The title is wrong. It wasn't a courtroom but the House Chamber on December 13th, 2004 Congressional hearing in Columbus, Ohio.

And it is a *discard dupe.

LOL voter fraud. The Republicans so quickly forget about their 2000 election scheme, which was successful by the way, to use a criminal list from TEXAS to match against the Florida voter registration rolls in order to DENY VOTING RIGHTS to those whose names happened to match the list.

Tens of thousands of LEGAL Floridian minority voters were denied the right to have their vote counted because their name was the same or similar to a criminal in TEXAS.

Think this didn't happen? It did. There was a congressional hearing and the company hired to provide the list AND generate the matching list for Florida ADMITTED to doing it.

Whatever shit ACORN tried to pull was a drop in the ocean in comparison. I don't care what party it is. The voting system across ALL STATES should be identical regulated, controlled, and fully trackable/accountable.

If banks can run a gigantic global secure ATM network and keep accurate down to the penny in wired transactions, then you bet your silly ass they can count your votes accurately and securely. The question you should be asking is... why don't they?

Simple answer. They don't want to. They WANT the elections to be fudgeable/stealable.

The following is from a Newsweek article read by Sen. Byrd (D, WV) during a congressional hearing on September 20, 2002:

The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment.

The once and future Defense secretary, at the time a private citizen, had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to Baghdad as a special envoy. Saddam Hussein, armed with a pistol on his hip, seemed "vigorous and confident," according to a now declassified State Department cable obtained by Newsweek. Rumsfeld "conveyed the President's greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad," wrote the notetaker. Then the two men got down to business, talking about the need to improve relations between their two countries.

Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the--theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions...

The history of America's relations with Saddam is one of the sorrier tales in American foreign policy. Time and again, America turned a blind eye to Saddam's predations, saw him as the lesser evil or flinched at the chance to unseat him. No single policymaker or administration deserves blame for creating, or at least tolerating, a monster; many of their decisions seemed reasonable at the time. Even so, there are moments in this clumsy dance with the Devil that make one cringe. It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s, America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build biological weapons...

The war against Iran was going badly by 1982. Iran's "human wave attacks" threatened to overrun Saddam's armies. Washington decided to give Iraq a helping hand.

After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal--American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for "video surveillance applications"; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacterial cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors, for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the Pentagon blocked the sale. The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds.

The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces.

The United States was much more concerned with protecting Iraqi oil from attacks by Iran as it was shipped through the Persian Gulf. In 1987, an Iraqi Exocet missile hit an American destroyer, the USS Stark, in the Persian Gulf, killing 37 crewmen. Incredibly, the United States excused Iraq for making an unintentional mistake and instead used the incident to accuse Iran of escalating the war in the gulf. The American tilt to Iraq became more pronounced. U.S. commandos began blowing up Iranian oil platforms and attacking Iranian patrol boats. In 1988, an American warship in the gulf accidentally shot down an Iranian Airbus, killing 290 civilians. Within a few weeks, Iran, exhausted and fearing American intervention, gave up its war with Iraq.

Saddam was feeling cocky. With the support of the West, he had defeated the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran. America favored him as a regional pillar; European and American corporations were vying for contracts with Iraq. He was visited by congressional delegations led by Sens. Bob Dole of Kansas and Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who were eager to promote American farm and business interests. But Saddam's megalomania was on the rise, and he overplayed his hand. In 1990, a U.S. Customs sting operation snared several Iraqi agents who were trying to buy electronic equipment used to make triggers for nuclear bombs. Not long after, Saddam gained the world's attention by threatening "to burn Israel to the ground." At the Pentagon, analysts began to warn that Saddam was a growing menace, especially after he tried to buy some American-made high-tech furnaces useful for making nuclear-bomb parts. Yet other officials in Congress and in the Bush administration continued to see him as a useful, if distasteful, regional strongman. The State Department was equivocating with Saddam right up to the moment he invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

Mr. President, I referred to this Newsweek article yesterday at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Specifically, during the hearing, I asked Secretary Rumsfeld:

"Mr. Secretary, to your knowledge, did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war? Are we in fact now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sewn?"

The Secretary quickly and flatly denied any knowledge but said he would review Pentagon records.

I suggest that the administration speed up that review. My concerns and the concerns of others have grown.

A letter from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, which I shall submit for the Record, shows very clearly that the United States is, in fact, preparing to reap what it has sewn. A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases.

According to the letter from Dr. Satcher to former Senator Donald Riegle, many of the materials were hand carried by an Iraqi scientist to Iraq after he had spent 3 months training in the CDC laboratory.

The Armed Services Committee is requesting information from the Departments of Commerce, State, and Defense on the history of the United States, providing the building blocks for weapons of mass destruction to Iraq. I recommend that the Department of Health and Human Services also be included in that request.

The American people do not need obfuscation and denial. The American people need the truth. The American people need to know whether the United States is in large part responsible for the very Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which the administration now seeks to destroy.

We may very well have created the monster that we seek to eliminate. The Senate deserves to know the whole story. The American people deserve answers to the whole story.

In a statement first released August 9, 2007, over 1,500 professionals urge Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted. They cite new scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. (http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html)

Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.

Signer Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”

An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement is available on FAN's web site, www.fluorideaction.org/congress .

“The NRC report dramatically changed scientific understanding of fluoride's health risks," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network. "Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” he added.

The Professionals’ Statement also references:

-- The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula NOT be prepared with fluoridated water.
-- The CDC’s concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic.
-- CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children.
-- Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
-- A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and bone cancer.
-- The silicofluoride chemicals used for fluoridation are contaminated industrial waste and have never been FDA- approved for human ingestion.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, “It is time for the US to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it's as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.”

Further, researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal indicate that fluoridation, touted as a safe cavity preventive, never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (1)

In New York State, Cobeskill stopped 54 years of fluoridation in 2007, the Central Bridge Water District stopped fluoridation in 2006, Homer in 2005, Canton in 2003. Oneida rejected fluoridation in 2002. Ithaca rejected fluoridation in 2002. Johnstown rejected it in 1999. Before that several towns in Nassau County stopped fluoridation. Suffolk County rejected fluoridation in the 1990's.

On October 2, 2007 Juneau Alaska voters rejected fluoridation despite the American Dental Association's $150,000 political campaign to return fluoride into the water supply after the legislative body voted it out.

Many communities rejected or stopped fluoridation over the years. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm


SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideAction.Net


References:

(1) “Adding fluoride to water supplies,” British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, Iain Chalmers, Trevor A. Sheldon, October 6, 2007

Take Action to End Fluoridation

Online Petition to End Fluoridation and call for a Congressional Hearing

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2477/t/2782/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21960

or

http://www.fluorideaction.net/congress


Sponsored by the Fluoride Action Network http://FluorideAction.Net

Im not sure what kind of Left wing nut job edited the text on this video claiming the government was responsible. After watching the video, Eric, your title is very misleading, as this is not a secret of the government, as the congressional hearing is trying to make consumers more aware.
All the text on screen at the end of the video reads as such:

"once again our government take something dirty and rotten and stuffs it down our throat. Even if it hurts Americans. God, Please help America. Wake up to all the corruption in our government, stand up for your rights."

That statement is so far of from the narration of the news reporter its not even funny. I'm not sure what kind of idiot made this video, nor what kind of idiots are in their target audience. What did the government stuff down our throats? The government isn't selling meant. They are the ones inspecting it and warning consumers now. "Even if it hurts Americans" Thats exactly why they are forcing the labeling of such meats. "wake up to all the corruption" Hmmm.. seems to me the government is doing a good thing for once.
Upvote for the reporting, another up vote for the content, but down vote for the retarded editing.

[Edit] Please change your title.

Sometimes I wonder how much more infuriated I can be with the actions of this man. Then I see another congressional hearing.

The countries political past pretty much speaks for itself.

The previous president Joseph Estrada, who was a popular actor before gaining office, was taken down by charges of corruption, the impeachment court, whose majority were political allies of Estrada, voted not to open an envelope that was said to contain incriminating evidence against the president. The final vote was 11-10, in favor of keeping the envelope closed. Leading to political upheaval and finally to the Armed forces withdrawing their support in favor of the vice president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

In late September 2005, Arroyo issued an executive order stating that demonstrations without permits would be pre-emptively stopped. Then members of the military testified in Congressional hearings that they were defying a direct order not to testify about their knowledge of the election scandal. The opposition and militant groups have accused the Arroyo administration of moving towards an undeclared version of martial law. The "no permit, no rally" policy followed by the Calibrated Preemptive Response policy are both aimed at regulating street rallies. There is the issuance of Executive Order No. 464 forbidding government officials under the executive department from appearing in congressional inquiries without President Arroyo's prior consent.

as for the comparisons of Hitler to Bush, if you look from the viewpoint of fascism, then it's a spot on comparison. Corporations are the ones actually in charge of this country. When there was a congressional hearing on miner safety after one of the last mining disasters, one of the mining company heads WALKED OUT in the middle of questioning, saying he had a meeting to attend. (Gee, what meeting is so fricking important that you have to blow off the government?!) And when the oil tycoons were brought before congress to "get to the root of this whole expensive oil thing", they weren't sworn in. Even though a democratic congressman asked REPEATEDLY for them to be sworn in, so that they would be sworn to tell the truth. Even the frickin baseball folks were sworn in when talking about the steroids scandal, but oh no, the folks that are hunting/golfing buddies with the fellas in charge, nah, we can just take them on their word, right? And do I really need to mention Halliburton??