Friday, October 25, 2013

10 Best Conspiracy Videos

If you do a YouTube search of conspiracy videos, you will get over 3,900,000 results, while a Google search lists over 270,000,000 results. I know you don't have time to watch that many videos, so I have narrowed things down, having come up with the 10 Top Conspiracy Videos to date.

1. The Obama Deception (HQ Full length version)

2. Fall of the Republic (HQ full length version)

3. DebunkThis! (Full length version)

4. The Day the Dollar Died 

5. New World Order Government Conspiracy

6. 2013 Illuminati Explained - Explains the Conspiracy (Documented Evidence) 

7. Jesse Ventura: Corporate media, Censorship and American Conspiracies

8. New World Order Swine Flu Conspiracy, Antichrist 2012 Illuminati Fema Coffins & Concentration Camps

9. Invisible Empire A New World Order Defined Full (


10. Government Conspiracies - World of Lies - Award Winning Documentary

For the first time in history, a President of the United States has been the overwhelming number one topic of conspiracy theorists. President Obama was the main character in 4 of the voted 10 top conspiracy videos!

Please vote for your favorite conspiracy video by commenting, bellow. You may have a hard time choosing your favorite, because they are all very well made, very entertaining and very scary!

Just pick one and comment!

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Obama give back your Nobel Peace Prize

How does a Nobel Peace Prize winner justify launching missile strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East? He can’t. 

Military action is, of course, sometimes necessary to maintain peace. But President Obama has not demonstrated that missile attacks in Syria would do anything to achieve peace.

Worse, by all accounts, Obama’s “red line” threat was an off-the-cuff remark, not a well thought-out strategy. The U.S. should not attack another country because the president was careless with his words and now wants to protect his personal credibility.

But we don’t even need to look at Syria to conclude that the decent thing would be for Obama to return the prize that he never deserved in the first place.

There’s the obvious problem of Obama escalating a pointless and failing war in Afghanistan. From 2001 to the end of the Bush presidency in 2009, 625 American troops died because of the war. Under Obama’s watch, more than twice that many, some 1,500 soldiers, have died. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed as well.

But nothing undermines the notion of Obama as a leader for peace more than his five-year Middle East drone war. According to the New America Foundation, since 2004, there have been 361 American drone strikes in Pakistan. Of those, only 48 occurred during the Bush administration.

During a January 2012 online forum, Obama said, "I want to make sure that people understand actually drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties. For the most part, they have been very precise, precision strikes against al Qaeda and their affiliates."

The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates roughly 500 to 800 innocents have been blown up by our drones in the Middle East. If this happened on U.S. soil, it would certainly be considered a “huge number” by any reasonable person. No one would be calmed by the fact that the intent was to be “precise.” Obama’s statement also ignores the psychological impact of living in constant fear of being killed because you might happen to be standing near a suspected terrorist. This fear is certainly exacerbated by the fact that the Obama administration incredibly told The New York Times that it “in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.”

What makes these civilian deaths even more tragic is the fact that the drone war isn’t even making America safer. Dennis C. Blair, Obama's former director of national intelligence, wrote in 2011, “Qaeda officials who are killed by drones will be replaced. The group’s structure will survive and it will still be able to inspire, finance and train individuals and teams to kill Americans. Drone strikes hinder Qaeda fighters while they move and hide, but they can endure the attacks and continue to function.”

Blair echoed a widely held belief by foreign-policy experts that “as the drone campaign wears on, hatred of America is increasing in Pakistan.” It shouldn’t be that hard to figure out that killing civilians and writing them off as “collateral damage” just creates more terrorists. This is Psychology 101. In a 2012 New York Times op-ed, “How Drones Help al-Qaeda,” 24-yeard old Yemeni Ibrahim Mothana wrote, “Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair.”

Retired general Stanley McChrystal told Reuters earlier this year, "The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes ... is much greater than the average American appreciates” because they create a "perception of American arrogance that says, 'Well we can fly where we want, we can shoot where we want, because we can.'" Following a drone strike in Yemen that killed civilians, a local man who had lost two brothers told the Washington Post, “These attacks are making people say, ‘We believe now that al-Qaeda is on the right side.’” Following extensive interviews in the region, the Post concluded that, “[A]n unintended consequence of the attacks has been a marked radicalization of the local population.”

It shouldn’t be that hard to figure out that killing civilians and writing them off as ‘collateral damage’ just creates more terrorists.

The president has also misled the public on who the drone campaign targets. His administration long maintained that it was only targeting senior leaders of al Qaeda and allied groups. But leaked intelligence documents show that it “targeted and killed hundreds of suspected lower-level Afghan, Pakistani and unidentified ‘other’ militants” including people who weren’t even suspected of being affiliated with terrorist groups. Worse, the documents revealed that the U.S. actually doesn’t know who it is killing, despite Obama’s claims to the contrary. McClatchy reported, “The CIA killed people who only were suspected, associated with, or who probably belonged to militant groups.”

“Probably” is a pretty weak standard.

Two weeks after a drone attack killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. blew up his 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, in a separate attack. Eric Holder said that he was "not specifically targeted." What does this mean? Was he “un-specifically” targeted?  When asked about the killing of this innocent 16-year-old, Obama’s press secretary Robert Gibbs quipped that the boy should have had a “more responsible father.”

Carelessly killing innocents, creating more hatred against America, and glib statements by your key aides about blowing up children do not add up to a peaceful agenda. If Obama won’t return the peace prize, then the Nobel Committee should revoke it.

I guess there isn't much peace in the Peace Prize, after all both Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin were nominated for this worthless Prize. It would literally be more accurately called the Nobel War Prize!

You can also comment on this article on it's Conspiracy Watch Facebook Post, here.

, "Dear Obama, It’s Time to Return Your Nobel Peace Prize. Here’s Why.", in the Daily Beast.


College students mindlessly defend Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

Sunday, October 20, 2013

U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan spawned Heroin Epidemic In Europe and America

Since the US Invasion of Afghanistan, the Heroin Output has Increased over 5,000%

More than decade since the US invaded Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda and punish the Taliban, the US and NATO occupation drags on, even as the war begins to wind down. And Afghanistan's status as the world's number one opium poppy producer remains unchallenged.

Afghan opium production started with the US-backed overthrow of the secular Afghan Government in 1978 and grew steadily with the consequent civil war, the Russian invasion and the US-backed religious-based resistance.

Afghan opium production increased further after the departure of the Russians. However in 2000, several years after they captured Kabul, the Taliban banned opium production, slashing Afghan opium production from about 76% of word production in 2000 to 6% in 2001.

In the aftermath of the 2001 US bombing of Afghanistan, the British government was entrusted by the leading industrial nations to carry out a drug eradication program, which would, theoretically, allow Afghan farmers to get out of poppy cultivation and switch to alternative crops. The British were working in close liaison with the US DEA's "Operation Containment" out of Kabul.

The British crop eradication program was an apparent smokescreen, considering that since October 2001, opium poppy cultivation has flourished. The presence of occupation forces in Afghanistan did not result in the eradication of poppy cultivation as lawmakers had promised, it did exactly the opposite.

The Taliban prohibition had caused "the beginning of a heroin shortage in Europe by the end of 2001", the UNODC acknowledged, however immediately following the October 2001 invasion, opium markets were restored and opium prices spiraled. By 2002, the opium price was almost 10 times higher than in 2000.

Heroin is a multimillion dollar business protected by powerful, international interests, which requires a stable, steady and secure product flow. One of the secret objectives of the war was to restore the CIA sponsored drug trade to its historical norms and establish control over the smuggling routes.
Within a year of the US Alliance invasion the Afghan opium production skyrocketed from 6% of world production in 2001, to 74% in 2002, 93% in 2006, 95% in 2007 and 94% in 2008.

According to Glenn Greenway, the Drug Truth Network reported September 15, 2008, "Afghan heroin output has increased a staggering 5,000% since the US invasion 7 years ago." I would guess this percentage is even larger today.

UN Secretary General Ban ki-moon said recently at an international conference in Vienna, that Afghanistan will never be stable unless it tackles its drug problem.

In 2007, Afghanistan supplied 93% of the world's opium, according to the U.S. State Department. Illicit poppy production, meanwhile, brings $4 billion into Afghanistan, or more than half the country’s total economy of $7.5 billion, according to the United Nations Office of Drug Control (UNODC).  It also represents about half of the economy of Pakistan, and of the ISI in particular.

Destroying the labs has always been an obvious option, but for years America refused to do so for political reasons. In 2001 the Taliban and bin Laden were estimated by the CIA to be earning up to 10 per cent of Afghanistan’s drug revenues, then estimated at between 6.5 and 10 billion U.S. dollars a year. This income of perhaps $1 billion was less than that earned by Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI, parts of which had become the key to the drug trade in Central Asia. The UN Drug Control Program (UNDCP) estimated in 1999 that the ISI made around $2.5 billion annually from the sale of illegal drugs.

At the start of the US offensive in 2001, according to Ahmed Rashid, “The Pentagon had a list of twenty-five or more drug labs and warehouses in Afghanistan but refused to bomb them because some belonged to the CIA's new NA [Northern Alliance] allies.”  Rashid was “told by UNODC officials that the Americans knew far more about the drug labs than they claimed to know, and the failure to bomb them was a major setback to the counter-narcotics effort."

Donald Rumsfeld
James Risen reports that the ongoing refusal to pursue the targeted drug labs came from neocons at the top of America’s national security bureaucracy, including even Donald Rumsfeld. These men were preserving a pattern of drug-trafficking protection racket in Washington that dates back all the way to World War 2.

Thanks primarily to the CIA-backed anti-Soviet campaign of the 1980s, Afghanistan today is a drug-corrupted and heroin-ravaged society from the heads of state all the way down to the junkies on the streets.

Governing Afghans are likely to become involved in the drug traffic, sooner or later, just as the FARC in Colombia and the Communist Party in Myanmar have evolved in time from revolutionary movements into drug-trafficking organizations.

Afghan President Hamid Karza
The situation in Pakistan is not much different. The US mainstream media have never mentioned the February 23 report in the London Sunday Times and that Asif Ali Zardari, now the Pakistani Prime Minister, was once caught in a DEA drug sting.

Important as heroin may have become to the Afghan and Pakistani political economies, the local proceeds are only a small share of the global heroin traffic. According to the UN, the ultimate value in world markets in 2007 of Afghanistan’s $4 billion opium crop was about $110 billion: this estimate is probably too high, but even if the ultimate value was as low as $40 billion, this would mean that 90 percent of the profit was earned by forces outside of Afghanistan.

It has been estimated that 80 percent or more of the profits from the traffic are reaped in the countries of consumption. The UNODC Executive Director, Antonio Maria Costa, has reported that “money made in illicit drug trade has been used to keep banks afloat in the global financial crisis.”

Since the time of invasion of Afghanistan, the Opium production is given a boost by United States and its powered Afghan government. Hamid Karzai and his clan are heavily involved in this business. This being understood, they have taken measures to cultivate Opium, provided support for trafficking with Tajikistan in a legal way and this has resulted as an increase in use of Opium around the globe and has especially hit Russia and Europe.

In the years since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan Russia has been flooded with heroin. The drug has crept along a trail stretching from Afghanistan through Tajikistan and other Central Asian nations and over the Russian border, turning the country into the world's top consumer of heroin, the Russian government says.

The drug has spread like fire through a country uniquely unqualified to cope with its dangers: Narcotics were largely absent during Soviet times, and most people are still unaware of the risk of heroin addiction, even as an estimated 83 Russians a day die by overdosing on the drug, official statistics show. Russia estimates that one in every 50 people of working age is addicted to heroin. South Wales has seen a jump of 180% in heroin addiction rates since the invasion of Afghanistan. In 2008, the EU estimated that a young European died every hour from a drug overdose.

   Watch, Heroin Afghan Drug Wars 2 of 4, here. Heroin Afghan Drug Wars 3 of 4, here. Heroin Afghan Drug Wars 4 of 4, here.

Also, folks, it's not just opium coming out of Afghanistan. According to the UNODC World Drug Report 2011, Afghanistan is also "among the significant cannabis resin producing countries," producing somewhere between 1,500 and 3,500 metric tons of hash in 2010, with no reason to think it has changed dramatically in 2011. That brings in somewhere between $85 million and $265 million at the farm gate.

A decade after the US invasion, Afghanistan remains the world's largest opium producer by far and possibly the world's largest cannabis producer. Given the crucial role these drug crops play in the Afghan economy, there is little reason to think anything is going to change anytime soon.

Written By: Tom Retterbush
American War Machine

This book explores the covert aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Prominent political analyst Peter Dale Scott marshals compelling evidence to expose the extensive growth of sanctioned but illicit violence in politics and state affairs, especially when related to America's long-standing involvement with the global drug traffic. Beginning with Thailand in the 1950s, Americans have become inured to the CIA's alliances with drug traffickers to install and sustain right-wing governments. The pattern has repeated itself in Laos, Vietnam, Italy, Mexico, Thailand, Nigeria, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Panama, Honduras, Turkey, Pakistan, and now Afghanistan_to name only those countries dealt with in this book. Scott shows that the relationship of U.S. intelligence operators and agencies to the global drug traffic, and to other international criminal networks, deserves greater attention in the debate over the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.The so-called war on terror, and in particular the war in Afghanistan, constitutes only the latest chapter in this disturbing story.

Get American War Machine directly from Amazon, HERE

Please help promote Conspiracy Watch by clicking the   f   Like and +1 bellow!

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Pharma Companies don't want to Cure You, they want you as a Customer

Good health translates into zero profit for the pharmaceutical industry. 

General well-being of the public and cures for disease would mean the collapse of the pharmaceutical industry since they must have illness to have demand for their drugs, in order to exist. This is the truth that drives political corruption, mandating of vaccines, control over the healthcare industry, and efforts to destroy natural health companies.

But to accomplish and sustain your ill health, the pharmaceutical industry must confuse people about the source of good health, make sure there is no access to what people actually need to be well (including information), and keep the public perpetually frightened of diseases and their risk of dying.

The pharmaceutical industry works especially hard to keep the public from knowing two things, a central one about people’s biology, and a central one about their drugs:

1. People are blessed with an immune system which does a phenomenal job day in and day out in protecting them, and in helping them get well if they become ill. Their being well does not depend on luck. People get cancer, for instance, many times over their lifetime but naturally shrug it off because their immune system is designed to do just that.

2. Most drugs do not “cure” disease or support the functioning of the body (insulin is an exception) but only mask symptoms. Antibiotics kill pathogens but they simultaneously wipe out people’s immune system.

Both things concern the immune system and are in serious conflict: people’s immune system is what keeps them healthy and most of what the pharmaceutical industry has to offer messes it up. Those two facts are not selling points for the industry.

So, the less the public knows about how their body works, the less they trust their own bodies, the less they are able to support it in functioning optimally, the better for the pharmaceutical industry. That is, the more afraid and helpless people feel, the better . So, the industry works to create myths that keep the public anxious.

Look at the five most profitable drugs in the United States. Guess what they all have one in common?

They never cure you.

1) Lipitor (2009 gross revenue: $7.5 billion): Designed to lower cholesterol, Lipitor uses statins to decrease LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels and increase HDL cholesterol levels. Studies indicate that high cholesterol increases one's chance for heart disease, the leading health problem in the U.S.

2) Nexium (2009 gross revenue: $6.3 billion): This well-marketed drug decreases the amount of acid produced in the stomach, but it's not an instant cure for heartburn.

3) Plavix (2009 gross revenue: $5.6 billion): Nobody likes a nasty blood clot, and this drug prevents that from happening, particularly after a stroke or a heart attack. The downside: Plavix increases your chances of small-injury bleeds and, if drinking alcohol, heightens your risk of stomach and intestinal bleeds.

4) Advair Diskus (2009 gross revenue: $4.7 billion): For asthma sufferers, a twice-daily inhaler to reduce the swelling in your respiratory system. Helps keep attacks from being more severe.

5) Seroquel (2009 Gross: $4.2 billion): Rounding out our top 5 is Seroquel, an anti-psychotic drug that treats schizophrenia, severe depression, and bipolar disorder by altering chemical activity in the brain.

Criminalizing Nature for Chemical Profits: S 510

With a bill in Congress (S 510) meant to wipe out natural supplements, the pharmaceutical industry has been using its influence with media to put out stories against those supplements. The Boston Globe slams a law that distinguishes food supplements from drugs and the AP puts out a series attacking natural health practices. And in the midst of a suspect swine flu which is more and more thought to be bioengineered during Bush’s time in office, the pharmaceutical industry has the FDA warn health stores and websites they may not even have sections labeled “cold” or “flu” or use those words in recommending supplements to people. That is, no one is supposed to know that supplements can help them stay well or get well on their own, or discover how unnecessary vaccines are in the first place if one’s immune system is kept strong, because that would interfere with selling billions in vaccines that many do not want or need.

There are two worlds here. One is natural and provides or supports the good bacteria which is the primary basis of everyone’s immune system (or health). The other is industrial, synthetic, often GMO, and generally (usually greatly) destructive of people’s immune system (and thus, simply put, unhealthy).

People need only understand bacteria keeps them healthy to no longer fall for industry’s “food safety” scares about bacteria because they can see the distinction between good and industrial bacteria and choose food accordingly. Real “food safety” protects good bacteria. It protect farmers who produce products full of good bacteria. It stops industry from inflicting industrial demands and processes – pasteurization, irradiation, antibiotics, etc. – on farmers’s living food products because they contain the good bacteria which make food itself valuable to begin with. Once people recognize they have good bacteria on their side, they will appreciate how it differs from dangerous industrial bacteria from contamination. They will also learn over time that vaccines, drugs, antibiotics, radiation, pasteurization, GMOs, all hurt the little bugs and realize the importance of protecting them.

Drug companies live by the law of industry: profit or perish. The laws they lobby for are worth looking at closely since it suddenly becomes apparent why these corporations cannot ever be on the side of public health. Health is worth literally nothing. Sickness, side effects, and diseases, though, are bonanzas.
Friendly bacteria is the true basis of good health, just as a soil rich in microbes is the true basis of good food.

With a strong immune system, people can avoid or recover from chronic and infectious diseases and don’t need to be perpetually afraid. Health is simple – it comes from healthy living food. In knowing this, people are in a good position to stop industry legislation (S 510) that falsely implies all food is dangerous, and that sterilizing living food is “food safety.” We are now in a good position to insist the FDA stop threatening free speech about safe natural supplements, and instead demand that they go after the pharmaceutical industry’s synthetic drugs that routinely kill 100,000 people a year.

By Tom Retterbush


What the Pharmaceutical Companies Don’t Want You to Know

Proof that the cancer industry doesn't want a cure

Fluoride is a Poison Linked to Brain Damage and Mind Control

There are so many myths and assumptions surrounding putting fluoride in water that many people go into a state of incredulous disbelief if they are told that our water supply is being poisoned.

Fluoride is a synthetic waste product of the nuclear, aluminum, phosphate fertilizer industries, has a capacity to combine and increase the potency of other toxic materials, and can weaken bone and dental matter. It damages the liver and kidneys, weakens the immune system, creates symptoms that mimic fibromyalgia, and acts as a Trojan Horse to carry aluminum across the blood brain barrier. It can even inhibit function needed for sound, deep sleep.

While the issue of whether fluoride reduces dental decay is often debated when discussing this topic (it doesn't - in fact it actually slightly increases tooth decay - for studies see this article), this is a just a distraction from the real issues - fluoride is put in the water to create a profitable way to dispose of a lethal industrial by-product, and to make the population more submissive.

The only reason it remains in the water supplies of a handful of American influenced countries (less than 4% of the population globally) is because the officials who have been pushing this mass medication program don't want to admit it has been thoroughly discredited.

It's a difficult subject for many people to look into with an open mind, because if fluoride really is toxic, they would have to then question many of their other assumptions about the society we live in. "It must be good for us, otherwise 'they' wouldn't put it in the water.."

I have added some good resources bellow, for those of you who would like to investigate the issue of  Fluoride further.

By Tom Retterbush



Doctor Exposes Fluoride as Poison

HITLER & FLUORIDE added High Dose to Water at Concentration Camps Keep People LIKE WALKING DEAD

Stuff They Don't Want You To Know - Fluoridation


Fluoride: How A Toxic Poison Ended Up In Our Water Supply

Fluoride: Deadly Poison? History & Dangers of Fluoride

THE FLUORIDE WARS: THE PROTECTED POISON – The Real History Of Fluoride “Strange Journey – From Hazardous Waste To Good For Teeth”

Friday, October 18, 2013

Did you know it's Legal for the Media to Lie to the American People?

Most of us know they do it, but did you know it’s openly and perfectly legal for the media and news to lie to the American People?

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Though this specific case is about FOX lying, the decision basically gives all media the right to lie to the public. How can our lawmakers justify this?

Please comment about this bellow, or on my Conspiracy Watch Facebook Page.

By Tom Retterbush

Fox News admits they lie and distort the news, so why so pissy?

Why isn't it illegal to lie in the news in the U.S. anymore?