tobacco. Human studies have found that pot smokers suffer similar kinds of respiratory damage as tobacco smokers, putting them at greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat, respiratory inflammation and infections.2 Although there has not been enough epidemiological work to settle the matter definitively, it is widely suspected that marijuana smoking causes cancer. Studies have found apparently pre-cancerous cell changes in pot smokers.3 Some cancer specialists have reported a higher-than-expected incidence of throat, neck and tongue cancer in younger, marijuana-only smokers.4 A couple of cases have been fatal. While it has not been conclusively proven that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer, the evidence is highly suggestive. According to Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, the leading expert on marijuana smoking:5 “Although more information is certainly needed, sufficient data have already been accumulated concerning the health effects of marijuana to warrant counseling by physicians against the smoking of marijuana as an important hazard to health.” Fortunately, the hazards of marijuana smoking can be reduced by various strategies: (1) use of higher-potency cannabis, which can be smoked in smaller quantities, (2) use of waterpipes and other smoke reduction technologies6, and (3) ingesting pot orally instead of smoking it. Footnotes 1. Michael R. Polen et al. “Health Care Use by Frequent Marijuana Smokers Who Do Not Smoke Tobacco,” Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 596-601 (June 1993). 2. Donald Tashkin, “Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health?” Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 635-7 (June 1993). 3. D. Tashkin et al, “Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung,” in Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, NIDA Research Monograph 99 (1990). 4. Paul Donald, “Advanced malignancy in the young marijuana smoker,” Adv Exp Med Biol 288:33-56 (1991); FM Taylor, “Marijuana as a potential respiratory tract carcinogen,” South Med Journal 81:1213-6 (1988). 5. D. Tashkin, “Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health,?” op. cit. 6. Nicholas Cozzi, “Effects of Water Filtration on Marijuana Smoke: A Literature Review,” MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) newsletter, Vol. IV #2 (1993) (Reprints available from MAPS and Cal. NORML).   Myth: One Joint Equals One Pack (or 16, or maybe just 4) Cigarettes Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a “mild but significant” increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day.1 What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes. A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked.2 This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as 0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways.3 One consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema. Footnotes 1. D. Tashkin, “Respiratory Status of 74 Habitual Marijuana Smokers,” Chest 78 #5: 699-706 (Nov. 1980). 2. T-C. Wu, D. Tashkin, B. Djahed and J.E. Rose, “Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco,” New England Journal of Medicine 318: 347-51 (1988). 3. Donald Tashkin et al, “Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung,” loc.cit.   Myth: Prohibition Reduces the Harmfulness of Pot Smoking Whatever the risks of pot smoking, the current laws make matters worse in several respects: (1) Paraphernalia laws have impeded the development and marketing of water pipes and other, more advanced technology that could significantly reduce the harmfulness of marijuana smoke. (2) Prohibition encourages the sale of pot that has been contaminated or adulterated by insecticides, Paraquat, etc., or mixed with other drugs such as PCP, crack and heroin. (3) By raising the price of marijuana, prohibition makes it uneconomical to consume marijuana orally, the best way to avoid smoke exposure altogether; this is because eating typically requires two or three times as much marijuana as smoking. Unlike the government, NORML is interested in reducing the dangers of pot smoking; California NORML and MAPS (the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) are currently researching the use of waterpipes and other advanced smoke reduction technology. References on Marijuana and Smoking: Donald Tashkin, “Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health?”, Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 635-7; June 1993; Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, ed. C. Nora Chiang and Richard L. Hawks, NIDA Research Monograph 99 (National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD 1990); NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report,op. cit.; California NORML, “Health Tips for Marijuana Smokers.”   Myth: No One Has Ever Died From Using Marijuana The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk of injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant, though not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts. That pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and coordination at complex tasks including driving.1 There have been numerous reports of pot-related accidents — some of them fatal, belying the attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of 1023 emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.2 This is perhaps the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive effects of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school work, and productivity. Footnotes 1. Herbert Moskowitz, “Marihuana and Driving,” Accident Analysis and Prevention 17#4: 323-45 (1985). 2. Carl Soderstrom et al., “Marijuana and Alcohol Use Among 1023 Trauma Patients,” Archives of Surgery, 123: 733-7 (1988).   Myth: Marijuana is a Major Road Safety Hazard A growing body of research indicates that marijuana is on balance less of a road hazard than alcohol. Various surveys have found that half or more of fatal drivers have alcohol in their blood, as opposed to 7 – 20% with THC, the major psychoactive component of marijuana (a condition usually indicative of having smoked within the past 2-4 hours).1 The same studies show that some 70% – 90% of those who are THC-positive also have alcohol in their blood. It therefore appears that marijuana by itself is a minor road safety hazard, though the combination of pot and alcohol is not. Some research has even suggested that low doses of marijuana may sometimes improve driving performance, though this is probably not true in most cases.2 Two major new studies by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration have confirmed marijuana’s relative safety compared with alcohol. The first, the most comprehensive drug accident study to date, surveyed blood samples from 1882 drivers killed in car, truck and motorcycle accidents in seven states during 1990-91.3 Alcohol was found in 51.5% of specimens, as against 17.8% for all other drugs combined. Marijuana, the second most common drug, appeared in just 6.7%. Two-thirds of the marijuana-using drivers also had alcohol. The report concluded that alcohol was by far the “dominant” drug-related problem in accidents. It went on to analyze the responsibility of drivers for the accidents they were involved in. It found that drivers who used alcohol were especially culpable in fatal accidents, and even more so when they combined it with marijuana or other drugs. However, those who used marijuana alone appeared to be if anything less culpable than non-drug users (though the date were insufficient to be statistically conclusive). The report concluded, “There was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents.” (It must be emphasized that this is not the case when marijuana is combined with alcohol or other drugs). The second NHTSA study, “Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance,” concluded that the adverse effects of cannabis on driving appear “relatively small” and are less than those of drunken driving.4 The study, conducted in the Netherlands, examined the performance of drivers in actual freeway and urban driving situations at various doses of marijuana. It found that marijuana produces a moderate, dose-related decrement in road tracking ability, but is “not profoundly impairing” and “in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs.” It found that marijuana’s effects at the higher doses preferred by smokers never exceed those of alcohol at blood concentrations of .08%, the minimum level for legal intoxication in stricter states such as California. The study found that unlike alcohol, which encourages risky driving, marijuana appears to produce greater caution, apparently because users are more aware of their state and able to compensate for it (similar results have been reported by other researchers as well5) It should be noted that these results may not apply to non-driving related situations, where forgetfulness or inattention can be more important than speed (this might explain the discrepancy in the Baltimore hospital study, which looked at accidents of all kinds). The NHTSA study also warned that marijuana could also be quite dangerous in emergency situations that put high demands on driving skills. Footnotes 1. Dale Gieringer, “Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety,” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan-Mar 1988). 2. H. Klonoff, “Marijuana and driving in real-life situations,” Science 186: 317-24 (1974). 3. K.W. Terhune et al., “The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers,” NHTSA Report # DOT-HS-808-065 (1994). 4. Hendrik Robbe and James O’Hanlon, “Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance,” NHTSA Report #DOT-HS-808-078 (1994). 5. Klonoff, loc. cit.; A. Smiley, “Marijuana: On-road and driving simulator studies,” Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews 2#3-4: 15-30 (1986).   Myth: Marijuana Prohibition Improves Public Safety There is no evidence that the prohibition of marijuana reduces the net social risk of accidents. On the contrary, recent studies suggest that marijuana may actually be beneficial in that it substitutes for alcohol and other, more dangerous drugs. Research by Karyn Model found that states with marijuana decriminalization had lower overall drug abuse rates than others; another study by Frank Chaloupka found decriminalization states have lower accident rates too.1 In Alaska, accident rates held constant or declined following the legalization of personal use of marijuana.2 In Holland, authorities believe that cannabis has contributed to an overall decline in opiate abuse. Recent U.S. government statistics show that the highest rates of cocaine abuse in the West were in Nevada and Arizona, the states with the toughest marijuana laws. Footnotes 1. Peter Passell, “Less Marijuana, More Alcohol?” New York Times June 17, 1992. 2. Michael Dunham, “When the Smoke Clears,” Reason March 1983 pp.33-6.     Myth: Drug Urinalysis Improves Workplace Safety There has never been a single, controlled scientific study showing drug urinalysis improves workplace safety. Claims that drug testing works are based on dubious anecdotal reports or the mere observation of a declining rate of drug positives in the working population, which has nothing to do with job performance. Such scientific studies as have been conducted have found little difference between the performance of drug-urine-positive workers and others. The largest survey to date, covering 4,396 postal workers nationwide, found no difference in accident records between workers who tested positive on pre-employment drug screens and those who did not.1 The study did find that drug-positive workers had a 50% higher rate of absenteeism and dismissals; put another way, however, drug users had a 93.4% attendance record (versus 95.8% for non-users) and fully 85% kept their jobs for a year (versus 89.5% for non-users). An economic analysis of postal workers in Boston concluded that the net savings of drug testing were marginal, and that there could be many situations where it is not cost-effective.2 Another survey of health workers in Georgia found no difference in job performance between drug-positive and drug-negative workers.3 Footnotes 1. Norman, Salyard and Mahoney, “An Evaluation of Preemployment Drug Testing,” Journal of Applied Psychology 75(6) 629-39 (1990). 2. Zwerling, Ryan and Orav, “Costs and Benefits of Preemployment Drug Screening,” JAMA 267(1): 91-3 (1992). 3. David Charles Parish, “Relation of the Pre-employment Drug Testing Result to Employment Status: A One-year Follow-up,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 4:44-7 (1989).   Myth: Random Urinalysis is Needed in Safety-Sensitive Transportation Jobs Government rules mandating random drug testing were promulgated without any prior statistical evidence that illicit drugs constituted an inordinate safety hazard. Not a single commercial passenger airline accident has ever been attributed to marijuana (or, for that matter, alcohol) abuse.1 Drug tests on rail workers found no elevated incidence of drug use among workers involved in accidents.2 Random drug testing of transportation workers was enacted as a hysterical reaction to a single 1987 train collision, in which 16 Amtrak passengers were killed by a Conrail train that failed to stop. The engineer and brakeman of the Conrail train at fault were found to have recently smoked marijuana, though it was never firmly proven that marijuana caused the accident. The Conrail engineer had an extensive record of speeding and drunken driving offenses and was known by management to have drinking problems. Critical safety equipment that would have averted the accident was missing or disabled. A subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that Conrail improve both its management and equipment, but did not recommend random testing. Nonetheless, Congress responded by mandating random drug testing on the entire transportation industry, from airline flight attendants to gas pipeline workers. Footnotes 1. Dale Gieringer, “Urinalysis or Uromancy?” in Strategies for Change: New Directions in Drug Policy (Drug Policy Foundation, 1992); testimony of R.B. Stone in Hearings on the Airline and Rail Service Protection Act of 1987, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Feb. 20, 1987. 2. Gieringer, op. cit.; statistics reported in Federal Register Vol. 53 #224, Nov. 21, 1988 p. 47104. Myth: A Single Joint Has Effects That Linger for Days and Weeks [28] While it is true that THC and other cannabinoids are fat-soluble and linger in the body for prolonged periods, they do not normally affect behavior beyond a few hours except in chronic users. Most impairment studies have found that the adverse effects of acute marijuana use wear off in 2-6 hours, commonly faster than alcohol.1 The one notable exception was a pair of flight simulator studies by Leirer, Yesavage, and Morrow, which reported effects on flight simulator performance up to 24 hours later.2 The differences, described by Leirer as “very subtle” and “very marginal,” were less than those due to pilot age. Another flight simulator study by the same group failed to find any effects beyond 4 hours.3 Similar “hangover” effects have been noted for alcohol.4 Chronic users may experience more prolonged effects due to a build-up of cannabinoids in the tissues. Some heavy users have reported feeling effects weeks or even months after stopping. However, there is no evidence that these are detrimental to safety. References on Accidents and Drug Testing: Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews Vol. 2 #3-4 (Brain Information Service, UCLA 1986); Dale Gieringer, “Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety,” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan.-Mar 1988); Dr. John Morgan, “Impaired Statistics and the Unimpaired Worker,” Drug Policy Letter 1(2): May/June 1989, and “The ‘scientific’ justification for drug urine testing,” The University of Kansas Law Review 36: 683-97 (1988); John Horgan, “Test Negative: A look at the evidence justifying illicit-drug tests,” Scientific American, March 1990 pp. 18-22, and “Postal Mortem,” Scientific American, Feb. 1991 pp. 22-3; Dale Gieringer, “Urinalysis or Uromancy?” in Strategies for Change: New Directions in Drug Policy (Drug Policy Foundation, 1992). Footnotes 1. Alison Smiley, “Marijuana: On-Road and Driving Simulator Studies,” Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving 2 #3-4: 121-34 (1986). 2. V.O. Leirer, J.A. Yesavage and D.G. Morrow, “Marijuana Carry-Over Effects on Aircraft Pilot Performance,” Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 62: 221-7 (March 1991); Yesavage, Leirer, et al., “Carry-Over effects of marijuana intoxication on aircraft pilot performance: a preliminary report,” American Journal of Psychiatry 142: 1325-9 (1985). 3. Leirer, Yesavage and Morrow, “Marijuana, Aging and Task Difficulty Effects on Pilot Performance,” Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 60: 1145-52 (Dec. 1989). 4. Yesavage and Leirer, “Hangover Effects on Aircraft Pilots 14 Hours After Alcohol Ingestion: A Preliminary Report,” American Journal of Psychiatry 143: 1546-50 (Dec. 1986).   Myth: Pot is Ten Times More Potent and Dangerous Now Than in the Sixties The notion that pot has increased dramatically in potency is a DEA myth based on biased government data, as shown in a recent NORML report by Dr. John Morgan.1 Samples of pot from the early ’70s came from stale, low-potency Mexican “kilobricks” left in police lockers, whose potency had deteriorated to sub-smokable levels of less than 0.5%. These were compared to later samples of decent-quality domestic marijuana, making it appear that potency had skyrocketed. A careful examination of the government’s data show that average marijuana potency increased modestly by a factor of two or so during the seventies, and has been more or less constant ever since. In fact, there is nothing new about high-potency pot. During the sixties, it was available in premium varieties such as Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, etc. , as well as in the form of hashish and hash oil, which were every bit as strong as today’s sinsemilla, but were ignored in government potency statistics. While the average potency of domestic pot did increase with the development of sinsemilla in the seventies, the range of potencies available has remained virtually unchanged since the last century, when extremely potent tonics were sold over the counter in pharmacies. In Holland, high-powered hashish and sinsemilla are currently sold in coffee shops with no evident problems. Contrary to popular myth, greater potency is not necessarily more dangerous, due to the fact that users tend to adjust (or “self-titrate”) their dose according to potency. Thus, good quality sinsemilla is actually healthier for the lungs because it reduces the amount of smoke one needs to inhale to get high. Footnote 1. John Morgan, “American Marijuana Potency: Data Versus Conventional Wisdom,” NORML Reports (1994). See also T. Mikuriya and M. Aldrich, “Cannabis 1988: Old drug, new dangers, the potency question,” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20:47-55. Myth: Pot Kills Brain Cells Government experts now admit that pot doesn’t kill brain cells.1 This myth came from a handful of animal experiments in which structural changes (not actual cell death, as is often alleged) were observed in brain cells of animals exposed to high doses of pot. Many critics still cite the notorious monkey studies of Dr. Robert G. Heath, which purported to find brain damage in three monkeys that had been heavily dosed with cannabis.2 This work was never replicated and has since been discredited by a pair of better controlled, much larger monkey studies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research3 and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International.4 Neither found any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of pot for up to a year. Human studies of heavy users in Jamaica and Costa Rica found no evidence of abnormalities in brain physiology.5 Even though there is no evidence that pot causes permanent brain damage, users should be aware that persistent deficits in short-term memory have been noted in chronic, heavy marijuana smokers after 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence.6 It is worth noting that other drugs, including alcohol, are known to cause brain damage. Footnotes 1. Dr. Christine Hartel, Acting Director of Research, National Institute of Drug Abuse, cited by the State of Hawaii Dept of Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division in memo of Feb. 4, 1994. 2. For an overview, see NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, op. cit., pp. 81-2. R.G. Heath et al, “Cannabis sativa: effects on brain function and ultrastructure in Rhesus monkeys,” Biol. Psychiatry 15: 657-90 (1980). 3. William Slikker et al., “Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey,” Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 17: 321-32 (1991). 4. Charles Rebert & Gordon Pryor – “Chronic Inhalation of Marijuana Smoke and Brain Electrophysiology of Rhesus Monkeys,” International Journal of Psychophysiology V 14, p.144, 1993. 5. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, pp. 82-7. 6. “Cannabis and Memory Loss,” (editorial) British Journal of Addiction 86: 249-52 (1991)   Myth: Marijuana Causes Sterility and Lowers Testosterone Government experts concede that pot has no permanent effect on the male or female reproductive systems.1 A few studies have suggested that heavy marijuana use may have a reversible, suppressive effect on male testicular function.2 A recent study by Dr. Robert Block has refuted earlier research suggesting that pot lowers testosterone or other sex hormones in men or women.3 In contrast, heavy alcohol drinking is known to lower testosterone levels and cause impotence. A couple of lab studies indicated that very heavy marijuana smoking might lower sperm counts. However, surveys of chronic smokers have turned up no indication of infertility or other abnormalities. Less is known about the effects of cannabis on human females. Some animal studies suggest that pot might temporarily lower fertility or increase the risk of fetal loss, but this evidence is of dubious relevance to humans.4 One human study suggested that pot may mildly disrupt ovulation. It is possible that adolescents are peculiarly vulnerable to hormonal disruptions from pot. However, not a single case of impaired fertility has ever been observed in humans of either sex. Footnotes 1. Dr. Christine Hartel, loc. cit. 2. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, pp. 94-9. 3. Dr. Robert Block in Drug and Alcohol Dependence 28: 121-8 (1991). 4. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, p. 97-8.   Myth: Marijuana Causes Birth Defects While experts generally recommend against any drug use during pregnancy, marijuana has little evidence implicating it in fetal harm, unlike alcohol, cocaine or tobacco. Epidemiological studies have found no evident link between prenatal use of marijuana and birth defects in humans.1 A recent study by Dr. Susan Astley at the University of Washington refuted an earlier work suggesting that cannabis might cause fetal alcohol syndrome.2 Although some research has found that prenatal cannabis use is associated with slightly reduced average birth weight and length,3 these studies have been open to methodological criticism. More recently, a well-controlled study found that cannabis use had a positive impact on birthweight during the third trimester of pregnancy with no adverse behavioral consequences.4 The same study found a slight reduction in birth length with pot use in the first two months of pregnancy. Another study of Jamaican women who had smoked pot throughout pregnancy found that their babies registered higher on developmental scores at the age of 30 days, while experiencing no significant effects on birthweight or length.5 While cannabis use is not recommended in pregnancy, it may be of medical value to some women in treating morning sickness or easing childbirth. Footnotes 1. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, p. 99. 2. Dr. Susan Astley, “Analysis of Facial Shape in Children Gestationally Exposed to Marijuana, Alcohol, and/or Cocaine,” Pediatrics 89#1: 67-77 ( January 1992). 3. Dr. Barry Zuckerman et al. “Effects of Maternal Marijuana and Cocaine Use on Fetal Growth,” New England Journal of Medicine 320 #12: 762-8 (March 23, 1989); Dr. Ralph Hingson et al., “Effects of maternal drinking and marijuana use on fetal growth and development,” Pediatrics 70: 539-46 (1982). 4. Nancy Day et al., “Prenatal Marijuana Use and Neonatal Outcome,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology 13: 329-34 (1992). 5. Janice Hayes, Melanie Dreher and J. Kevin Nugent, “Newborn Outcomes With Maternal Marihuana Use in Jamaican Women,” Pediatric Nursing 14 #2: 107-10 (Mar-Apr. 1988).   Myth: Pot Causes High Blood Pressure According to the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, the effects of marijuana on blood pressure are complex, depending on dose, administration, and posture.1 Marijuana often produces a temporary, “moderate” increase in blood pressure immediately after ingestion; however, heavy chronic doses may slightly depress blood pressure instead. One common reaction is to cause decreased blood pressure while standing and increased blood pressure while lying down, causing people to faint if they stand up too quickly. There is no evidence that pot use causes persisting hypertension or heart disease; some users even claim that it helps them control hypertension by reducing stress. One thing THC does do is to increase pulse rates for about an hour. This is not generally harmful, since exercise does the same thing, but it may cause problems to people with pre-existing heart disease. Chronic users may develop a tolerance to this and other cardiovascular reactions. Footnote 1. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, pp. 66-67.   Myth: Marijuana Damages the Immune System A variety of studies indicate that THC and other cannabinoids may exercise mild, reversible immuno-suppressive effects by inhibiting the activity of immune system cells know as lymphocytes (T- and B-cells) and macrophages. It is dubious whether these effects are of import to human health, since they are based mainly on theoretical laboratory and animal studies. According to a review by Dr. Leo Hollister:1 “The evidence [on immune suppression] has been contradictory and is more supportive of some degree of immunosuppression only when one considers in vitro studies. These have been seriously flawed by the very high concentrations of drug used to produce immunosuppression. The closer that experimental studies have been to actual clinical situations, the less compelling has been the evidence.” The immune suppression issue was first raised in research by the notorious cannabophobe Dr. Gabriel Nahas, but a flurry of research by the Reagan administration failed to find anything alarming. The recent discovery of a cannabinoid receptor inside rat spleens, where immune cells reside, raises the likelihood that cannabinoids do exert some sort of influence on the immune system.2 It has even been suggested that these effects might be beneficial for patients with auto-immune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Nevertheless, not a single case of marijuana-induced immune deficiency has ever been clinically or epidemiologically detected in humans. One exception is the lungs, where chronic pots smokers have been shown to suffer damage to the immune cells known as alveolar macrophages and other defense mechanisms.3 It is unclear how much of this damage is due to THC, as opposed to all of the other toxins that occur in smoke , many of which can be filtered out by waterpipes and other devices.4 There is no reason to think marijuana is dangerous to AIDS patients. On the contrary, many AIDS patients report that marijuana helps avert the deadly “wasting syndrome” by stimulating appetite and reducing nausea. Cannabinoids do not actually damage the T-cells, which are depleted in HIV patients: one study even found that marijuana exposure increased T-cell counts in subjects (not AIDS patients) whose T-cell counts had been low.5 Epidemiological studies have found no relation between use of marijuana or other drugs and development of AIDS.6 Footnotes 1. Dr. Leo Hollister, “Marijuana and Immunity,” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20(1): 3-8 (Jan/Mar 1988). 2. Sean Munro, Kerrie Thomas and Muna Abu-Shaar, “Molecular characterization of a peripheral receptor for cannabinoids,” Nature 365:61-5 (Sept. 2, 1993); Leslie Iversen, “Medical Uses of Marijuana?”, ibid. pp. 12-3. 3. D. Tashkin, “Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health,?” op. cit. 4. Nicholas Cozzi, ibid. 5. Donald Tashkin et al., “Cannabis 1977,” Ann. Intern. Med. 89:539-49 (1978). 6. Richard A Kaslow et al, “No Evidence for a Role of Alcohol or Other Psychoactive Drugs in Accelerating Immunodeficiency in HIV-1-Positive Individuals,” JAMA 261:3424-9 (June 16, 1989).   Myth: Marijuana Causes Chromosome and Cell Damage According to the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,1 “Studies suggesting that marijuana probably does not break chromosomes are fairly conclusive.” Cannabinoids in themselves are neither mutagenic nor carcinogenic, though the tars produced by marijuana combustion are. Some laboratory studies have suggested that high dosages of THC might interfere with cell replication and produce abnormal numbers of chromosomes; however, there is no evidence of such damage in realistic situations. Footnote 1. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, p. 101.   Myth: Marijuana Leads to Harder Drugs There is no scientific evidence for the theory that marijuana is a “gateway” drug. The cannabis-using cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America show no propensity for other drugs. The gateway theory took hold in the sixties, when marijuana became the leading new recreational drug. It was refuted by events in the eighties, when cocaine abuse exploded at the same time marijuana use declined. As we have seen, there is evidence that cannabis may substitute for alcohol and other “hard” drugs. A recent survey by Dr. Patricia Morgan of the University of California at Berekeley found that a significant number of pot smokers and dealers switched to methamphetamine “ice” when Hawaii’s marijuana eradication program created a shortage of pot.1 Dr. Morgan noted a similar phenomenon in California, where cocaine use soared in the wake of the CAMP helicopter eradication campaign. The one way in which marijuana does lead to other drugs is through its illegality: persons who deal in marijuana are likely to deal in other illicit drugs as well. Footnote 1. “Survey: Hawaii war on pot pushed users to ‘ice,'” Honolulu Advertiser, April 1, 1994 p. 1.

AN EXAMPLE OF A DISINFORMATION AGENT…

This is a blog I originally posted on my infowars profile about a David Icke crazed idiot named illuminazi:

 

Illuminazi always says he has sources and evidence for his claims but has anyone really pressed him to prove it?

Well I just did. Illuminazi claimed he had sources for his belief but in spite of my asking him to reveal these sources for nearly 3 hours he refused to.He also tryed to use several tricks to discredit me such as acusing me of playing a game and noning his sources all along among other things.These tricks no doubt are taught to government paid disinformation agents,I dont have sources for that that we call an assumption illuminazi.

Heres the thing I was calling into question his credibility.Logicly he would have posted his “sources” realatively soon to prove me wrong and to thus keep what little credibility he already had but he did not.This can lead to only two conclusions,he is a Disinfo agent or he is a fucking liar who need to learn to shut up when he doesint have a clue.You deside.

Below is the complete conversation which you can also read on the group “Free Tibet down with the red commie scum”,Please note  that this conversation was on and off for three hours and in that time  he did not once give any sources.

 

NOTE: SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM IT IS TO BE READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP.

illuminazi:tweak, you obviously have mental issues. go take it up with someone else, I’m bored.

Tweak:So rather then prove me wrong and vindicate yourself you would rather give a half answer and leave it at that? Wow thats weak,so sad you cant admit you dont have anything.

illuminazi:you can figure it out.

illuminazi:I believe I told you where to get my sources long ago…my blogs and groups.

Tweak:Hilarious you continue not to reveal your “source”.

illuminazi:are you still mad about the Staged Crucifixion group?

Tweak:But hey no matter what you do you have given me quite a nice body of post to use in a blog about your constant assertion that you have evidence for your beliefs.Thanks!!!

Tweak:I have asked you several times politely. Frankly there is no logical reason for you not to reveal your sources considering I am calling into question your whole notion of “having evidence” for all the shit you pull out of your ass and post on this site. Every minute you do not post your “sources” My argument that you are a liar and a disinfo agent becomes stronger and it been well over 100 minutes.
Again anyone can go through all these posts and know I speak the truth here.

illuminazi:say please.

Tweak:Must we continue this dance? Why not admit you have no sourses and end it?Or you could just shut you fucking lieing mouth,either ways fine! But again post the sources you have for the belief that the Dalai Lama is NWO as you aserted earlier.
Again I ask anyone reading this to go back and note how longI have been asking and not recieving these sources illuminazi clams to have.

illuminazi:what would you like to know exactly tweak?

Tweak:You have not mentioned one source and anyone can look through the posts. It is rather sad that to cover your own ass you would accuse me of playing a game. The only game being played here is called “Tell everyone you have sources and then hope no one notices that you lied”.Its loads of fun.

Illuminazi:you know my sources, boy. quit playing games.

EndisNIGH:*Dalai

ENDisNIGH:This is also one of the few things I must say that I agree with Illuminazi on. The Dali Lama is diabolical.

Tweak:This is the first Ive heard of that and after pressing you for over 30 minutes I some how doubt it to be true.Why not present them here and prove me wrong?

illuminazi:whats funny is that I am typing to you after your behavior the past 2 days and talkin shit for over a month. my sources are within the information in my blogs and groups.

tweak:Its funny that you are critizing my posts tone while Im mearly asking you to present your sources. Quit staling,either present your sources or admit you dont have any.

illuminazi:don’t like that one either I’m afraid…too much arrogance. try again.

Tweak:I am asking you for these mythical “sources” you claim to have. Present them.

illuminazi:I just don’t like how you asked me, period.

tweak:Notice how when you press an agent of disinfo for evidence they can not but instead turn to character assasination.

illuminazi:I have EVIDENCE that tweak is a hermaphrodite. Please look in my blogs and groups.

tweak:Who are these credible sources? That would be a second hand kind of evidence which is not exactly trust worthy but its better then the nothing you have presented here.

illuminazi:never said I had “evidence” that the Dali Lama was NWO, I said I learned it from credible people/sources…. the sources that you call hoaxes and liars without researching. so quit talkin already ya pimply ass punk. lol. you are such an annoying little nerd.

Tweak:Show us your evidence please,or you should shut the fuck up.

Tweak:Interesting but I wouldint call that evidence. If you actually have any evidence Im sure others,not me according to you,would fined it useful.

illuminazi:why so you can disagree with it and call it a hoax like an annoying jackass… you’re an idiot! yesterday you told everyone to eat as many soy products as possible, trying to poison your fellow humans because you hate yourself? You remind me of Adolf Hitler you little crybaby.

Tweak:So why have you not posted your “evidence”? Is it because you dont have any?

Illuminazi:____, ___.

Tweak:Either Post your evidence or shut the fuck up.Thanks.

Illuminazi:for you personally, yes. for anyone else that would like to know, no.

tweak:Would that be your evidence then?

Illuminazi:eat a bowl of dick.

Tweak:Show use your evidence then instead of endlessly post “seemingly” crazy BS all the time.

Illuminazi: it is not my opinion that he(The Dalai Lama) is NWO, it is what I learned from research and credible sources that don’t mess around. people tend to think I am going around spreading information that I conjured up in my head or something. if I didn’t know this information my opinion would be that he is a nice guy, from the looks of him… and my opinion would be incorrect.