...

When Kerry rose before the Senate on Jan. 11, 1991, to explain his vote against the Gulf War resolution, he charged that the George H.W. Bush administration had done too little to involve the rest of the world in its campaign to oust Iraq from Kuwait.

"Can it really be said that we are building a new world order when it is almost exclusively the United States who will be fighting in the desert, not alone but almost, displaying pride and impatience and implementing what essentially amounts to a pax Americana?" he asked. "Is that a new world order?"

Eleven years later, when Kerry discussed the resolution for last year's war against Iraq, his opinion of Bush's father's efforts had changed: He praised the coalition that had been formed for the Gulf War, in part to complain that the current president had thus far failed to secure the same level of cooperation.

...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4570689/

Iraq demands a new world order

Tony Blair's call deserves our support

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1163905,00.html

drifter 20.03.2004-12:39:22

toto je imho stale aktualnejsie! (kapitola z What Uncle Sam Really Wants od
Noam Chomsky)


War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.



The terms of political discourse typically have two meanings. One is the dictionary meaning, and the other is a meaning that is useful for serving power -- the doctrinal meaning.

Take democracy. According to the common-sense meaning, a society is democratic to the extent that people can participate in a meaningful way in managing their affairs. But the doctrinal meaning of democracy is different -- it refers to a system in which decisions are made by sectors of the business community and related elites. The public are to be only "spectators of action," not "participants," as leading democratic theorists (in this case, Walter Lippmann) have explained. They are permitted to ratify the decisions of their betters and to lend their support to one or another of them, but not to interfere with matters -- like public policy -- that are none of their business.

If segments of the public depart from their apathy and begin to organize and enter the public arena, that's not democracy. Rather, it's a crisis of democracy in proper technical usage, a threat that has to be overcome in one or another way: in El Salvador, by death squads -- at home, by more subtle and indirect means.

Or take free enterprise, a term that refers, in practice, to a system of public subsidy and private profit, with massive government intervention in the economy to maintain a welfare state for the rich. In fact, in acceptable usage, just about any phrase containing the word "free" is likely to mean something like the opposite of its actual meaning.

Or take defense against aggression, a phrase that's used -- predictably -- to refer to aggression. When the US attacked South Vietnam in the early 1960s, the liberal hero Adlai Stevenson (among others) explained that we were defending South Vietnam against "internal aggression" -- that is, the aggression of South Vietnamese peasants against the US air force and a US-run mercenary army, which were driving them out of their homes and into concentration camps where they could be "protected" from the southern guerrillas. In fact, these peasants willingly supported the guerillas, while the US client regime was an empty shell, as was agreed on all sides.

So magnificently has the doctrinal system risen to its task that to this day, 30 years later, the idea that the US attacked South Vietnam is unmentionable, even unthinkable, in the mainstream. The essential issues of the war are, correspondingly, beyond any possibility of discussion now. The guardians of political correctness (the real PC) can be quite proud of an achievement that would be hard to duplicate in a well-run totalitarian state.

Or take the term peace process. The naive might think that it refers to efforts to seek peace. Under this meaning, we would say that the peace process in the Middle East includes, for example, the offer of a full peace treaty to Israel by President Sadat of Egypt in 1971, along lines advocated by virtually the entire world, including official US policy; the Security Council resolution of January 1976 introduced by the major Arab states with the backing of the PLO, which called for a two-state settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict in the terms of a near-universal international consensus; PLO offers through the 1980s to negotiate with Israel for mutual recognition; and annual votes at the UN General Assembly, most recently in December 1990 (voted 144-2), calling for an international conference on the Israel-Arab problem, etc.

But the sophisticated understand that these efforts do not form part of the peace process. The reason is that in the PC meaning, the term peace process refers to what the US government is doing -- in the cases mentioned, this is to block international efforts to seek peace. The cases cited do not fall within the peace process, because the US backed Israel's rejection of Sadat's offer, vetoed the Security Council resolution, opposed negotiations and mutual recognition of the PLO and Israel, and regularly joins with Israel in opposing -- thereby, in effect, vetoing -- any attempt to move towards a peaceful diplomatic settlement at the UN or elsewhere.

The peace process is restricted to US initiatives, which call for a unilateral US-determined settlement with no recognition of Palestinian national rights. That's the way it works. Those who cannot master these skills must seek another profession.

There are many other examples. Take the term special interest. The well-oiled Republican PR systems of the 1980s regularly accused the Democrats of being the party of the special interests: women, labor, the elderly, the young, farmers -- in short, the general population. There was only one sector of the population never listed as a special interest: corporations and business generally. That makes sense. In PC discourse their (special) interests are the national interest, to which all must bow.

The Democrats plaintively retorted that they were not the party of the special interests: they served the national interest too. That was correct, but their problem has been that they lack the single-minded class consciousness of their Republican opponents. The latter are not confused about their role as representatives of the owners and managers of the society, who are fighting a bitter class war against the general population -- often adopting vulgar Marxist rhetoric and concepts, resorting to jingoist hysteria, fear and terror, awe of great leaders and the other standard devices of population control. The Democrats are less clear about their allegiances, hence less effective in the propaganda wars.

Finally, take the term conservative, which has come to refer to advocates of a powerful state, which interferes massively in the economy and in social life. They advocate huge state expenditures and a postwar peak of protectionist measures and insurance against market risk, narrowing individual liberties through legislation and court-packing, protecting the Holy State from unwarranted inspection by the irrelevant citizenry -- in short, those programs that are the precise opposite of traditional conservatism. Their allegiance is to "the people who own the country" and therefore "ought to govern it," in the words of Founding Father John Jay.

It's really not that hard, once one understands the rules.

To make sense of political discourse, it's necessary to give a running translation into English, decoding the doublespeak of the media, academic social scientists and the secular priesthood generally. Its function is not obscure: the effect is to make it impossible to find words to talk about matters of human significance in a coherent way. We can then be sure that little will be understood about how our society works and what is happening in the world -- a major contribution to democracy, in the PC sense of the word.

:)

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Frank/People/weishaup.html

CIA and freemasons among dark forces in Europe: an exclusive JUST Response report from the Dougal Watt Dossier

http://www.justresponse.net/DougalWatt20Aug02.html

Polský euroskeptik potrestán
(20.3.04)

Soud odsoudil Lukasze Kolaka z Gdyně k měsíci veřejných prací za to, že na zastávce autobusu vylepil plakát proti Evropské unii.

Jak už to v takových případech bývá, v soudním rozhodnutí se nepraví nic o tom, že by důvodem byl plakát proti EU. Přestupek spočíval ve vylepení plakátu bez povolení majitele zastávky (dříve se tomu říkalo "poškozování socialistického majetku").

Jistě se stalo jen shodou okolností, že na téže zastávce byl také vylepen plakát PRO Evropskou unii, za jehož vylepení nikdo potrestán nebyl.

Pan Kolak se odvolal.

Soud s pomýleným, který odmítá vidět světlé zítřky, bude pokračovat 13. dubna.

Zdroj: http://intermarium.webpark.pl/kolak.html

Secrets and ties of the Bonesmen

http://news.scotsman.com/features.cfm?id=315162004

...

The plug has been pulled on Cloak and Dagger, Toronto's top-rated, late-night conspiracy radio talk show. Not surprisingly, its producers are claiming it's all a conspiracy.

Independent producer Nelson Thall says he was notified by MOJO 640 program director Scott Armstrong last week that the station (CFMJ) had decided to replace Cloak and Dagger -- the highest-rated show in its Thursday, 11 p.m. to 2 a.m., time slot, according to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement -- with a comedy show.

But Thall isn't buying the official rationale. He thinks the show, which explores alleged conspiracies that include the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., the deaths of John F. Kennedy Jr. and Princess Diana, and the events of Sept. 11, 2001, was "upsetting people in high places."

"I'm a modern-day Howard Beale," he said, alluding to the star of the 1976 movie Network. "They killed my show because our ratings are too high. We did our job too well, revealing state secrets the shadow government doesn't want you to know."

Indeed, he goes further. Thall says he spoke last week with former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, who told him that George W. Bush -- one of Cloak and Dagger's frequent targets -- had told Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to take the show off the air.

According to Thall: "When Martin met Bush at Monterrey in Mexico last month, Bush told him he would not sign any agreement about oil concessions to Canada unless he got rid of Cloak and Dagger."

...

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040207/MOJO07

"The Transportation Security Administration said Wednesday it will order airlines to turn over passengers' personal records in the next couple of months to test a computerized passenger screening program that could keep dangerous people off airlines, reports Yahoo/AP. The Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS II, would rank all air passengers according to the likelihood of their being terrorists. Suspected terrorists and violent criminals would be designated as red and forbidden to fly. Passengers who raise questions would be classified as yellow and would receive extra security screening. The vast majority would be designated green and allowed through routine screening. But some say the project would violate privacy rights, while others are concerned it would cost the private sector too much money. The Air Transport Association, the trade group for major airlines, has come up with seven 'privacy principles' that it says the government should follow in implementing CAPPS II."

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/18/2326218

Rumsfeld Caught Lying, Yet Again, On "Face the Nation." But This Time, a Journalist Actually Threw It In His Face.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Thanks to David Sirota of the Center for American Progress for spotting and forwarding this excerpt in which Rumsfeld is caught in a brazen lie by Bob Schieffer of CBS. Sirota also suggests seeing this [LINK] for further proof of Rumsfeld's lie on "Face the Nation."
Excerpt from "Face the Nation":

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

See: [CBS Interview Link for "Face the Nation" (.pdf file)] http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_031404.pdf

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/03/ana04004.html

The Bushes' New World Disorder

Free Press International


The Boston Globe 3/16/2004


"IT MUST BE considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things." This warning is from Niccolo Machiavelli, yet it has never had sharper resonance.

More than a decade ago, after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush explicitly sought to initiate, as he put it to Congress, a "new world order." He made that momentous declaration on Sept. 11, 1990. Eleven years later, the suddenly mystical date of 9/11 motivated his son to finish what the father began. A year ago this week, Bush the younger launched a war against the man who tried to kill his dad, initiating the opposite of order.

The situation hardly needs rehearsing. In Iraq, many thousands are dead, including 564 Americans. Civil war threatens. Afghanistan, meanwhile, is choked by drug-running warlords. Islamic jihadists have been empowered. The nuclear profiteering of Pakistan has been exposed but not necessarily stopped. Al Qaeda's elusiveness has reinforced its mythic malevolence. The Atlantic Alliance is in ruins. The United States has never been more isolated. A pattern of deception has destroyed its credibility abroad and at home. Disorder spreads from Washington to Israel to Haiti to Spain. Whether the concern is subduing resistance fighters far away or making Americans feel safer, the Pentagon's unprecedented military dominance, the costs of which stifle the US economy, is shown to be essentially impotent.

In America, the new order of things is defined mainly by the sour taste of moral hangover, how the emotional intensity of the 9/11 trauma -- anguished but pure -- dissolved into a feeling of being trapped in a cage of our own making. As the carnage in Madrid makes clear, the threats in the world are real and dangerous to handle, but one US initiative after another has escalated rather than diffused such threats. Instead of replacing chaos with new order, our nation's responses inflict new wounds that increase the chaos. We strike at those whom we perceive as aiming to do us harm but without actually defending ourselves. And most unsettling of all, in our attempt to get the bad people to stop threatening us, we have begun to imitate them.

The most important revelation of the Iraq war has been of the Bush administration's blatant contempt for fact. Whether defined as "lying" or not, the clear manipulation of intelligence ahead of last year's invasion has been completely exposed. The phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has been transformed. Where once it evoked the grave danger of a repeat of the 9/11 trauma, now it evokes an apparently calculated American fear. The government laid out explicit evidence defining a threat that required the launching of preventive war, and the US media trumpeted that evidence without hesitation. The result, since there were no weapons of mass destruction, as the government and a pliant press had ample reason to know, was an institutionalized deceit maintained to this day. At the United Nations, the United States misled the world. In speech after speech, President Bush misled Congress and the nation. And note that the word "misled" means both to have falsified and to have failed in leadership. To mislead, as the tautological George Bush might put it, is to mislead.

The repetition of falsehoods tied to the war on terrorism and the war against Iraq has eroded the American capacity, if not to tell the difference between what is true and what is a lie, then to think the difference matters much. The administration distorted fact ahead of the invasion, when the American people could not refute what had not happened yet. And the administration distorts fact now, when the American people do not remember clearly what we were told a year ago. That Bush retains the confidence of a sizable proportion of the electorate suggests that Americans don't particularly worry anymore about truth as a guiding principle of their government.

In that lies the irony. The Bush dynasty has in fact initiated a new order of things. The United States of America has become its own opposite, a nation of triumphant freedom that claims the right to restrain the freedom of others; a nation of a structured balance of power that destroys the balance of power abroad; a nation of creative enterprise that exports a smothering banality; and above all, a nation of forcefully direct expression that disrespects the truth. Whatever happens from this week forward in Iraq, the main outcome of the war for the United States is clear. We have defeated ourselves.

http://www.freepressinternational.com/new_world_disorder.html

JAXXE: Jaxxe ukazalo, tak vetsina lidi neumi premyslet, kinda sad...

The Meaning of Madrid

The road to World War IV

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=13966

problem - reakce - reseni

jak jednoduche...

Část svobody by za bezpečnost vyměnilo přes 60 % Čechů

foto: Novinky



Policisté jsou od středy v plné pohotovosti. V České republice začala naplno platit bezpečnostní opatření přijatá po teroristických útocích v Madridu. Z exkluzivního průzkumu agentury STEM pro deník Právo vyplývá, že část své svobody je za větší bezpečnost ochotno obětovat více než 60 procent lidí.
18.3. 03:00

PRAHA - Ochota podle průzkumu roste společně s věkem lidí. Častěji by se tak svých svobod vzdali lidé starší 60 let, méně často pak lidé ve věku od 18 do 29 let. I těch je však většina. Hrozbu terorismu jako důvod ke ztrátě části svobod naproti tomu nevidí 38,8 procenta lidí. Ředitel STEM Jan Hartl v deníku Právo upozorňuje, že výzkum nelze vykládat tak, že veřejnost volá po policejním státu.

"Lidé si to vždycky představují tak, že by opatření spíš omezila ty ostatní, a ne je. Klima je takové, že rozumně míněná opatření by mohla ministru (vnitra Stanislavu) Grossovi projít," řekl Hartl. STEM poprvé zaznamenal tendenci, podle níž jsou lidé ochotni omezit si některé svobody, po teroristických útocích v USA 11. září 2001.
Většina odmítá volnější odposlechy

Gross a další vládní činitelé po akcích teroristů v Madridu hovoří o nutnosti přijetí tzv. antiteroristického zákona, který by zvýšil moc zpravodajských služeb. Diskutuje se např. o uvolnění legislativy ohledně odposlechů či o možnosti vypnout mobilní sítě v případě ohrožení.

Jen necelá pětina dotázaných (19,6 %) se domnívá, že jsou české tajné služby schopny případný teroristický útok předem odhalit. Téměř polovina (47,8 %) si myslí, že nikoli, a necelá třetina (32,5 %) nedokázala odpovědět.

Další data průzkumu STEM částečně odpovídají na otázku, jaká omezení mají lidé na mysli. Velká většina z nich (79,7 %) by souhlasila, aby bylo na ulicích a veřejných prostranstvích v souvislosti s terorismem instalováno více průmyslových kamer. Proti je 20,3 procenta. Respondenti by také většinou souhlasili se zpřísněním kontrol na hranicích, byť by se týkaly nejen cizinců, ale i českých občanů. Kladně se vyjádřilo 77,8 procenta, proti bylo 22,2 procenta.

Exkluzivní průzkum agentury STEM pro Právo

Souhlasil/a byste v souvislosti s nebezpečím terorismu s omezením části svých zákonných svobod? (v %)
Spíše ano 43,3
Určitě ano 17,9
Určitě ne 14,0
Spíše ne 24,8
.: ANKETA :.
Hlasujte v anketě na konci článku.

Obáváte se teroristického útoku na území České republiky? (v %)
Ano 59
Ne 41

Myslíte si, že české tajné služby jsou schopny případný teroristický útok předem odhalit? (v %)
Ano 19,6
Ne 47,8
Neví 32,5

Souhlasíte s tím, aby v souvislosti s terorismem bylo instalováno více průmyslových kamer na ulicích a veřejných prostranstvích? (v %)
Ano 79,7
Ne 20,3

Souhlasíte s tím, aby v souvislosti s terorismem bezpečnostní orgány prováděly odposlechy i bez povolení soudu? (v %)
Ano 39,6
Ne 60,4

Souhlasíte s tím, aby v souvislosti s terorismem bezpečnostní orgány prováděly kontroly bankovních účtů i bez povolení soudu? (v %)
Ano 46,6
Ne 53,4

Souhlasíte s tím, aby se v souvislosti s terorismem zpřísnila na hranicích kontrola nejen cizinců, ale i českých občanů? (v %)
Ano 77,8
Ne 22,2

http://www.novinky.cz/02/79/83.html

Americká vojska prý "vykládala v Iráku zbraně hromadného ničení"

Američtí vojáci prý vykládali v jižních iráckých přístavech velký náklad starých vojenských součástek, z nichž by bylo možno zkonstruovat dalekonosné střely a zbraně hromadného ničení, tvrdí íránský list Tehran Times, ZDE.

Upozornily na to stránky Axis of Logic , které se soustřeďují na shromaž'dování světových zpráv, jaké většinou v hlavních sdělovacích prostředcích zapadnou.

Údajný "spolehlivý zdroj" v Irácké správní radě sdělil tiskové kanceláři Mehr, že se prý přitom americké jednotky, jimž pomáhali i britští vojáci, silně snažili toto vykládání utajit. Náklad byl prý dovezly uprostřed noci civilní lodi. Skládal se ze zbraní vyrobených v osmdesátých a v devadesátých letech. Některé vykládané zbraně jsou prý podobné zbraním, jaké prodávaly Spojené státy Iráku v letech 1980-1988. Většina zbraní však prý byla údajně východoevropského původu a některé součástky pocházely ze Sovětského svazu.

Mluvčí amerických okupačních jednotek v Iráku sdělil tiskové kanceláři Mehr, že nemá žádné informace o tomto vykládání starých zbraní.

http://blisty.cz/2004/3/18/art17366.html

JAXXE --- --- 14:55:27 15.3.2004

Madrid: útoky byly "selháním, bomby měly vybuchnout v tunelu"

Poukázal na to Leopoldo Sagui, který žije nedaleko železniční stanice, odkud vyjely madridské vlaky, které se staly terčem atentátu:

Bydlím v Alcala Henares, v městě nedaleko Madridu, kde teroristé umístili bomby do vlaků. Náklaďák s výbušninami byl nalezen 100 metrů od mého domu. Útok na vlaky ve Španělsku selhal. V důsledku opravářských prací u vjezdu do stanice Atocha měly vlaky zpoždění několika minut.

Teroristé naprogramovali bomby podle oficiálního jizdního řádu. Stanice Atocha je vjezdem do šest kilometrů dlouhého tunelu, v němž jsou dvě podzemní stanice.

Alespoň tři z oněch čtyř vlaků měly explodovat v tunelu. V tom případě by nepřežil téměř nikdo. Každého rána dopravuje každý vlak 2000 - 2500 lidí. Cílem hyen bylo usmrtit 8000 - 10000.

Devadesát procent Španělů bylo proti útoku na Irák. Aznarova vláda trvala po mnoho hodin, že za útoky nese odpovědnost ETA, byla to nesmyslná hypotéza. Víc se dočtete ve španělském zdroji ZDE, poznamenává autor dopisu.

http://blisty.cz/2004/3/18/art17367.html

Officials: Group tying self to blasts may not be real

Boston Globe | March 18 2004

WASHINGTON -- A group purporting to be part of Al Qaeda that claimed responsibility for the Madrid train bombings and warned of a looming attack on the United States seems to be a phantom organization, according to US intelligence officials and terrorism specialists.

In a 24-hour news cycle dominated by fears of terrorism, the latest e-mail from the Abu Hafs al Masri Brigade to a London-based Arabic newspaper sowed anxiety and drew instant headlines all over the world.

But specialists say there is no evidence the organization exists. E-mail messages purporting to be written by the group previously claimed responsibility for everything from the North American blackout to a suicide attack that killed 20 Italian policemen in Iraq. But none of those claims has proved true, intelligence specialists say.

The latest message warned that an attack against the United States is "90 percent ready."

Employees at the Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper in London, which has received several letters in recent months purporting to be from the group, say they are not sure what the group is.

...

But the worldwide attention generated by the Abu Hafs al Masri e-mail, received hours after the attacks occurred, demonstrated how easily threats purported to be from Al Qaeda can be spread. Terrorism analysts say such claims form part of the tactics of psychological warfare and propaganda, designed to capitalize on actual violence and deepen public fear of more attacks.

"It goes to the more virtual nature of Al Qaeda," said Peter Bergen, a terrorism specialist at the New America Foundation in Washington. "Some are real; some are waging psychological warfare."

...

"We have no information confirming the actual existence of this group," Mefford said, adding that the group also has claimed responsibility on Internet sites for the Aug. 5, 2003, bombing of the Marriott hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Venzke said: "They started claiming responsibility for just about everything in the world. We've never been able to determine if it is just one person sitting at a computer having fun or if it really is a group."

The editor of Al-Quds, Abdel Bari Atwan, could not be reached yesterday, but a woman who identified herself as a receptionist said that e-mail messages from the brigade came in Arabic and that she has no other information about the group. When asked whether the letter seemed credible, she said: "That's the problem. Probably not.

"There is no proof of anything, if such a thing exists or is being made up by America or someone else."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/13/officials_group_tying_self_to_blasts_may_not_be_real/

za tricet stribrnych...

Príspevok o americkom prezidentovi Georgeovi Bushovi, v ktorom potencionálni voliči odmenili Busha standing ovations, bol inscenovaný. Vláda Spojených štátov priznala, že najala hercov, ktorí v úlohe novinárov chválili novú legislatúru v oblasti zdravotníctva. V jednom z filmov herečka v úlohe reportérky Karen Ryan číta vládou pripravený scenár, ktorý približuje výhody nového zákona. Druhý príspevok určený pre hispánsku komunitu obsahuje interview s vládnym úradníkom vedenom v španielčine. V jednej časti filmu lekárnik vysvetľuje zákazníkovi, ako mu nový zákon uľahčí prístup k liekom. "Znie to ako dobrý nápad," odpovedá zákazník. "Veľmi dobrý nápad," dopĺňa lekárnik. Vláda takisto pripravila text, ktorí mali prečítať hlásatelia spravodajských relácií. Pásky s filmami objavili právnici Kongresu v rámci prešetrovania financií určených na propagáciu tohto zákona. Filmy skúma pre podozrenie z politickej propagandy skupina vyšetrovateľov. (zdroj: mediaportal.sk, The Guardian)