CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, 2005: serious financial management problems at the Pentagon: Fiscal year, 1999, $2.3 trillion missing. Fiscal year, 2000, $1.1 trillion missing, and DOD is the number reason why the government can't balance its checkbook?

[RG911Team] In 2006, this woman asked three questions that sent shivers down the spines of the Deep State.

Does anyone understand why these 9/11 questions were so dangerous? pic.twitter.com/nq62GB4A5o

— Richard Gage, AIA, Architect (@RichardGage_911) February 29, 2024

[RG911Team] In the full clip, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney also questions US military leaders on child sex abuse in defense contractors and the trillions of dollars unaccounted for at the Pentagon. Link:

 

From Georgia, Ms. McKinney . . .

Here is the cast of characters in House Armed Services Budget Committee, March 10, 2005.

The distinguished Congresswoman from Georgia, Ms. Cynthia McKinney.

The U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. 

Tina W. Jones, Comptroller of the U.S. Defense Department. 

4-Star General U.S. Air Force, Richard Myers.

Chairman of the Defense Budget, Mr. Duncan L. Hunter from California.

MCKINNEY, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Secretary, I watched President Bush deliver a moving speech at the United Nations in September 2003 in which he mentioned the crisis of the sex trade.  The President called for the punishment of those involved in this horrible business, but at the very moment of that speech DynCorp was exposed for having been involved in the buying and selling of young women and children.  While all of this was going on, DynCorp kept the Pentagon contract to administer the smallpox and Anthrax vaccines and is now working on a plague vaccine through the Joint Vaccine Acquisition position program.  Mr. Secretary, is it the policy of the US government to reward companies that traffic in women and little girls?  That's my first question.  My second question is according to the Controller General of the United States there are serious financial management problems at the Pentagon to which Mr. Cooper alluded.  Fiscal year, 1999, $2.3 trillion missing.  Fiscal year, 2000, $1.1 trillion missing, and DOD is the number one reason why the government can't balance its checkbook?  The Pentagon has claimed year after year that the reason it can't account for the money is because it's computers don't communicate with each other.  My second question, Mr Secretary, is who has the contracts today to make those systems communicate with each other?  How long have they had those contracts, and how much have the taxpayers paid for them?  Finally Mr. Secretary, after the last hearing I thought that my office was promised a written response to my question regarding the war games on September 11th.  I have not yet received that response, but would like for you to respond to the questions that I've put to you today and then I do expect the written response to my previous question hopefully by the end of the week.

RUMSFELD, 2:10. Thank you representative first the answer to your first question is no absolutely not the policy of the United States government is clear unambiguous and opposed to the activities that you described the second question, . . . 

MCKINNEY, 2:32. Well how do you explain the fact that DynCorp and its successor companies have received and continue to receive government contracts? 

RUMSFELD, 2:41. I would have to go and find the fax but there are laws and rules and regulations with respect to government contracts and there are times that corporations do things that they should not do in which case they tend to be suspended for some period there are times then that under the laws and rules and regulations, they're passed by the Congress and implemented by the executive branch that corporations can get off out of the Penalty Box if you will and be permitted to engage in contracts with the government they are generally not barred in perpetuity.

MCKINNEY, 3:19.  This contract with this company was never in The Penalty Box.  If you could proceed to my second question, please.

RUMSFELD, 3:27.  The second question I forgot what the second question was thank you Miss McKinney I appreciate the question I appreciate your interest in the Department's Financial condition and we are working very hard on that program I've just come back recently.

MCKINNEY, 3:55.  I understand you're working hard on it but my question was who has the contracts how long have they had that contract and how much money have we spent on it?

TINA JONES, 4:02. In general we spend about $20 billion in the department on Information Technology systems the accounting systems are part of that I can get you the exact number for the record of what we spend on our current what we call Legacy systems and those that we are moving toward 

MCKINNEY, 4:21.  And who has the contracts 

JONES, 4:23. That would be a multitude of individuals 

MCKINNEY, 4:25.  Could you name some, please?

JONES, 4:26. Well I think off the top of my head I would rather not . . . I would rather provide that for the record. 

MCKINNEY, 4:32.That's not privileged information, is it?

JONES, 4:34. I'm sure it's not.

MCKINNEY, 4:36.  Please . . . We still have time, so, please . . . .

JONES, 4:39. I would be glad to provide for the record and I don't want to talk from the top of my head and be incorrect.

RUMSFELD, 4:44. On your first question I'm advised by Dr Chu that it was not the corporation that was engaged in the activities you characterized but I'm told it was an employee of the corporation and it was some years ago in the Balkans that that took place 

MCKINNEY, 5:00. It's my understanding that it continues to take place

RUMSFELD, 5:01. Is that right?  

MCKINNEY, 5:02. Yes . . . 

RUMSFELD, 5:03. Well if you can give me information to that effect

MCKINNEY, 5:05. I am sure that you are interested in all of the information that I have and I will be more than happy to provide it to you but I would also like to get information from you for example the information that I just requested about who has those contracts

RUMSFELD, 5:35. We'll get back on both of the first two questions but the congresswoman has raised the other question twice now and I'd like to have General Myers respond because you mentioned it in the last hearing and I think it would be helpful to get the answer even though we are unread if you don't mind Mr chairman 

MCKINNEY, 5:52.  But I would like to have the answer in writing as well as I thought my office was promised.

MYERS, 6:00. Okay I don't know about the promise Congresswoman, but could you repeat the question to make sure I'm answering the right question this is a 9/11 question.

MCKINNEY, 6:06. The question was we had four war games going on on September 11th and the question that I tried to pose before the secretary had to go to lunch was whether or not the activities of the four war games going on on September 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.

GENERAL RICHARD MYERS, 6:30. The answer to the question is no did not impair our response in fact General Eberhart who was in the commander of the North American Aerospace Defense command he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe, I believe he told him that it enhanced our ability to respond given that Norad didn't have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day that was an FAA responsibility but they were there were two cpx's there was one Department of Justice exercise it didn't have anything to do with the other three and there was an actual operation on going because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska . . . 

MCKINNEY, 7:08.  So let me ask you this then.  Who was in charge of managing those war games?

CHAIRMAN HUNTER, 7:15.  Ah, General, why don't you give the best answer you can here in a short period of time and the Gentle Lady wants to get it written answer anyway and then we can move on to other folks.

GENERAL RICHARD MYERS, 7:26. The important thing to realize is that North American Aerospace defense command was responsible these are command post exercises what that means is all the battle positions that are normally not filled are indeed filled so it was an easy transition from an exercise into a real-world situation that it actually enhanced the response.  So otherwise it would take somewhere between 30 minutes and a couple of hours to fill those positions in those battle spaces with the right staff officers.

MCKINNEY, 7:53. Mr chairman I'm begging your Indulgence was September 11th declared a national security special event day 

MYERS, 8:00. I'd have to look back I do not know.  You mean after the fact, or before?  

MCKINNEY, 8:04. No.  Because of the activities going on that had been scheduled at the United Nations that day.

MYERS, 8:10.  I'd have to go back and check.  I don't know.

Early 1980s, Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Monsanto and part of the Reagan transition team, got to appoint the new head of the FDA, who then went on to cast the deciding vote in favor of allowing Aspartame into the American food supply.

Take propionic acid (PPA), for instance. This common antifungal, used to extend the shelf life of processed food, is found in highly elevated levels in the stool of autistic children. Many cases of autism appear to be linked to gut dysfunction and microbial overgrowth, which PPA probably encourages by "nuking" the good microbes in the gut, allowing aggressive strains to invade and take hold.

Scientists, on the basis of early testing, were saying aspartame was a carcinogen in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but Donald Rumsfeld, who was CEO of the company that owned Aspartame [Searle], became part of the Reagan transition team and got to appoint the new head of the FDA, who then went on to cast the deciding vote in favor of allowing Aspartame into the American food supply. When Monsanto acquired the company that owned Aspartame soon after, Rumsfeld was paid $12 million by Monsanto as a golden handshake, almost certainly for his direct intervention to get Aspartame past the safety board.

This isn't an isolated story of corruption, of corporate profits being put before the health of the nation. This is how the system works. It's why the American food supply is loaded with ingredients whose effects on human health are totally unknown. It's why we regularly discover that common food ingredients are extremely harmful.

Take propionic acid (PPA), for instance. This common antifungal, used to extend the shelf life of processed food, is found in highly elevated levels in the stool of autistic children. Many cases of autism appear to be linked to gut dysfunction and microbial overgrowth, which PPA probably encourages by "nuking" the good microbes in the gut, allowing aggressive strains to invade and take hold.

The whole system needs to change. We need an independent system that doesn't allow corporate influence to override the basic rights of the people to eat food that really is safe.  

Scientists, on the basis of early testing, were saying aspartame was a carcinogen in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but Donald Rumsfeld, who was CEO of the company that owned Aspartame, became part of the Reagan transition team and got to appoint the new head of the FDA, who… https://t.co/C4asrmOHXU

— RAW EGG NATIONALIST (@Babygravy9) June 29, 2023

The Story Of Ivermectin And COVID-19

NCBI explains that 

Ivermectin proved to be even more of a ‘Wonder drug’ in human health, improving the nutrition, general health and wellbeing of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat Onchocerciasis in humans in 1988.

The narrator explains that Ivermectin, discovered in the 1970s, treats river blindness caused by a parasitic worm and caused untold suffering and even death in Central and Southern America and much of Africa. 

Instead of Ivermectin, Fauci endorsed Remdesivir, which has a lousy effect on mortality.  In fact, in the study that initially began to examine mortality, Fauci switched the results or endpoint of the study from Remdesivir’s impact on mortality to Remdesivir’s impact on “time it takes to recover.”

So why would Dr. Fauci and NIH continue to endorse a drug that costs $3,100 per course of treatment [unlike Ivermectin, which is narrowly free] and that has shown to have no impact on mortality?  Who makes Remdesivir and how are they related to who gets to decide which drugs can be used to treat COVID-19? 

Remdesivir is made by Gilead Sciences, a pharmaceutical company located in Foster City, CA.  From 1997-2001, the chairman of Gilead was Donald Rumsfeld, one of the architects of the War in Iraq.  

When Ford lost the 1976 election, Rumsfeld returned to private business and financial life, and was named president and CEO of the pharmaceutical corporation G. D. Searle & Company. He was later named CEO of General Instrument from 1990 to 1993 and chairman of Gilead Sciences from 1997 to 2001.

During the same period, one of the board members of Gilead was George Schultz, a long-time Bush Family ally who was instrumental in convincing George W. Bush to run for the United States.  

In order to understand why the NIH treatment panel is so pro-Remdesivir, it’s essential to understand the financial ties between Gilead Sciences and members of that treatment panel.  Looking at the treatment panel’s financial disclosures, you will see that no fewer than 7 members disclosed financial support from Gilead Sciences.  Interestingly, the 3 co-chairs who select the other members of the panel, do not disclose support from Gilead.  However, two of the Chairs, Roy Gulick and Henry Masur, both receive financial support from Gilead.  Even more interestingly, the third co-chair, Clifford Lane was actually was one of the authors of the NIAID study on Remdesivir, but you won’t see his name in the list of the article’s authors.  You have to look at the financial disclosure form that accompanied that article.  

It’s also worth noting that 7 out of 12 of these co-authors on that study disclosed funding from Gilead Sciences.  The significance of this cannot be overstated.  Two of the three chairs of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Panel, the people who put the panel together, received financial support from Gilead Sciences, while the other was intimately involved in the study that attempted to and failed to prove that Remdesivir was an effective treatment of COVID-19.  

Given these professional and financial ties, is there any way that we could reasonably expect them to impartially judge the best treatments for COVID-19?  Or choose panel members who advocate for repurposing cheap, off-patent drugs that would completely undercut the market for one of the main products of a company with which they enjoy close financial and professional ties? 

This seems like good news.

Curious what Ivermectin skeptics have to say about these results.

Thanks to Ryan Dawson.  https://t.co/QvGIEbwq1S

— Stephen W. Carson (@RadicalLib) September 5, 2021