In December, I was invited to address the Pro America Club  of Pasadena, California, on the subject of non-drug therapies in the treatment of cancer. For me, it was a pleasant return to a topic that, for several years, has been overshadowed by demand for commentary on money and banking. The address was video taped and, to my surprise, was in high demand by those in attendance who wanted to share the message with others. So, I acquired a copy of the recording, added images to supplement the narrative, and created  a DVD for those who are interested in this information. The program is described here.

The Science and Politics of Cancer
A discourse by G. Edward Griffin

The author of World without Cancer; The Story of Vitamin B17 and founder of the Cancer Cure Foundation, addresses the following topics:
¿ Two opposed views of cancer
¿ Pancreatic enzymes and food factors in the control of cancer
¿ How the pharmaceutical cartel captured the medical profession
¿ Why Sloan Kettering falsified research to discredit Laetrile
¿ Is there a conspiracy to withhold a control for cancer?

If you are curious about why your doctor doesn't know about non-drug treatments for cancer, this is the answer. Available from The Reality Zone. (More)

G. EDWARD GRIFFIN on THE FEDERAL RESERVE
In this video, the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island; A Second Look at the Federal Reserve addresses the topic of banking and the creation of money. What is the Fed? Who created it? How can bankers get away with creating money out of nothing? What impact does that have on the dollar? What will happen if the Fed continues to flood the economy with new money? What can we do to protect ourselves? These and many more questions are answered. (More)

Listen to Bush say he saw the 1st plane hit the Twin Towers!

It was widely rumored following 9/11 that President Bush claimed he was watching TV in his limousine when he saw the first plane hit the Twin Towers. If true, this was an amazing statement, because there is no record of that event being broadcast over TV. Why should it have been? There was no reason for a TV camera to be focused on the Twin Towers  before the plane crash. How could the President see what didn’t exist? I assumed that the rumors were not accurate and thought no more of it. Then, at the end of January, 2006, I received a link to an audio recording of Mr. Bush’s speech and, lo and behold, that’s exactly what he said.

This was the signal for a rash of theories about the existence of a top-secret closed-circuit TV network that provided this image only to the President and his senior staff members. The implication was that they were anticipating the event and wanted to have a front-row seat to confirm its execution.

As everyone should know by now, I am convinced that President Bush had ample foreknowledge of the pending attacks but chose to let them happen, because that provided the apparent moral justification for military action in the Middle East and expansion of political power in the U.S., but I cannot endorse the theory that he was watching the event on a closed-circuit network.

First of all, it’s not logical. If I were anticipating an event like this and wanted to appear taken by surprise, I would prefer to know as few of the details as possible so I couldn’t be exposed by accomplices or tripped up by statements like this. I would set the master plan into motion and then let my generals take care of the implementation. The last thing I would do would be to have a team of technicians and assistants aware that I was watching a TV image of the side of a building in anticipation of a airplane crashing into it.

Secondly, there is a more plausible explanation. Most people to whom I speak about 9/11 honestly believe they saw both planes strike the buildings. When I tell them the first impact was not shown on television, they look puzzled and ask: “Are you sure?” This is understandable. The two impacts were only eighteen minutes apart. Although there were no images of the first plane, the aftermath of its impact was widely viewed. By the time of the second impact, there were multiple cameras available to capture it from several angles and, from that moment forward, television viewers were inundated with replays of these images.

It is important to emphasize that the same plane was viewed from multiple locations, creating the impression that they were different planes. This replay lasted for several weeks and, in fact, continues even today. The drama and horror of the event were so intense that, for most of us, everything has become blurred into a mental montage of repeated airplane crashes, smoke and fire, collapsing buildings, and desperate survivors. It is no wonder that most people believe they saw both planes strike their targets. I don’t see why the President, who is not noted for mental clarity, should be any different.

The point is this. We should not waste our time weaving a theory about closed-circuit TV when there is so much hard evidence of prior knowledge that cannot be so easily explained. We do our cause a disservice when we get away from the provable facts and wander into the realm of conjecture. It’s in that realm that we lose credibility and look silly to the very people we are trying to reach with the truth.

OK, having said my piece, here is President Bush who will say his:

President Bush says “I saw the first plane.”