Prince Charles, Sauds, Heavily Implicated in Financing ISIS ‘Terrorists’

“The Fall of the House of Windsor”

“Saudi Role in Financing Jihadis Now Being Questioned in International Press”

“Deciding who is funding ISIS—and who should take the heat for its survival—depends upon the degree to which the world believes that the Islamic State is self-financing. Western governments have detailed the production of oil wells in ISIS territory and the vast amounts of cash supposedly stolen from Mosul banks after ISIS took over, but smuggling fuel and ransacking vaults can hardly sustain an Islamist nation which controls an area larger than the U.K.” says Leading British Middle East journalist Robert Fisk, writing in the Belfast Telegraph Feb. 4, essentially asking, “If the Saudis aren’t funding ISIS, who is?” Putting it bluntly, Fisk asks, “Should the world blame the Saudis for the inflammable monster that is ISIS?” (Executive Intelligence Review, February 9, 2015)

The House of Windsor is sinking itself–and the entire loathsome dogs of war that havoc  the earth in the name of British Imperialism–deeper and deeper into the slimy swamps  from which it crawled so long ago, according to Historians version of the Venetian nobility from which they originated.

British monarchs  have been  used to simply doing whatever they wanted and not having anyone daring

Dickens at the Blacking Warehouse. Charles Dic...
Dickens at the Blacking Warehouse. Charles Dickens is here shown as a boy of twelve years of age, working in a factory. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

to utter a peep of protest, as when Henry VIII romped through English, looting and

plundering all the properties and treasures of the Catholic Church–and set the Industrial Revolution back 250 years, contrary to what young trollings have been led to believe. He was ex-communicated by the Pope, but Henry didn’t care. He just invented his own church, made himself the head of it, and probably invented his own god, also.

The famous ‘English Common Law‘ was merely for the sake of appearances, for the most part. Anyone who has read Charles Dickens or any of the novels of those eras are quite familiar with the brutality and total indifference the oligarchical class showed the common man. England was severely overcrowded, there were simply not enough jobs, land or food to go around, and yet the poor were treated like poverty was a moral failing on their part, and idleness was a sign of sloth, ignorance and a criminal constitution.

So they threw the poor into prisons, hanged them, starved them in workhouses, paid them less to nothing and worked them to death in horrid factories they would not keep a dog they liked . Indeed, most horses led much better lives than the common working man in England.

Het gieten van ijzer in blokken
Het gieten van ijzer in blokken (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is where their views about eugenics and total lack of humanity came from; any society that could hang a seven-year-old child for stealing a teaspoon did not deserve to exist.

Was it any wonder our forefathers left to find freedom from such sheer assholery in America? The Royals were exceedingly insulted and outraged when the new colony had the effrontery to dare to think it could govern itself–common people, escaping from their masters? It was outside the laws of nature–according to the Monarchy, and hadn’t they dismissed God as a nuisance years ago? After the Revolution, they have spent untold efforts and money not only to bring the USA back into its proper place, but to bring the entire world under its authority, as was proper and fitting–in their eyes. Like the Muslims, they have decided they are the only ones perfect enough, sacred enough, refined enough to be allowed to be master of everyone else on the planet. Somehow, they ignore the fact they are a bunch of bloody, sociopathic butchers, dope-pushers and criminals. Just like their buddies.

THE 28 PAGES AND THE PRINCE

It’s no secret Prince Charles has ties to  the Saudi sponsors of Wahhabite terrorism worldwide; so does George Bush as a matter fact, and no one can miss how Obama positively grovels before the Saud royals.  U.S. citizens are growling in rising outrage,  demanding disclosure of the 28 suppressed pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, concerning the relationship of the Saudi royal family to those crimes.  Charles can’t wiggle his way out of this, or mutter polite excuses;  Not only did Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Ambassador to the USA in 2001 and undoubtedly a subject of the 28 pages, pour tens of millions of dollars into Charles’s private “charities” and the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies (known as “Charles’s OCIS,” because of his active patronage), but Charles himself negotiated mega-deals within the Anglo-Saudi arms trade[1]

(1. Richard Freeman and William F. Wertz, Jr., “Charles of Arabia. The British Monarchy, Saudi Arabia, and 9/11,” EIR, May 23, 2014; and Richard Freeman, “King Faisal and the Forging of the Anglo-Saudi Terror Alliance,” EIR, June 27, 2014, document ties between the Saudi and British Royals, particularly Charles.)

“Bandar’s brother-in-law Prince Turki bin Faisal, who resigned as director of Saudi General Intelligence 10 days before 9/11, is a member of the OCIS Board of Trustees and chairs its Strategy Advisory Committee. The pair were among only eight foreign royals whom Charles invited to his wedding to Camilla Parker-Bowles in 2005.”

 Both are named in the 4,000-page lawsuit filed on Feb. 3 in New York by the families of 9/11 victims. [See article in National—ed.] Already in 2005, a book co-authored by British former prisoner of the Saudi regime Sandy Mitchell pointed out that “Prince Charles’s relationships with prominent House of Saud members have created serious problems and obstacles to UK agencies investigating claims of Saudi financing of international terrorism, according to Special Branch sources,” citing how lawyers for 9/11 families encountered such a stone wall on a visit to the UK in 2003. [2 ]

2. Mark Hollingsworth with Sandy Mitchell, Saudi Babylon: Torture, Corruption and Cover-Up Inside the House of Saud (Edinburgh and London: Mainstream Publishing, 2005).

Fury at the  Windsor-Saud alliance is building rapidly, and where there was a time when no journalist dared say a word remotely critical of a royal, they have sunk themselves so deep in the mire of their own scandals, that the world at large has lost all respect for them, it seems. Human rights activist Joan Smith, for example, blasted Charles in a Jan. 25 column in The Independent, for “sucking up to the Saudis.” She cited the role of “Saudi Arabia, with its two-faced royal family,” in “the 9/11 attacks, Madrid, the 7/7 bombings, the kidnapping of the Chibok girls [and] the massacre at Charlie Hebdo.
Charles is feeling the heat. A new biography of the Prince of Wales claims that he “no longer wants to promote UK arms sales in Gulf States,” according to the BBC on Feb. 4. [3]

3. The book is Charles: Heart of a King (London: WH Allen, 2015), by Time magazine journalist Catherine Mayer 

When  Charles visited the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, again on Feb. 6-12, Clarence House (his residence) even  issued a defensive-sounding statement that “the Prince of Wales’s return to the region only one year after his last tour demonstrates the importance that Her Majesty’s Government places on its association with key partners in the area. These connections are underpinned by the long-standing and respectful relationships which exist between the Royal Family and the ruling families in the Gulf.” The BBC reported that a spokesman followed up with a pre-emptive denial of new arms deals, saying: “The Prince of Wales’ upcoming visit to the Middle East is not about sales of defense equipment.”  You almost have to feel sorry for someone so pathetically clueless, but they are ALL like that, and it’s what makes them so bloody dangerous.

Even more scum leaking out of the fissures and cracks of the crumbling “Empire”:

• Revelations about a pedophile ring operating in high society, including within Buckingham Palace, continue to rock the UK. At the same time, Catherine Mayer’s biography has drawn attention to the status Prince Charles accorded the late Jimmy Savile—a TV personality and notorious pedophile (exposed as such only after his death in 2011)—as friend, confidant, adviser, and even “key aide,” as one newspaper account put it. A 2013 Scotland Yard report cited abuse by Savile “on an unprecedented scale,” shown in complaints by 450 people, covering the period 1955-2009 and victims aged 8 to 47.

• Sworn testimony is sought from Prince Andrew, fifth in line to the throne, in a sexual abuse claim against convicted child-abuser Jeffrey Epstein by a victim who testifies she was pimped to Andrew by Epstein, his friend, when she was a minor.

Charles’s “fury” over a BBC documentary called “Reinventing the Royals,” was widely reported. It concerns the PR campaign waged after Diana’s death to get the public to accept Charles’s longtime mistress, Camilla Parker-Bowles, as his next wife. Scheduled to air on Jan. 4, the program was pulled because Clarence House refused to provide archival footage. After an uproar over Charles’s heavy-handed intervention, the program is now supposed to air on Feb. 19.

Royals and British Intelligence Implicated in Assassination of Princess Diana

The deaths of Princess Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed, were a terrible shock to the world. She was much-beloved, and there were grave suspicions that her death was no accident, as the “official storyline” claimed. A retired New Zealander, John Morgan, was prmpted to look into her death by his own suspicions, and after intensive investigation, found that a key intelligence figure involved was a rather infamous and high-ranked MI6 Intelligence Officer, Sherpard Cowper-Coles, who was posing under a pseudonym in the London Embassy, and replaced the day after Diana’s murder. No testimony from Cowper-Coles was taken at the inquest, although presiding Lord Justice Scott Baker had announced that the involvement of British security services was a major topic for review. That omission is even more striking in view of Cowper-Coles’s relationship to the Anglo-Saudi Al-Yamamah arms deal, [20 ] in which Prince Charles and Prince Andrew have both directly participated.

([20.] Jeffrey Steinberg, “Scandal of the Century Rocks British Crown and the City,” EIR, June 22, 2007. Cowper-Coles had headed the Hong Kong Department of the British Foreign Office, until the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997. As
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (2003-07), he played a decisive role in 2006 in shutting down the British Serious Fraud Office investigation of the Al-Yamamah deal, which Prince Bandar had negotiated with the huge British arms company BAE Systems. Al-Yamamah generated a slush fund of $100 billion, used to finance the Afghan mujahedin networks
that gave rise to Al-Qaeda. Cowper-Coles was later the British Ambassador to Afghanistan (2007-09) and the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan (2009-10). In 2007, Afghan President Hamid Karzai expelled two MI6 agents caught funding the Taliban, one of whom, Michael Semple, was a close associate of Cowper-Coles. (Ramtanu Maitra, “Does the U.S. Understand What Is at Stake in Afghanistan?”, EIR, Sept. 24, 2010, details the involvement of Cowper-Coles in the matter of British dope-promotion in Afghanistan, while also mentioning his track record with respect to Diana’s death and the Saudi arms scandal.) After leaving the Foreign Office, CowperColes
became a senior executive at BAE Systems. He left BAE in 2013 and is currently Senior Advisor to the CEO of another elite British company, one with a background in the narcotics trade, HSBC Group. In 2004 Queen Elizabeth made Cowper-Coles a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George.

Phases of Al-Yamamah, as well as other BAE-Saudi arms deals, were negotiated by Charles himself, most recently during his February 2014 state visit to Saudi Arabia. In November 2010, major British press reported on Andrew’s advocacy for BAE, as revealed in a U.S. diplomatic telegram, exposed by Wikileaks, expressing shock at how he had “railed at British anticorruption investigators, who had had the ‘idiocy’ of almost scuttling the al-Yamamah deal with Saudi Arabia.”)

Socialized Medicine Kills

Socialized Medicine Kills
Call it single-payer or Medicare-for-all, socialized medicine is death.
By Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

As the health care debate goes on, Senator Bernie Sanders will toss in a socialized medicine bill.

Bernie’s bill won’t be a realistic piece of legislation. The 1 percenter Socialist from Vermont has three successful bills to his name. Two of those involved renaming post offices. He was a marginal figure during the ObamaCare debate. The financials of the plan won’t work. But they never do.

ObamaCare insurers are losing billions. Aetna pulled out after $700 million in losses. United Health jumped after losing $720 million. The single-payer that Bernie wants to propose will be even worse.

Vermont’s single payer experiment cost $4.3 billion out of a $4.9 billion state budget. The California Senate passed single-payer with no way to cover the $400 billion cost in a $183 billion budget.

Democrats who wouldn’t vote for it faced death threats and accusations that they were “murderers”.

That’s what every argument about socialized medicine comes down to. Either you support it or you want people to die.

Bernie Sanders has been accusing Republican repealers of killing thousands. If ObamaCare is repealed, “36,000 will die yearly”. Then he claimed, “up to 28,000 Americans every single year could die.”

Is it 36,000 or 28,000? Who cares? The point is, if you’re against socialized medicine, you’re a murderer. The right numbers, either the budget or the casualties, don’t matter. Emotions trump statistics.

In 2015, the year after ObamaCare took effect, the death rate rose for the first time in a decade. 2,471,984 deaths occurred in this country in 2008. In 2014, we were up to 2,626,418.

That’s a difference of 150,000. And going up, not down.

You would think that if the ObamaCare mandate is saving so many lives, we ought to be seeing fewer deaths, not more of them.

Life expectancy in the year after ObamaCare fell for the first time since 1993. That was, coincidentally, the year of Hillary’s big push for socialized medicine.

Socialized medicine is better at taking lives than at saving them. Just ask Bernie.

The closest the Vermont Socialist has gotten to medical management was his time as VA committee chair. After hundreds of thousands of veterans died waiting for care, Bernie covered up the carnage. He claimed it was a right-wing conspiracy, sabotaged efforts to hold hearings and dismissed the complaints.

“When you are dealing with 200,000 people, if you did better than any other health institution in the world, there would be thousands of people every single day who would say ‘I don’t like what I’m getting,’” he insisted.

Bernie lied. 307,000 veterans died.

The Socialist Senator was obsessed with the VA because it was another template for socialized medicine. He denounced the criticisms of it as a right-wing plot to privatize the VA. Advocates of socialized medicine respond in this typical tribal fashion to rationing scandals whether it’s the NHS or the VA.

Socialized medicine isn’t a system. It’s an ideology. No amount of deaths or statistics can discredit it. And that is another reason it’s so dangerous. It combines the entrenched bureaucracy that rots all government programs from within with the fanatical conviction that it is the road to utopia.

It doesn’t matter how many people a progressive program kills. It must be defended on principle.

Socialized medicine is sold with a lie. The lie is that you can get all the medical care you need for a low price. Or even for free. But socialized medicine doesn’t have less rationing than the hybrid government-market programs that progressives keep incrementally creating and then tearing down. It has more.

Insurers that offered the most options suffered the biggest losses under ObamaCare. The ObamaCare insurers that made money did it by offering few doctors and low quality health care. The more they rationed services to patients and payments to doctors and hospitals, the better they did.

And that’s how ObamaCare was designed to work. Full socialized medicine is even worse.

Socialism always sells the same lie. Take anything, remove the profit motive, scale up taxes and you can distribute it more fairly. But instead socialized medicine cannibalizes the health care market. Patients get tightly rationed health care. Doctors and hospitals are squeezed on reimbursements. The system never rations itself. Instead it rations care and becomes a policy vehicle for social engineering.

Even while Obama Inc. was touting ObamaCare, it was moving forward with cuts to health care services for active military personnel. ObamaCare replaced viable health care plans with unusable plans that were catastrophic care in all but name. Rationing was always the name of the game.

Socialism doesn’t build services, it builds bureaucracy. The bureaucracy rations the services it administers while building bigger buildings, hiring more personnel and expanding its organization. Bureaucrats get nicer chairs while patients bleed out waiting to see a doctor. Medications vanish from the formulary while unions negotiate bigger contacts with more perks. The bureaucracy insulates itself from criticism by identifying its existence and funding with medicine. Oppose it and you’re a murderer.

That’s socialized medicine.

The world was riveted by the drama of Charlie Gard’s death at the hands of British socialized medicine. The director of one hospital was being paid $78,000 a month. Another exec was receiving $55,000. Great Ormond Street Hospital, the institution made famous by Peter Pan, which seemed obsessed with killing Charlie, had a dying child abused by Jimmy Savile, in the Baby P case, Sabah Al-Zayyat missed the fact that an abused child had a broken back and its head of cardiology was booted for molesting young boys. A report had claimed that the hospital couldn’t pay its bills and children were beating treated in hallways and waiting rooms.

Take the worst abuses in a free market system. Then make them permanent. That’s socialized medicine.

The death rate in America is 8.20 per 1,000 people. In the UK, it’s 9.40. The death rate rose in the UK around the same time that it was rising in the US. It was the biggest rise since 1968.

And the NHS, the gold standard in socialized medicine, has death rates 4 times higher than America. Seriously ill NHS patients were seven times more likely to die than they were in the United States.

Almost 10% of British patients died in a surgical study compared to 2.5% of American patients. The head of anesthesia at Great Ormond blamed the NHS’ waiting lists for the death toll.

Socialists lie, hospital patients die.

The American left shrieks that without socialized medicine, we’ll die. The facts show that socialized medicine kills. The left promises that socialized medicine will mean health care for everyone. The facts show that it will mean less care, fewer doctors and more health care rationing across the board.

Call it single-payer, Medicare-for-all or any other euphemism, socialized medicine is death.

Members of Congress get their medical care through the Office of the Attending Physician: an institution that dates back to 1928. For a $596 annual fee, you can get your primary care that way. That’s where Bernie Sanders’ medical note came from indicating he uses it for his medical needs.

Congressman Steven LaTourette came down with pancreatic cancer after OAP doctors failed to notify him that he had a lesion. He died last year.

Socialized medicine really will kill you.

Original Article