So, who is immune from being labeled a potential terrorist? Only the guys at the top. The ones who are setting up the lists. The ones putting the labels on us. And just how far a leap would it take for this list to lead to accusations, expatriation and indefinite detention for American citizens on American soil?
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.-
10 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.-The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
UNITED STATES CITIZENS.-The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
NOTE: The key word that makes people believe that Americans are exempt is: Requirement
Requirement means discretionary, and not at your discretion. It simply means that Americans are not REQUIRED to be detained, but it does not prohibit them from being detained. Fairly simple, basic English and easy to understand.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Do Pharmaceuticals Kill More Than Illegal Drugs?
'For the first time in nearly a century, automobile accidents are no longer the nation’s leading cause of accidental deaths, according to a major report released Tuesday by the National Center for Health Statistics. The new number one killer is drugs—not smack, crystal meth or any other stepped-on menace sold in urban alleyways or trailer parks, but bright, shiny pills prescribed by doctors, approved by the government, manufactured by pharmaceutical companies and sold to the consumer as “medicine.”
Yet of the billions of legit pills Americans pop every year for medical conditions serious and otherwise, the vast majority of lives are claimed by only a select few classes—painkillers, sedatives and stimulants—that all share a common characteristic: they promote abuse, dependence and addiction.'
Yet of the billions of legit pills Americans pop every year for medical conditions serious and otherwise, the vast majority of lives are claimed by only a select few classes—painkillers, sedatives and stimulants—that all share a common characteristic: they promote abuse, dependence and addiction.'
True Number Of US Military Wounded
'Reports about the end of the war in Iraq routinely describe the toll on the U.S. military the way the Pentagon does: 4,487 dead, and 32,226 wounded.
The death count is accurate. But the wounded figure wildly understates the number of American service members who have come back from Iraq less than whole.
The true number of military personnel injured over the course of our nine-year-long fiasco in Iraq is in the hundreds of thousands -- maybe even more than half a million -- if you take into account all the men and women who returned from their deployments with traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress, depression, hearing loss, breathing disorders, diseases, and other long-term health problems.'
The death count is accurate. But the wounded figure wildly understates the number of American service members who have come back from Iraq less than whole.
The true number of military personnel injured over the course of our nine-year-long fiasco in Iraq is in the hundreds of thousands -- maybe even more than half a million -- if you take into account all the men and women who returned from their deployments with traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress, depression, hearing loss, breathing disorders, diseases, and other long-term health problems.'
GMO Expanding In US
'While genetically modified foods are continually being banned in other countries, the US is slow to follow the very necessary trend. The USDA has chosen to step back and give Monsanto even more power over GMO seeds, and now some states are taking similar action.
A bill which could be passed in Lansing, Michigan could make Michigan the 15th state to allow for the expansion of GMO seed use, causing Michigan farms to be plagued with disease-riddled, genetically modified crops.'
A bill which could be passed in Lansing, Michigan could make Michigan the 15th state to allow for the expansion of GMO seed use, causing Michigan farms to be plagued with disease-riddled, genetically modified crops.'
TSA Workers & Child Porn
'Yet another TSA screener has been exposed as a pervert after police raided the Maryland home of 41-year-old TSA screener Scott Wilson and discovered videos and photos of child pornography contained on over two dozen different storage devices.
“A “forensic preview” of Wilson’s two computers (as well as various storage devices found in a locked safe) revealed a variety of videos and photos “depicting prepubescent females engaged in sexually explicit conduct with adults,” reports The Smoking Gun.'
“A “forensic preview” of Wilson’s two computers (as well as various storage devices found in a locked safe) revealed a variety of videos and photos “depicting prepubescent females engaged in sexually explicit conduct with adults,” reports The Smoking Gun.'
Food Activists Could Be Terrorists Too
A recent Freedom of Information Act request has revealed that the FBI wants what it calls “food activists” prosecuted as terrorists, perhaps because nothing could more terrifying than exposing where our so-called food comes from and how it is manufactured.
Most Americans don’t really care where their food comes from or how it is made. All that matters is that it’s cheap and tastes good. Unfortunately for the food industry, not everyone is that stupid anymore. There is a growing desire to eat food that is healthy and produced in a cruel-free, sustainable way, stemming in part from the efforts of the food activists who have revealed the brutal, unnatural way our food is manufactured.
Joe Heller / Green Bay Press-Gazette (click to view more cartoons by Heller)
Thus, the FBI wants them classified as terrorists.
In the the brave new world of 21st century America, terrorism has evolved to mean anything that threatens the status quo or challenges the standings or profits of the corporate entities that have reduced our government agencies to the status of a pawns.
Think about it for a second: if you take a picture of a chicken suffering in tiny, filthy cage, the FBI wants you considered a terrorist, especially if your picture causes ‘economic loss’. Nothing terrifies a corporation more than economic loss. Why, people may see that photo, have a crisis of conscience, and spend their dollars elsewhere, thereby reducing the power of animal-torturing corporations. Such a thing should only happen in a free market, not in America.
The Freedom of Information request comes just as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). The AETA is a law designed to to suppress activism and speech regarding the industries which brutalize animals with horrific conditions and/or pump them full of chemicals and drugs. Activists who expose such things very likely would cause economic loss due to the fact that many people would not eat what they eat if they actually knew what they were eating. Therefore, it is vitally important that they never find out.
Similar repressive laws are being introduced throughout the emerging fascist state that is America in the 21st century. In Florida for example, an ‘Ag Gag’ law has been introduced that would define taking pictures of the way corporations manufacture food as ‘terrorism’. Nothing says “We have something to hide” like saying “You are a terrorist if you take pictures of it.”
NOTE: So getting a clearer picture on who isn't a terrorist might be easier.
Most Americans don’t really care where their food comes from or how it is made. All that matters is that it’s cheap and tastes good. Unfortunately for the food industry, not everyone is that stupid anymore. There is a growing desire to eat food that is healthy and produced in a cruel-free, sustainable way, stemming in part from the efforts of the food activists who have revealed the brutal, unnatural way our food is manufactured.
Joe Heller / Green Bay Press-Gazette (click to view more cartoons by Heller)
Thus, the FBI wants them classified as terrorists.
In the the brave new world of 21st century America, terrorism has evolved to mean anything that threatens the status quo or challenges the standings or profits of the corporate entities that have reduced our government agencies to the status of a pawns.
Think about it for a second: if you take a picture of a chicken suffering in tiny, filthy cage, the FBI wants you considered a terrorist, especially if your picture causes ‘economic loss’. Nothing terrifies a corporation more than economic loss. Why, people may see that photo, have a crisis of conscience, and spend their dollars elsewhere, thereby reducing the power of animal-torturing corporations. Such a thing should only happen in a free market, not in America.
The Freedom of Information request comes just as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). The AETA is a law designed to to suppress activism and speech regarding the industries which brutalize animals with horrific conditions and/or pump them full of chemicals and drugs. Activists who expose such things very likely would cause economic loss due to the fact that many people would not eat what they eat if they actually knew what they were eating. Therefore, it is vitally important that they never find out.
Similar repressive laws are being introduced throughout the emerging fascist state that is America in the 21st century. In Florida for example, an ‘Ag Gag’ law has been introduced that would define taking pictures of the way corporations manufacture food as ‘terrorism’. Nothing says “We have something to hide” like saying “You are a terrorist if you take pictures of it.”
NOTE: So getting a clearer picture on who isn't a terrorist might be easier.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Are Vote Counters Honest?
'The Iowa caucus is only a few days away and the nation’s attention will be directed to the results, which signify the beginning of the U.S. presidential race. But does anyone watch who tallies the results of the Iowa caucus?
The Iowa caucus results were tallied in 2004 by a company that is headed by a man whose company was bought by Elron Electronics, the Israeli defense firm. I suspect that it will be the same this year. Don’t expect to see any grassroots political activists doing the tally in Iowa. The Israeli defense establishment takes care of that part of the American “democratic” election process.'
The Iowa caucus results were tallied in 2004 by a company that is headed by a man whose company was bought by Elron Electronics, the Israeli defense firm. I suspect that it will be the same this year. Don’t expect to see any grassroots political activists doing the tally in Iowa. The Israeli defense establishment takes care of that part of the American “democratic” election process.'
Cops Enter Homes Without Permission Or Warrants
'These days, police don't seem to need a warrant to enter your home without your permission when you're not there. Well, at least not in Westerly, R.I.
According to a local report, crews from the local utility company, accompanied by cops, were going door-to-door to close off the gas meters of about 1,600 homes, under the guise of trying to fix a "distribution problem."
If no one is at the home, cops and locksmiths are going into the homes in order to shut off the gas valve. The utility, National Grid, said its crews would be returning to the homes to turn gas meters back on once the problem is identified.'
NOTE: Try this tactic as a landlord and land your butt in jail.
According to a local report, crews from the local utility company, accompanied by cops, were going door-to-door to close off the gas meters of about 1,600 homes, under the guise of trying to fix a "distribution problem."
If no one is at the home, cops and locksmiths are going into the homes in order to shut off the gas valve. The utility, National Grid, said its crews would be returning to the homes to turn gas meters back on once the problem is identified.'
NOTE: Try this tactic as a landlord and land your butt in jail.
Fluoride Only Has Dangers
'Fluoride is being added to water supplies around the world in the name of cavity prevention and enhanced tooth health. At the same time, fluoride supplements are being recommended to those who don’t have the “luxury” of a fluoridated water supply. And while there is already a great deal of previous research available showing the ineffectiveness and dangers of fluoride, even more research has surfaced revealing its lack of necessity.'
NOTE: My two cents...
Fluoride=hazardous waste
Naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, it's calcium based and good for bones and teeth, while the chemically dumped poison is sodium fluoride or a derivative . Our degree of contamination is directly proportional to the level of fluoridated water that we drink.
Let’s for the moment ignore that sodium fluoride isn’t naturally occurring and has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements on earth, or that it's a by-product of aluminum manufacturing, used in atomic bomb production, manufacturing of high grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons. It’s banned outright in France, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Belgium, Japan, China, The Netherlands and numerous informed US and Canadian cities.
Earning a Level 4 rating, compared to a Level 3 rating for Lead, with the Clinical Toxicity of Commercial Products Guide. It’s also the reason your Fluoridated tooth paste comes with that nasty little warning label to call the poison control center in case you swallow any.
But can we afford to ignore the profound work of a committed group of scientists, lawyers and professional employees at EPA? USEPA was alarmed with fluoride toxicity and professional ethics and reviewed toxicity data since 1985 and concurred that “ the most recent toxicity data demonstrate to us a causative link between fluoride exposures and neurotoxicity , including diminished IQ in children, hyperactivity, genetic damage, bone pathology, increased hip fractures, and bone cancer in addition to dental fluorosis. They voted unanimously to join forces with California Citizens for Safe Drinking to stop fluoridation.
The Journal of Brain Research conducted a 52 week study in 1998 to determine whether the effects of aluminum in the nervous system would enhance or inhibit bio availability. Their determination was that the impact on brain tissue was similar to pathological changes found in patients with Alzheimers and dementia, most remarkable was that the studies indicated that even the lowest doses of aluminum fluoride caused the greatest susceptibility to illness and incidence of mortality.
Dr Phyllis Mullenix, former head of Toxicology of Forsythe Dental Center in Boston, now a critic of fluoride, concluded that fluoride is a powerful central nervous system toxin aversely effecting the human brain.
Dr Roger Master, President of Foundation for Neuroscience and Society of Dartmouth University linked fluoride and lead in children suggesting fluoride enhanced the body’s uptake in lead from environmental sources. Evidence is overwhelming that fluoride is considered causative in hip fractures, arthritis, osteoporosis, neurological and cerebro-vascular disease, and as a bone seeking toxin destroys collagen in bones, tendons, muscles, skin, cartilage, lungs and kidneys.
How did fluoride become so popular you ask? Simplistically put...in 1920's and 1930's fluoride fell into negative public opinion, regulations and lawsuits against it’s damages. To reverse public opinion and find an acceptable source of disposing of a toxin, severe damage control was needed. At that time the Public Health Service fell under the jurisdiction of the treasury secretary . Andrew J Mellon was the treasury secretary from 1920 until 1931. He was also the founder and billionaire head of Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA).
In 1931 Public Health Service and ALCOA sponsored research and created self-serving “instant science” that fluoride reduced cavities. During World War 11 Public Health Service pushed for mandatory fluoridation and miraculously transformed the image of a curse into a blessing, found a source to dispose of their toxic waste, and realized a substantial monetary gain by demanding that fluoride be dumped into the nations water.
Mass medication-poisoning is evil, socialistic and in this case idiotic. Let’s be accountable for individual choice of poisons, whether tobacco, alcohol or fluoride. Fluoridation, mandated by governments and rejected by communities
In point of fact, fluorine causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical." -- Dean Burk, chief chemist emeritus at the U.S. National Cancer Institute
www.nofluoride.com
Toni Reita- PhD, ND
"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.
"I would advise against fluoridation.. Side-effects cannot be excluded .. In Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances." - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000)
NOTE: My two cents...
Fluoride=hazardous waste
Naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, it's calcium based and good for bones and teeth, while the chemically dumped poison is sodium fluoride or a derivative . Our degree of contamination is directly proportional to the level of fluoridated water that we drink.
Let’s for the moment ignore that sodium fluoride isn’t naturally occurring and has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements on earth, or that it's a by-product of aluminum manufacturing, used in atomic bomb production, manufacturing of high grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons. It’s banned outright in France, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Belgium, Japan, China, The Netherlands and numerous informed US and Canadian cities.
Earning a Level 4 rating, compared to a Level 3 rating for Lead, with the Clinical Toxicity of Commercial Products Guide. It’s also the reason your Fluoridated tooth paste comes with that nasty little warning label to call the poison control center in case you swallow any.
But can we afford to ignore the profound work of a committed group of scientists, lawyers and professional employees at EPA? USEPA was alarmed with fluoride toxicity and professional ethics and reviewed toxicity data since 1985 and concurred that “ the most recent toxicity data demonstrate to us a causative link between fluoride exposures and neurotoxicity , including diminished IQ in children, hyperactivity, genetic damage, bone pathology, increased hip fractures, and bone cancer in addition to dental fluorosis. They voted unanimously to join forces with California Citizens for Safe Drinking to stop fluoridation.
The Journal of Brain Research conducted a 52 week study in 1998 to determine whether the effects of aluminum in the nervous system would enhance or inhibit bio availability. Their determination was that the impact on brain tissue was similar to pathological changes found in patients with Alzheimers and dementia, most remarkable was that the studies indicated that even the lowest doses of aluminum fluoride caused the greatest susceptibility to illness and incidence of mortality.
Dr Phyllis Mullenix, former head of Toxicology of Forsythe Dental Center in Boston, now a critic of fluoride, concluded that fluoride is a powerful central nervous system toxin aversely effecting the human brain.
Dr Roger Master, President of Foundation for Neuroscience and Society of Dartmouth University linked fluoride and lead in children suggesting fluoride enhanced the body’s uptake in lead from environmental sources. Evidence is overwhelming that fluoride is considered causative in hip fractures, arthritis, osteoporosis, neurological and cerebro-vascular disease, and as a bone seeking toxin destroys collagen in bones, tendons, muscles, skin, cartilage, lungs and kidneys.
How did fluoride become so popular you ask? Simplistically put...in 1920's and 1930's fluoride fell into negative public opinion, regulations and lawsuits against it’s damages. To reverse public opinion and find an acceptable source of disposing of a toxin, severe damage control was needed. At that time the Public Health Service fell under the jurisdiction of the treasury secretary . Andrew J Mellon was the treasury secretary from 1920 until 1931. He was also the founder and billionaire head of Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA).
In 1931 Public Health Service and ALCOA sponsored research and created self-serving “instant science” that fluoride reduced cavities. During World War 11 Public Health Service pushed for mandatory fluoridation and miraculously transformed the image of a curse into a blessing, found a source to dispose of their toxic waste, and realized a substantial monetary gain by demanding that fluoride be dumped into the nations water.
Mass medication-poisoning is evil, socialistic and in this case idiotic. Let’s be accountable for individual choice of poisons, whether tobacco, alcohol or fluoride. Fluoridation, mandated by governments and rejected by communities
In point of fact, fluorine causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical." -- Dean Burk, chief chemist emeritus at the U.S. National Cancer Institute
www.nofluoride.com
Toni Reita- PhD, ND
"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.
"I would advise against fluoridation.. Side-effects cannot be excluded .. In Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances." - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000)
US Special Ops Team Crosses Into Mexico With Mexican Military Escort
'Last week, a U.S. special operations team was seen crossing the border from Brownsville, Texas into Matamoros, Mexico. Eyewitness reports mention that the U.S. convoy consisted of two or perhaps three SUV’s with what appeared to be armed military personnel onboard.
The Mexican military waited on the Matamoros side of the border, and once the U.S. team crossed into Mexico, they escorted them to a nearby military base. The Mexican military and the local police in Matamoros apparently established a route to escort the Americans because traffic cops were placed ahead of time in order to quickly get the convoy through Avenida Sexta (Sixth Avenue).
A helicopter followed the convoy from the U.S. side of the border until it reached the Mexican military base. A video showing the convoy in Matamoros was broadcasted by Univision.'
The Mexican military waited on the Matamoros side of the border, and once the U.S. team crossed into Mexico, they escorted them to a nearby military base. The Mexican military and the local police in Matamoros apparently established a route to escort the Americans because traffic cops were placed ahead of time in order to quickly get the convoy through Avenida Sexta (Sixth Avenue).
A helicopter followed the convoy from the U.S. side of the border until it reached the Mexican military base. A video showing the convoy in Matamoros was broadcasted by Univision.'
Government Plans To Seize Control Of All Foods
'Shortly after “Dirty Harry” Reid passed the fake food safety bill in here in the US, with his one unanimous vote, C-36 passed two weeks later in Canada. Both bills were an outright attack on individual rights and property rights as both governments claim they now have the authority to unilaterally decide who can grow, process and sell foods and under what conditions. And, just as here in the US, those lawmakers responsible for this attack on liberty claimed they did so because that was what the public demanded and was begging for.
Actually, in both countries just the opposite was true; the public was demanding that these bills not be passed. Dirty Harry claimed that more than 10,000 people had begged him to pass the bill while never mentioning that more than a million had objected. But in neither case was food safety and security the real intent of the legislation. Both the US and Canada were handing agricultural production in all its forms, over to international organizations and multi-national corporations.'
Actually, in both countries just the opposite was true; the public was demanding that these bills not be passed. Dirty Harry claimed that more than 10,000 people had begged him to pass the bill while never mentioning that more than a million had objected. But in neither case was food safety and security the real intent of the legislation. Both the US and Canada were handing agricultural production in all its forms, over to international organizations and multi-national corporations.'
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Is Drug Driven Medicine Really Human Sacrifice?
"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will
come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover
dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny
equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical
science. All such laws are un-American and despotic."
~ Attributed to Dr. Benjamin Rush,
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Benjamin Rush accurately foretold a grave possibility facing Americans today, namely, that the art and science of healing be restricted to a select class of allopathic physicians, who have the sole legal right to recommend and administer medicines, and whose pharmacopeia excludes – as a matter of principle – all the healing foods, vitamins and herbs which have been used safely and effectively for countless millenia in the prevention and treatment of disease.
We have entered an era where medicine no longer bears any resemblance to the art and science of healing. The doctor no longer facilitates the body’s innate self-healing capabilities with time, care, good nutrition and special help from our plant allies. To the contrary, medicine has transmogrified into a business enterprise founded on the inherently nihilistic principles of pure, unbridled capitalism, with an estimated 786,000 Americans dying annually from iatrogenic or medically-caused deaths.*
Many modern diseases are, in fact, created by fiat (not unlike modern currencies): age-old symptoms of nutritional deficiency or chemical poisoning are repackaged and renamed in Latin and Greek as would-be monolithic disease entities, and subsequently rolled out to the consumer as new markets; each disease representing a veritable gold mine of "treatable" symptoms; each symptom providing justification for the prescription of a new set of patented, toxic drug-commodities.
The "medicines" themselves are often devoid of intrinsic value, being nothing more than rebranded and re-purposed chemicals, intended (though all too often failing) to be administered in sub-lethal concentrations. Indeed, many of these chemicals are too toxic to be legally released into the environment, and should never be administered intentionally to a human who is already sick. You need look no farther than a typical drug package insert to find proof that the side effects of most drugs far outnumber their purported beneficial effects.
These chemicals, in fact, are so highly leveraged against their true value (or lack thereof), that they can sell for as much as 500,000% percent from cost! Only medical/pharmaceutical and financial institutions (e.g. Federal Reserve) are legally empowered to generate the illusion that they are creating something of value out of nothing of value, on this scale. This manipulation of perceived value, which is the basis for the global dominance of the drug-based medical model, is not unlike how financial institutions created toxic derivative products (e.g. Credit Default Swaps), essentially creating the illusion of financial well being and prosperity, at the very moment that they were planting the seeds of death within the global economy; ruining the lives of countless millions in the process.
The Undercover Medical Dictatorship
come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover
dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny
equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical
science. All such laws are un-American and despotic."
~ Attributed to Dr. Benjamin Rush,
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Benjamin Rush accurately foretold a grave possibility facing Americans today, namely, that the art and science of healing be restricted to a select class of allopathic physicians, who have the sole legal right to recommend and administer medicines, and whose pharmacopeia excludes – as a matter of principle – all the healing foods, vitamins and herbs which have been used safely and effectively for countless millenia in the prevention and treatment of disease.
We have entered an era where medicine no longer bears any resemblance to the art and science of healing. The doctor no longer facilitates the body’s innate self-healing capabilities with time, care, good nutrition and special help from our plant allies. To the contrary, medicine has transmogrified into a business enterprise founded on the inherently nihilistic principles of pure, unbridled capitalism, with an estimated 786,000 Americans dying annually from iatrogenic or medically-caused deaths.*
Many modern diseases are, in fact, created by fiat (not unlike modern currencies): age-old symptoms of nutritional deficiency or chemical poisoning are repackaged and renamed in Latin and Greek as would-be monolithic disease entities, and subsequently rolled out to the consumer as new markets; each disease representing a veritable gold mine of "treatable" symptoms; each symptom providing justification for the prescription of a new set of patented, toxic drug-commodities.
The "medicines" themselves are often devoid of intrinsic value, being nothing more than rebranded and re-purposed chemicals, intended (though all too often failing) to be administered in sub-lethal concentrations. Indeed, many of these chemicals are too toxic to be legally released into the environment, and should never be administered intentionally to a human who is already sick. You need look no farther than a typical drug package insert to find proof that the side effects of most drugs far outnumber their purported beneficial effects.
These chemicals, in fact, are so highly leveraged against their true value (or lack thereof), that they can sell for as much as 500,000% percent from cost! Only medical/pharmaceutical and financial institutions (e.g. Federal Reserve) are legally empowered to generate the illusion that they are creating something of value out of nothing of value, on this scale. This manipulation of perceived value, which is the basis for the global dominance of the drug-based medical model, is not unlike how financial institutions created toxic derivative products (e.g. Credit Default Swaps), essentially creating the illusion of financial well being and prosperity, at the very moment that they were planting the seeds of death within the global economy; ruining the lives of countless millions in the process.
The Undercover Medical Dictatorship
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Your Milk On rBGH?
Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!
Own this eye-opening documentary on the hazards of milk containing rBGH which includes footage from a
news series prepared for a Florida Fox TV station canceled after they received a letter from
Monsanto’s attorney threatening “dire consequences.
The Health Hazards in Milk from Cows injected with rBGH
Milk from rBGH-treated cows has much higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone considered to be a high risk factor for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and other cancers. IGF-1 levels in milk from treated cows with rBGH can be up to 10 times higher. Studies suggest that pre-menopausal women below 50 years old with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer. Men are four times more likely to develop prostate cancer. IGF-1 is implicated in lung and colon cancer.
Milk from rBGH-treated cows with its heightened IGF-1 levels also likely increases the rate of fraternal twin births in humans. In the United States, the number of fraternal twins grew at twice the rate as that in the United Kingdom, where rBGH is banned.
Milk from cows injected with rBGH also has lowered nutritional value, increased antibiotics and more pus from infected udders. Cows given rBGH experience higher rates of mastitis, a painful udder infection. When treated with antibiotics that are also used for people, bacteria resistant to these antibiotics end up in the milk, air, soil and water, resulting in increased antibiotic resistance in humans, a major health problem.
Labels that Lie
Within the US, many school systems have banned milk products from injected cows and dairies have refused to inject their cow with it. But a milk carton from Maine’s Oakhurst Dairy stating, “Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones” became the subject of controversy when on July 3, 2003 the dairy was sued by Monsanto over their labels. Oakhurst eventually settled, agreeing to add a sentence saying that according to the FDA no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from [rBGH]-treated and non- treated cows. But it’s a statement that is not true.
Both Monsanto and FDA scientists had acknowledged the increase of IGF-1 in milk from treated cows. Higher amounts of pus and antibiotic residues in the milk were noted are as well. This misleading addition to the label was written by the FDA’s deputy commissioner of policy, Michael Taylor, previously Monsanto’s outside attorney who, after running policy at the FDA, became vice president of Monsanto. Could this revolving door between Monsanto and the government regulators (i.e. the movement from positions as biotech leaders to government policymaker and back again) be the one of the reasons why the FDA isn’t protecting US consumers?
The potential link between rBGH and cancer was one of the topics revealed in a four-part news series set to air in February of 1997 by a Tampa-based Fox TV station. Just before the series was to air, however, Fox received threatening letters from Monsanto’s attorney, threatening “dire consequences for Fox News.” The show was postponed indefinitely. The reporters who had created the series later testified that they were offered hush money to leave the station and never speak about the story again. They declined. Read the full detail in this exerpt from Jeffrey Smith's Seeds of Deception.
Progress and New Battles
Over the past few years, several organizations have worked to raise awareness of the rBGH issue, such as the Campaign For Safe Food launched by the Oregon Chapter of the Physicians for Social Responsibility. Getting attention to the rBGH issue was slow at first, but by educating consumers about the health dangers associated with rBGH and producers making rBGH-free brands readily available, we have seen a widespread consumer demand for rBGH free dairy products. Within the last two years, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, and about 40 of the 100 top dairies removed rBGH products as consumer concerns reached a tipping point on this issue.
Will Gloves Come Off If Ron Paul Wins Iowa?
Here’s an outstanding article that details what Ron Paul is about to have to face.
The Republican presidential primary has become a bit feisty, but it will get downright ugly if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses.
The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media.
But in a crowded GOP field currently led by a collapsing Newt Gingrich and an uninspiring Mitt Romney, Paul could carry the Iowa caucuses, where supporter enthusiasm has so much value.
If Paul wins, how will the media and the GOP react? Much of the media will ignore him (expect headlines like “Romney Beats out Gingrich for Second Place in Iowa”). Some in the Republican establishment and the conservative media will panic. Others will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media.
For a historical analogy, study the aftermath of Pat Buchanan’s 1996 victory in the New Hampshire primary. “It was awful,” Buchanan told me this week when I asked him about his few days as the nominal GOP front-runner. “They come down on you with both feet.”
The GOP establishment that week rallied to squash Buchanan. Just after New Hampshire, Gingrich’s hand-picked group of GOP leaders, known as the Speaker’s Advisory Group, met with one thing on their minds, according to a contemporaneous Newsweek report: “How to deal with Buchanan.”
While many Republicans dismissed Buchanan’s New Hampshire win as irrelevant, arguing his support was too narrow to ever win the nomination, the neoconservative wing of the GOP darkly warned of a Buchanan menace. “People are panicked,” Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard told Newsweek. “If they’re not, it’s only because they don’t know what’s going on.”
The liberal mainstream media dutifully filled out Kristol’s picture of “what’s going on.” Newsweek put an ominously lit picture of Buchanan on the cover under the words “Preaching Fear.” The article stretched itself into contortions to paint Buchanan as a white racist. (Buchanan was campaigning in South Carolina, which still flew the Confederate flag over its capitol.)
The Republican presidential primary has become a bit feisty, but it will get downright ugly if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses.
The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media.
But in a crowded GOP field currently led by a collapsing Newt Gingrich and an uninspiring Mitt Romney, Paul could carry the Iowa caucuses, where supporter enthusiasm has so much value.
If Paul wins, how will the media and the GOP react? Much of the media will ignore him (expect headlines like “Romney Beats out Gingrich for Second Place in Iowa”). Some in the Republican establishment and the conservative media will panic. Others will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media.
For a historical analogy, study the aftermath of Pat Buchanan’s 1996 victory in the New Hampshire primary. “It was awful,” Buchanan told me this week when I asked him about his few days as the nominal GOP front-runner. “They come down on you with both feet.”
The GOP establishment that week rallied to squash Buchanan. Just after New Hampshire, Gingrich’s hand-picked group of GOP leaders, known as the Speaker’s Advisory Group, met with one thing on their minds, according to a contemporaneous Newsweek report: “How to deal with Buchanan.”
While many Republicans dismissed Buchanan’s New Hampshire win as irrelevant, arguing his support was too narrow to ever win the nomination, the neoconservative wing of the GOP darkly warned of a Buchanan menace. “People are panicked,” Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard told Newsweek. “If they’re not, it’s only because they don’t know what’s going on.”
The liberal mainstream media dutifully filled out Kristol’s picture of “what’s going on.” Newsweek put an ominously lit picture of Buchanan on the cover under the words “Preaching Fear.” The article stretched itself into contortions to paint Buchanan as a white racist. (Buchanan was campaigning in South Carolina, which still flew the Confederate flag over its capitol.)
Are Alaska Seals Suffering From Radiation Poisoning?
Scientists in Alaska are investigating whether local seals are being sickened by radiation from Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant.
Scores of ring seals have washed up on Alaska's Arctic coastline since July, suffering or killed by a mysterious disease marked by bleeding lesions on the hind flippers, irritated skin around the nose and eyes and patchy hair loss on the animals' fur coats.
Biologists at first thought the seals were suffering from a virus, but they have so far been unable to identify one, and tests are now underway to find out if radiation is a factor.
"We recently received samples of seal tissue from diseased animals captured near St. Lawrence Island with a request to examine the material for radioactivity," said John Kelley, Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
"There is concern expressed by some members of the local communities that there may be some relationship to the Fukushima nuclear reactor's damage," he said.
The results of the tests would not be available for "several weeks," Kelley said.
Water tests have not picked up any evidence of elevated radiation in U.S. Pacific waters since the March earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which caused multiple fuel meltdowns at the Fukushima plant and forced tens of thousands of people to evacuate the surrounding area.
Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been seeking the cause of the diseased seals for weeks, but have so far found no answers.
Scores of ring seals have washed up on Alaska's Arctic coastline since July, suffering or killed by a mysterious disease marked by bleeding lesions on the hind flippers, irritated skin around the nose and eyes and patchy hair loss on the animals' fur coats.
Biologists at first thought the seals were suffering from a virus, but they have so far been unable to identify one, and tests are now underway to find out if radiation is a factor.
"We recently received samples of seal tissue from diseased animals captured near St. Lawrence Island with a request to examine the material for radioactivity," said John Kelley, Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
"There is concern expressed by some members of the local communities that there may be some relationship to the Fukushima nuclear reactor's damage," he said.
The results of the tests would not be available for "several weeks," Kelley said.
Water tests have not picked up any evidence of elevated radiation in U.S. Pacific waters since the March earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which caused multiple fuel meltdowns at the Fukushima plant and forced tens of thousands of people to evacuate the surrounding area.
Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been seeking the cause of the diseased seals for weeks, but have so far found no answers.
Frito Lay Sued For Calling GMO Natural
Less than a year after Frito-Lay announced plans to make half their products without “any artificial or synthetic ingredients,” the $13 billion company was sued last week in federal court for allegedly marketing the snacks that contain genetically modified ingredients.
Somehow, “artificial” and “synthetic” doesn’t include “genetically modified” in Frito’s mind.
In its April 2011 “Seed-to-Shelf” disclosure campaign, Frito-Lay promised to inform consumers about each individual snack’s ingredients, even setting up an app for smartphone users to swipe the product’s barcode and read about it. Ann Mukherjee, Frito-Lay’s senior vice president and chief marketing officer, gushed:
“What better way to share the story behind Frito-Lay snacks than by giving consumers a look inside our Flavor Kitchen to see first-hand the all natural ingredients and real foods that inspire the products we make?”
Real foods? All natural? Even Monsanto defines genetically modified organisms as unnatural, which the lawsuit quoted: “Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) – Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs.”
The World Health Organization agrees, defining GMOs as “organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.”
The lawsuit names only one plaintiff, Julie Gengo of Richmond, California, but includes all those who purchased Frito’s products which bear the “ALL NATURAL” label. Last August, the law firm Milberg LLP invited potential litigants to contact them.
Though Gengo holds a BS in Electrical Engineering, she earns a living as an independent marketer for such organizations as Berkeley Playhouse/Julia Morgan Center for the Arts, Vital Systems, Bay Area Green Tours, Oxfam America and Slow Money Northern California. She describes herself as “an ongoing environmental, and healthy foods advocate.”
In early 2009, she wrote Genetically Modified (GM) Foods – Another Reason to Buy Organic, warning people that Frito-Lay uses GMOs. According to the complaint, since 2007, she regularly bought the company’s Tostitos and Sun Chips believing they were “all natural” as indicated in advertising and on the package.
On Dec. 20, Frito’s “Naturally Delicious” webpage still boasts: “All Frito-Lay snack chips made with natural ingredients start with all-natural corn or potatoes and healthier oils. For our flavored LAY’S®, TOSTITOS® and SUNCHIPS® products, we are using all natural seasonings that don’t have artificial or synthetic ingredients.”
But because they contain GMOs from genetically modified corn and genetically modified soy, in five separate counts, plaintiff charges Frito-Lay with fraud, deception, unfair competition and false warrants under several laws including the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Based in New York City and specializing in class-action lawsuits on behalf of investors and consumers, Milberg LLP also has offices in Los Angeles, Tampa and Detroit. Founded in 1965, the firm now employs about 75 attorneys.
After two successful class action suits against military contractors Raytheon and General Electric, in 2006 Milberg was the target of a criminal probe by the US Dept of Justice. The firm and some of its partners were indicted on 20 criminal counts including bribery, racketeering and fraud. The DOJ press release alleges the firm participated “in a scheme in which several individuals were paid millions of dollars in secret kickbacks in exchange for serving as named plaintiffs in more than 150 class-action and shareholder derivative-action lawsuits.”
Somehow, “artificial” and “synthetic” doesn’t include “genetically modified” in Frito’s mind.
In its April 2011 “Seed-to-Shelf” disclosure campaign, Frito-Lay promised to inform consumers about each individual snack’s ingredients, even setting up an app for smartphone users to swipe the product’s barcode and read about it. Ann Mukherjee, Frito-Lay’s senior vice president and chief marketing officer, gushed:
“What better way to share the story behind Frito-Lay snacks than by giving consumers a look inside our Flavor Kitchen to see first-hand the all natural ingredients and real foods that inspire the products we make?”
Real foods? All natural? Even Monsanto defines genetically modified organisms as unnatural, which the lawsuit quoted: “Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) – Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs.”
The World Health Organization agrees, defining GMOs as “organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.”
The lawsuit names only one plaintiff, Julie Gengo of Richmond, California, but includes all those who purchased Frito’s products which bear the “ALL NATURAL” label. Last August, the law firm Milberg LLP invited potential litigants to contact them.
Though Gengo holds a BS in Electrical Engineering, she earns a living as an independent marketer for such organizations as Berkeley Playhouse/Julia Morgan Center for the Arts, Vital Systems, Bay Area Green Tours, Oxfam America and Slow Money Northern California. She describes herself as “an ongoing environmental, and healthy foods advocate.”
In early 2009, she wrote Genetically Modified (GM) Foods – Another Reason to Buy Organic, warning people that Frito-Lay uses GMOs. According to the complaint, since 2007, she regularly bought the company’s Tostitos and Sun Chips believing they were “all natural” as indicated in advertising and on the package.
On Dec. 20, Frito’s “Naturally Delicious” webpage still boasts: “All Frito-Lay snack chips made with natural ingredients start with all-natural corn or potatoes and healthier oils. For our flavored LAY’S®, TOSTITOS® and SUNCHIPS® products, we are using all natural seasonings that don’t have artificial or synthetic ingredients.”
But because they contain GMOs from genetically modified corn and genetically modified soy, in five separate counts, plaintiff charges Frito-Lay with fraud, deception, unfair competition and false warrants under several laws including the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Based in New York City and specializing in class-action lawsuits on behalf of investors and consumers, Milberg LLP also has offices in Los Angeles, Tampa and Detroit. Founded in 1965, the firm now employs about 75 attorneys.
After two successful class action suits against military contractors Raytheon and General Electric, in 2006 Milberg was the target of a criminal probe by the US Dept of Justice. The firm and some of its partners were indicted on 20 criminal counts including bribery, racketeering and fraud. The DOJ press release alleges the firm participated “in a scheme in which several individuals were paid millions of dollars in secret kickbacks in exchange for serving as named plaintiffs in more than 150 class-action and shareholder derivative-action lawsuits.”
Building Pretext For Next War?
From silent war to loud weapons, from covert operations to overt operations, the US government has resorted and will resort to any possible means in an effort to incapacitate a nation whose sin is the very nature of its policy of no submission to force.
In line with its silent war with Iran, a US court in Manhattan made a mockery of justice, issued a default judgment against Iran, and accused Tehran of being involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an allegation which stands in stark contrast to reason in view of the plethora of evidence pointing with force and logic to the joint role of the CIA and the Mossad in the tragic incident.
Juxtaposing Iran with the Taliban and the al-Qaeda is an outrageously calculated move devised to further drag Iran into the margins of isolation on the one hand and to sway the sympathy of the international community to support a US-led invasion of Iran on the other.
Any time there is a new allegation against Iran, one should not ignore the prominent role the Zionist lobby plays in the matter. In this case too, a Zionist-funded Birmingham law firm had an important part to play in contributing to the warps and wefts of the plot. Among the eight law firms colluding in this case is Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis.
Dennis Pantazis, a lawyer, who is very well-connected to the Zionists, says, “We have worked over eight years, consulted hundreds of intelligence experts, reviewed thousands of documents and reports and traveled to three continents and multiple countries to interview eyewitnesses. The ruling stands for the proposition that no matter how big or powerful evil is, it will always be revealed."
With abundant connections in the US, the Zionist regime funded the Birmingham law firm for eight years “to establish that Iran failed to stamp the passports of as many as 10 of the hijackers, a detail that would have alerted US authorities to the scope of their global travels.”
In the statement of his allegation, Pantazis displayed an extraordinary amount of loud insolence and while accusing the top echelons of the Iranian government of having knowledge about and funding the attacks, he also accused the Iranian nation of being the promoters and practitioners of terrorism.
"What was saddening was to realize was that this was not an act of an isolated, few deranged radicals, but a concerted effort by thousands of people, including one nation state, Iran. I do not believe that this case is an indictment of people of a certain faith, but rather an indictment of extremists in certain societies, including countries that use terror as part of their public policy."
Enlightening as it may be, his findings are based on the interviews he conducted with “defectors from Iran's intelligence agencies”, namely the members of the anti-Iran MKO which is widely branded as a terrorist group and one which is readily available to corroborate the allegations leveled against the Islamic Republic.
The Manhattan court decided in late December that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly financed and supported al-Qaeda in the attacks, thereby holding them legally responsible for to-be-determined monetary damages to family members.
Anyone with some political knowledge is aware of the terrorist activities of the MKO terrorist group who set upon themselves the task of assassinating their own fellow countrymen ranging from the political figures to the volunteer combatants who fought for their country during the eight-year Iraq-Iran war. It is easy to imagine what kind of cheap stunt these anti-Iran US-backed terrorists have performed and that “their henna is void of any valid color” as the Persian proverb says.
In line with its silent war with Iran, a US court in Manhattan made a mockery of justice, issued a default judgment against Iran, and accused Tehran of being involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an allegation which stands in stark contrast to reason in view of the plethora of evidence pointing with force and logic to the joint role of the CIA and the Mossad in the tragic incident.
Juxtaposing Iran with the Taliban and the al-Qaeda is an outrageously calculated move devised to further drag Iran into the margins of isolation on the one hand and to sway the sympathy of the international community to support a US-led invasion of Iran on the other.
Any time there is a new allegation against Iran, one should not ignore the prominent role the Zionist lobby plays in the matter. In this case too, a Zionist-funded Birmingham law firm had an important part to play in contributing to the warps and wefts of the plot. Among the eight law firms colluding in this case is Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis.
Dennis Pantazis, a lawyer, who is very well-connected to the Zionists, says, “We have worked over eight years, consulted hundreds of intelligence experts, reviewed thousands of documents and reports and traveled to three continents and multiple countries to interview eyewitnesses. The ruling stands for the proposition that no matter how big or powerful evil is, it will always be revealed."
With abundant connections in the US, the Zionist regime funded the Birmingham law firm for eight years “to establish that Iran failed to stamp the passports of as many as 10 of the hijackers, a detail that would have alerted US authorities to the scope of their global travels.”
In the statement of his allegation, Pantazis displayed an extraordinary amount of loud insolence and while accusing the top echelons of the Iranian government of having knowledge about and funding the attacks, he also accused the Iranian nation of being the promoters and practitioners of terrorism.
"What was saddening was to realize was that this was not an act of an isolated, few deranged radicals, but a concerted effort by thousands of people, including one nation state, Iran. I do not believe that this case is an indictment of people of a certain faith, but rather an indictment of extremists in certain societies, including countries that use terror as part of their public policy."
Enlightening as it may be, his findings are based on the interviews he conducted with “defectors from Iran's intelligence agencies”, namely the members of the anti-Iran MKO which is widely branded as a terrorist group and one which is readily available to corroborate the allegations leveled against the Islamic Republic.
The Manhattan court decided in late December that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly financed and supported al-Qaeda in the attacks, thereby holding them legally responsible for to-be-determined monetary damages to family members.
Anyone with some political knowledge is aware of the terrorist activities of the MKO terrorist group who set upon themselves the task of assassinating their own fellow countrymen ranging from the political figures to the volunteer combatants who fought for their country during the eight-year Iraq-Iran war. It is easy to imagine what kind of cheap stunt these anti-Iran US-backed terrorists have performed and that “their henna is void of any valid color” as the Persian proverb says.
Fukushima Cold Shutdown Not Science Based
f The Reactors Are “Cold”, It May Be Because Most of the Hot Radioactive Fuel Has Leaked Out
The Japanese Government and Tepco say that they have achieved a “cold shutdown” of Fukushima nuclear reactors. Specifically, they claim that the water inside the reactors is now below the boiling point.
In reality, no one knows what’s really going on inside the reactors.
A representative of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it doesn’t know what’s going on inside the reactors (video at link).
NHK reports:
At Reactor No. 1 they believe most of the molten fuel has fallen from the pressure vessel to the bottom of the containment vessel where there is no thermometer
The amount of water has not been measured accurately with a water gauge and has only been guessed at
Tepco has installed systems to test for new “criticalities” – i.e. new nuclear reactions – in Reactors No. 1 and 2, but hasn’t done so in No. 3 – so no one can even tell if there are ongoing reactions in No. 3
The Japanese Government and Tepco say that they have achieved a “cold shutdown” of Fukushima nuclear reactors. Specifically, they claim that the water inside the reactors is now below the boiling point.
In reality, no one knows what’s really going on inside the reactors.
A representative of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it doesn’t know what’s going on inside the reactors (video at link).
NHK reports:
At Reactor No. 1 they believe most of the molten fuel has fallen from the pressure vessel to the bottom of the containment vessel where there is no thermometer
The amount of water has not been measured accurately with a water gauge and has only been guessed at
Tepco has installed systems to test for new “criticalities” – i.e. new nuclear reactions – in Reactors No. 1 and 2, but hasn’t done so in No. 3 – so no one can even tell if there are ongoing reactions in No. 3
The Invisible Presidential Candidate
How can it be that one Republican candidate could do so well in the polls, yet be virtually ignored by the mass media and even his own party? In the meantime, the media spotlight is shone brightly on a lady who doesn't know where the Revolutionary War began, a man who thinks he can solve the nation's problems with a ridiculous tax plan instead of cutting government spending, another guy who turned his back on his own Contract with America when he was Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the usual assortment of "entrenched" Republican governors who are paraded out at presidential primary time.
All the while, this invisible candidate, Ron Paul, is either winning state "straw" polls or finishing high in voter opinion polls. Yet in the televised Republican debates, he's almost never on camera and few questions are asked of him. He is essentially invisible as far as the mass media is concerned. And it is obvious that his own party, the Republicans, would rather he disappeared altogether.
In one of the latest national polls, when run head-to-head against Barack Obama, Ron Paul came in second, behind Mitt Romney, but ahead of Cain, Perry, and the rest of them. This, despite the fact that all the Republican candidates, except for Ron Paul, get fairly constant media exposure. Paul gets almost none. On those rare occasions when the press does acknowledge his existence, it's often to portray him as a kook or worse.
And I guess in the eyes of the mass media and the political establishment, he is a scary fellow. That's because he's the one guy on Capitol Hill who believes what the Founders believed, namely, that our politicians and bureaucrats should be bound by the U.S. Constitution.
Much to the discomfort of the political establishment, he is not shy about pointing out that many government programs, laws, and agencies — from the Ponzi scheme called Social Security, to the RICO Act which has layed waste our property rights, to the PATRIOT Act which has savaged our personal rights — may well be unconstitutional and therefore illegal. He was one of the few in Congress to vote against the PATRIOT Act, which the overwhelming majority of congressmen signed without reading first. He has the courage to dispute the story being proffered by the politicians and the media that 9/11 was committed by terrorists "who hate us because of our freedoms." Paul was bold enough to say 9/11 was the result of America's intervention in the Arab world because that's what the terrorists themselves said.
The sad truth is that those who become nominees for the presidency or congressional seats rarely depend on what the public wants. Rather, it's who the special interests want, and they don't want someone who's not in their pockets. Constitutional government, our basic freedoms, and rational foreign policy is not what's on their minds.
So, Ron Paul isn't getting much support from the fat cats or corporations because crony capitalism is dead if he's elected. He's not getting much support in the defense industry because, if he's elected, we'll stop "protecting" countries like Japan and the wealthy European countries that should be taking care of their own defenses, and we won't be fighting any more undeclared wars. He's not going to get support from federal workers because government is going to get a lot smaller under Ron Paul, so those people are going to have to get real jobs.
But despite the lack of support from so many special interests, Paul continues to do well among ordinary people. He doesn't mouth platitudes and sound bites, but has a well-thought-out libertarian philosophy, and there's never a secret as to where he stands on issues because his principles haven't wavered in 40 years.
More than 40 percent of U.S. citizens do not vote, and pollsters have often asked nonvoters why that is so. Among the responses: 1) They don't like any of the candidates, and 2) When they do vote, nothing changes unless it's for the worse.
So, the question is, what if voters were offered a choice other than Democratic big-government programs and Republican big-government programs? What if they were offered someone who would actually cut the size of government, stop crony capitalism, and refuse to waste the nation's treasury and youth in foreign adventures? What if they were offered somebody who would really make a difference and not just give us four more years of another run-of-the-mill Republican or Democrat — another Tweedledum or Tweedledee?
All the while, this invisible candidate, Ron Paul, is either winning state "straw" polls or finishing high in voter opinion polls. Yet in the televised Republican debates, he's almost never on camera and few questions are asked of him. He is essentially invisible as far as the mass media is concerned. And it is obvious that his own party, the Republicans, would rather he disappeared altogether.
In one of the latest national polls, when run head-to-head against Barack Obama, Ron Paul came in second, behind Mitt Romney, but ahead of Cain, Perry, and the rest of them. This, despite the fact that all the Republican candidates, except for Ron Paul, get fairly constant media exposure. Paul gets almost none. On those rare occasions when the press does acknowledge his existence, it's often to portray him as a kook or worse.
And I guess in the eyes of the mass media and the political establishment, he is a scary fellow. That's because he's the one guy on Capitol Hill who believes what the Founders believed, namely, that our politicians and bureaucrats should be bound by the U.S. Constitution.
Much to the discomfort of the political establishment, he is not shy about pointing out that many government programs, laws, and agencies — from the Ponzi scheme called Social Security, to the RICO Act which has layed waste our property rights, to the PATRIOT Act which has savaged our personal rights — may well be unconstitutional and therefore illegal. He was one of the few in Congress to vote against the PATRIOT Act, which the overwhelming majority of congressmen signed without reading first. He has the courage to dispute the story being proffered by the politicians and the media that 9/11 was committed by terrorists "who hate us because of our freedoms." Paul was bold enough to say 9/11 was the result of America's intervention in the Arab world because that's what the terrorists themselves said.
The sad truth is that those who become nominees for the presidency or congressional seats rarely depend on what the public wants. Rather, it's who the special interests want, and they don't want someone who's not in their pockets. Constitutional government, our basic freedoms, and rational foreign policy is not what's on their minds.
So, Ron Paul isn't getting much support from the fat cats or corporations because crony capitalism is dead if he's elected. He's not getting much support in the defense industry because, if he's elected, we'll stop "protecting" countries like Japan and the wealthy European countries that should be taking care of their own defenses, and we won't be fighting any more undeclared wars. He's not going to get support from federal workers because government is going to get a lot smaller under Ron Paul, so those people are going to have to get real jobs.
But despite the lack of support from so many special interests, Paul continues to do well among ordinary people. He doesn't mouth platitudes and sound bites, but has a well-thought-out libertarian philosophy, and there's never a secret as to where he stands on issues because his principles haven't wavered in 40 years.
More than 40 percent of U.S. citizens do not vote, and pollsters have often asked nonvoters why that is so. Among the responses: 1) They don't like any of the candidates, and 2) When they do vote, nothing changes unless it's for the worse.
So, the question is, what if voters were offered a choice other than Democratic big-government programs and Republican big-government programs? What if they were offered someone who would actually cut the size of government, stop crony capitalism, and refuse to waste the nation's treasury and youth in foreign adventures? What if they were offered somebody who would really make a difference and not just give us four more years of another run-of-the-mill Republican or Democrat — another Tweedledum or Tweedledee?
Montanans Organize To Recall
Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.
Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:
“(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer’s successor.”
While the Montana Constitution (and those of other states) allows for a recall to take place, there is some question about whether these powers, which are technically undefined by the US Constitution, can be used to remove acting Congressional representatives:
The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey’s federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that “the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators,” despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing (“prohibited” in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:
“The powers not…prohibited…are reserved to the States…or to the people.” – Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.
Nonetheless, we may soon find out, as Montana is spearheading the movement to remove both of their Senators from office, as per the petition draft that is now circulating:
“The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:
“a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, “for the duration of hostilities” in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as “task which does not end” to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution.”
While there may be eight other states whose Constitutions allow for the recall of federally elected officials, the US Constitution itself has reserved these rights for the people of each state, suggesting that such a recall movement can gain steam all over the country, and may be our last best hope of restoring Constitutional rule of law to America.
Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:
“(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer’s successor.”
While the Montana Constitution (and those of other states) allows for a recall to take place, there is some question about whether these powers, which are technically undefined by the US Constitution, can be used to remove acting Congressional representatives:
The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey’s federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that “the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators,” despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing (“prohibited” in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:
“The powers not…prohibited…are reserved to the States…or to the people.” – Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.
Nonetheless, we may soon find out, as Montana is spearheading the movement to remove both of their Senators from office, as per the petition draft that is now circulating:
“The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:
“a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, “for the duration of hostilities” in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as “task which does not end” to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution.”
While there may be eight other states whose Constitutions allow for the recall of federally elected officials, the US Constitution itself has reserved these rights for the people of each state, suggesting that such a recall movement can gain steam all over the country, and may be our last best hope of restoring Constitutional rule of law to America.
Ron Paul On NDAA
The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for "really bad people" or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.
The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.
The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.” How closely associated? And what constitutes "substantial" support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?
The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.
The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.” How closely associated? And what constitutes "substantial" support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?
War As A Lifestyle
War is the spectacular and bloody projection of our everyday living. We precipitate war out of our daily lives; and without a transformation in ourselves, there are bound to be national and racial antagonisms, the childish quarreling over ideologies, the multiplication of soldiers, the saluting of flags, and all the many brutalities that go to create organized murder.
~ J. Krishnamurti
Whenever I watch the Republican presidential debates, my mind is drawn to that important children’s book, The Emperor’s New Clothes. The six sock-puppets who have thus far managed to survive the musical-chairs comedy ballet wow Mr. and Mrs. Boobus with their visions of a violent, intrusive, policed, and war-loving America that equals, if not exceeds, what Barack Obama has been able to generate. It was but four years ago that John McCain choreographed his campaign around the lyrics "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
That so few people were repulsed by such psychopathic utterances is but one of many symptoms of a society in moral, spiritual, and intellectual collapse. The domestic police-state so passively accepted by most Americans – and insisted upon by the voices of the political establishment – reminds me of the comment made by the Prince of Wales in the 1934 film, The Scarlet Pimpernel: "if a country goes mad, it has the right to commit every horror within its own walls."
As America continues its slide down the razor-blade of history into total collapse, a growing number of men and women – whose membership is most prominent among those under forty years of age – have decided to end the collective madness that engulfs their lives and the society in which they live. While octogenarian survivors of Tom Brokaw’s "greatest generation" cheer on the sock-puppets who promise an ever-more vicious and violent government should they be elected, those who envision a world grounded in peace and liberty have an alternative agenda. Like the sub-surface energies that erupt into expressions of "plate tectonics" (e.g., earthquakes, volcanoes), there is a life-force within nature that resists its own destruction.
Those in charge of institutional abstractions, such as the corporate-state forces that dominate humanity, are aware that life is increasingly insistent upon its own self-directed nature. Institutions feed upon life and regard autonomous and spontaneous impulses as forms of entropy (i.e., energies unavailable for productive organizational purposes). In an effort to retain its anti-life nature, the established order responds with increasing levels of coercion, threats, and violence to keep its conscript herd intact.
Wars, torture, militarily-policed cities, concentration camps, surveillance, persons held without trial, increased criminalization of dissent and revelation of governmental activities, and the authority of a president to order the murder of any who displease him, are manifestations of the desperate states of mind of those who regard all of humanity as resources to be exploited and devoured for their purposes.
~ J. Krishnamurti
Whenever I watch the Republican presidential debates, my mind is drawn to that important children’s book, The Emperor’s New Clothes. The six sock-puppets who have thus far managed to survive the musical-chairs comedy ballet wow Mr. and Mrs. Boobus with their visions of a violent, intrusive, policed, and war-loving America that equals, if not exceeds, what Barack Obama has been able to generate. It was but four years ago that John McCain choreographed his campaign around the lyrics "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
That so few people were repulsed by such psychopathic utterances is but one of many symptoms of a society in moral, spiritual, and intellectual collapse. The domestic police-state so passively accepted by most Americans – and insisted upon by the voices of the political establishment – reminds me of the comment made by the Prince of Wales in the 1934 film, The Scarlet Pimpernel: "if a country goes mad, it has the right to commit every horror within its own walls."
As America continues its slide down the razor-blade of history into total collapse, a growing number of men and women – whose membership is most prominent among those under forty years of age – have decided to end the collective madness that engulfs their lives and the society in which they live. While octogenarian survivors of Tom Brokaw’s "greatest generation" cheer on the sock-puppets who promise an ever-more vicious and violent government should they be elected, those who envision a world grounded in peace and liberty have an alternative agenda. Like the sub-surface energies that erupt into expressions of "plate tectonics" (e.g., earthquakes, volcanoes), there is a life-force within nature that resists its own destruction.
Those in charge of institutional abstractions, such as the corporate-state forces that dominate humanity, are aware that life is increasingly insistent upon its own self-directed nature. Institutions feed upon life and regard autonomous and spontaneous impulses as forms of entropy (i.e., energies unavailable for productive organizational purposes). In an effort to retain its anti-life nature, the established order responds with increasing levels of coercion, threats, and violence to keep its conscript herd intact.
Wars, torture, militarily-policed cities, concentration camps, surveillance, persons held without trial, increased criminalization of dissent and revelation of governmental activities, and the authority of a president to order the murder of any who displease him, are manifestations of the desperate states of mind of those who regard all of humanity as resources to be exploited and devoured for their purposes.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Wa Man Who Fought Thief Faces Manslaughter Charges
A 67-year-old man could face manslaughter charges after restraining a 23-year-old suspected thief who died from the confrontation.
The Everett Herald reports that Dylan Thomas Jones died from asphyxiation due to compression of the neck.
Authorities say Jones had apparently entered the older man's property to steal a boat motor. The man then confronted Jones and the two men got into a tussle.
When deputies arrived Jones was unresponsive and was declared dead at the scene.
The Everett Herald reports that Dylan Thomas Jones died from asphyxiation due to compression of the neck.
Authorities say Jones had apparently entered the older man's property to steal a boat motor. The man then confronted Jones and the two men got into a tussle.
When deputies arrived Jones was unresponsive and was declared dead at the scene.
GMO Corn & Agent Orange?
It was received as a tip from a concerned health advocate who found it in the federal register, then forwarded it to an industry advocacy group which then forwarded it to us: Dow AgroScience, LLC, is petitioning the U.S. government to deregulate a genetically engineered variety of corn that is resistant to 2,4-D, an extremely toxic pesticide that was 50% of the recipe to making Agent Orange (used in the Vietnam War as a weapon of mass destruction).'
War On Drugs To Be Privatized?
There is an increasing perception that the war on drugs is simply unwinnable. The scandalous death toll and socioeconomic impact so far suffered in the countries implicated either as producers or as transit routes has led to such assessment.
Inadequate, inefficient combat strategies and a continuously renewed global net of corruption are part of the complex problem.
Unlike terrorists or guerrilla groups, cartels are not motivated by ideology or ideals but rather by profit goals; and of course, by the ambition of power. The cartels' multileveled chains of command, recurrent reorganization, consistent recruiting, international criminal alliances, increasing lethal force and sophistication, make it an omnipresent enemy: hard to target, and even harder to undermine if the battle is being fought with artillery alone.
Yet, the United States has spent billions fighting such a foe during the last four decades, mainly, through no other strategy than the use of weaponry, and war tactics. The 'heart' of the criminal organizations -their finances- is mysteriously left untouched.'
Inadequate, inefficient combat strategies and a continuously renewed global net of corruption are part of the complex problem.
Unlike terrorists or guerrilla groups, cartels are not motivated by ideology or ideals but rather by profit goals; and of course, by the ambition of power. The cartels' multileveled chains of command, recurrent reorganization, consistent recruiting, international criminal alliances, increasing lethal force and sophistication, make it an omnipresent enemy: hard to target, and even harder to undermine if the battle is being fought with artillery alone.
Yet, the United States has spent billions fighting such a foe during the last four decades, mainly, through no other strategy than the use of weaponry, and war tactics. The 'heart' of the criminal organizations -their finances- is mysteriously left untouched.'
Monday, December 26, 2011
Montanans Launch Recall Of Senators Who Vilolated Oaths To Constitution By Voting For NDAA
(HELENA) - Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.
Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.
Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:
"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."
The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:
"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.
Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:
"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:
"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."
Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens. Rhodes said:
"These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization."
Two Medals of Honor - Marine Gen. Smedley Butler
Rhodes noted that:
"Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Time to fight. "
Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."
Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.
Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:
" today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."
Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.
Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:
"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."
The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:
"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.
Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:
"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:
"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."
Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens. Rhodes said:
"These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization."
Two Medals of Honor - Marine Gen. Smedley Butler
Rhodes noted that:
"Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Time to fight. "
Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."
Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.
Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:
" today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."
German Auto Workers Paid Twice As Much As Americans
In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.
How can that be? The question is explored in a new article from Remapping Debate, a public policy e-journal. Its author, Kevin C. Brown, writes that “the salient difference is that, in Germany, the automakers operate within an environment that precludes a race to the bottom; in the U.S., they operate within an environment that encourages such a race.”
There are “two overlapping sets of institutions” in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers. The first is IG Metall, the country’s equivalent of the United Automobile Workers. Virtually all Germany’s car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they “hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,” according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive.
The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for “works councils” in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life. Mund says this guarantees cooperation, “where you don’t always wear your management pin or your union pin.
As Michael Maibach, president and chief executive of the European American Business Council, puts it, union-management relations in the U.S. are “adversarial,” whereas in Germany they’re “collaborative.”
Does such a happy relationship survive when German automakers set up shop in the U.S.? No. As a historian observes in the article, “BMW is a German company and it has a very German hierarchy and management system in Germany,” yet “when they are operating in Spartanburg [in South Carolina] they have become very, very easily adaptable to Spartanburg business culture.” At Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant, the nonunionized new employees get $14.50 an hour, which rises to $19.50 after three years.
The article’s author, Kevin C. Brown, asked Claude Barfield, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, why the German car companies behave so differently in the U.S. He answered, “Because they can get away with it so far.”
How can that be? The question is explored in a new article from Remapping Debate, a public policy e-journal. Its author, Kevin C. Brown, writes that “the salient difference is that, in Germany, the automakers operate within an environment that precludes a race to the bottom; in the U.S., they operate within an environment that encourages such a race.”
There are “two overlapping sets of institutions” in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers. The first is IG Metall, the country’s equivalent of the United Automobile Workers. Virtually all Germany’s car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they “hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,” according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive.
The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for “works councils” in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life. Mund says this guarantees cooperation, “where you don’t always wear your management pin or your union pin.
As Michael Maibach, president and chief executive of the European American Business Council, puts it, union-management relations in the U.S. are “adversarial,” whereas in Germany they’re “collaborative.”
Does such a happy relationship survive when German automakers set up shop in the U.S.? No. As a historian observes in the article, “BMW is a German company and it has a very German hierarchy and management system in Germany,” yet “when they are operating in Spartanburg [in South Carolina] they have become very, very easily adaptable to Spartanburg business culture.” At Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant, the nonunionized new employees get $14.50 an hour, which rises to $19.50 after three years.
The article’s author, Kevin C. Brown, asked Claude Barfield, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, why the German car companies behave so differently in the U.S. He answered, “Because they can get away with it so far.”
Will Horse Be On Your Menu?
Horse slaughterhouses could soon open back up in the United States. In 2006, Congress ended the funding for inspections of horse slaughterhouses. It had the effect of shutting them down.
But recently, Congress reversed its decision. Advocates of the decision say the ban had unintended consequences that actually hurt horses, but some animal rights activists say lifting the ban is the worst thing that could have happened to horses.
Paula Bacon was mayor of Kaufman, Texas when the last of one of three slaughterhouses in the U.S. was operating there. “Their presence in this community was nothing but negative,” says Bacon, ”Completely negative." Bacon worries now that the ban has been lifted, the gates will be opened to cruelty to horses and that the conditions that prompted ban in the first place will return.
Says Bacon, “They don’t have the funds to provide the oversight that would even begin to make this work."
Opponents of the ban claim it left horse owners few options when faced with unwanted horses.
Says David Duquette of the group United Horseman, "Neglect and abuse in the United States since the closing of the plants has risen well over 1400%." A U.S. Government Accountability Office report attributes some of the abuse to the bad economy.
Many of the horses meant for U.S. slaughter are now just being shipped to Mexico and Canada.
In fact, according to the US Department of Agriculture, the export of horses to Mexico for slaughter increased from about 40,000 to 52,406 in just the last year. “It's a craps-shoot,” says Duquette, “They just don't have the same rules and regulations or moral fortitude to deal with the horses in a humane way."
Much of the meat processed in horse slaughterhouses is sent to overseas markets. No word on when the first U.S. horse slaughterhouse might open. Several states including Texas have already banned the practice.
But recently, Congress reversed its decision. Advocates of the decision say the ban had unintended consequences that actually hurt horses, but some animal rights activists say lifting the ban is the worst thing that could have happened to horses.
Paula Bacon was mayor of Kaufman, Texas when the last of one of three slaughterhouses in the U.S. was operating there. “Their presence in this community was nothing but negative,” says Bacon, ”Completely negative." Bacon worries now that the ban has been lifted, the gates will be opened to cruelty to horses and that the conditions that prompted ban in the first place will return.
Says Bacon, “They don’t have the funds to provide the oversight that would even begin to make this work."
Opponents of the ban claim it left horse owners few options when faced with unwanted horses.
Says David Duquette of the group United Horseman, "Neglect and abuse in the United States since the closing of the plants has risen well over 1400%." A U.S. Government Accountability Office report attributes some of the abuse to the bad economy.
Many of the horses meant for U.S. slaughter are now just being shipped to Mexico and Canada.
In fact, according to the US Department of Agriculture, the export of horses to Mexico for slaughter increased from about 40,000 to 52,406 in just the last year. “It's a craps-shoot,” says Duquette, “They just don't have the same rules and regulations or moral fortitude to deal with the horses in a humane way."
Much of the meat processed in horse slaughterhouses is sent to overseas markets. No word on when the first U.S. horse slaughterhouse might open. Several states including Texas have already banned the practice.
Police State Or Military State?
'The United States Department of Defense has given away nearly USD 500 million worth of leftover military gear to its local law enforcement in fiscal year 2011.
The surplus equipment includes grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 assault rifles and armored vehicles. Through a little known program called 1033, passed by congress in 1997, law enforcement agencies can purchase tools from the US Military to fight drugs and terrorism.'
The surplus equipment includes grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 assault rifles and armored vehicles. Through a little known program called 1033, passed by congress in 1997, law enforcement agencies can purchase tools from the US Military to fight drugs and terrorism.'
Seattle's "finest" Show Rare Form
Don't jog to work you dumb f***!' Cops mock critically injured jogger as he lay unconscious in road after accident
He was nearly killed in a horrific roadside accident, and now a jogger is furious at the wise-cracking cops who mocked him as he clung to life.
Lying in a pool of his own blood after being hit by a truck, Seattle man Tim Nelson had blacked out when first responders arrived.
One officer was operating under the mantra of 'to serve and disrespect' as he remarked to a colleague: 'That's why you drive a car.
'Don't jog to work you dumb f***!'
RMr Nelson was left with a broken back, cracked ribs and fractured skull.
But it wasn't until weeks later, as his lawyers tried to discover who was at fault in the accident, that they came across video footage of the police officers' disrespectful comments.
He was nearly killed in a horrific roadside accident, and now a jogger is furious at the wise-cracking cops who mocked him as he clung to life.
Lying in a pool of his own blood after being hit by a truck, Seattle man Tim Nelson had blacked out when first responders arrived.
One officer was operating under the mantra of 'to serve and disrespect' as he remarked to a colleague: 'That's why you drive a car.
'Don't jog to work you dumb f***!'
RMr Nelson was left with a broken back, cracked ribs and fractured skull.
But it wasn't until weeks later, as his lawyers tried to discover who was at fault in the accident, that they came across video footage of the police officers' disrespectful comments.
GMO Mosquitos To Be Released In Florida
To those of you who have been eager to hear the latest news concerning the potential release of genetically modified mosquitoes – here it is.
It turns out that the genetically modified mosquitoes could be released into the U.S. environment as early as January of 2012.
A private firm plans to initiate the release of the GE mosquitoes in the Florida Keys. Florida will be the first beta testing grounds to determine whether or not the mosquitoes lead to detrimental environmental and genetic impact. Residents in this area will also be subjected — without choice — to these genetically manipulated insects, unless the private firm decides to seek permission.
Genetically Modified Mosquitoes -- An Unknown Dangerous Experiment
The first mosquito release took place in the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean in 2009. On Sunday, October 27, the release was discussed in a scientific paper by the journal of Nature Biotechnology with the report concluding the release's success.
A second trial occurred in 2010, where 6,000 mosquitoes were released in Malaysia for further experiments. The mosquitoes are genetically modified with a gene designed to kill them unless given an antibiotic known as tetracycline. Offspring of the GM mosquitoes will receive this same lethal gene which will kill the offspring before it can ever reach adulthood. As more genetically modified mosquitoes mate with wild mosquitoes, the idea is that more and more offspring will be produced with the lethal gene, thereby reducing the mosquito population.
It turns out that the genetically modified mosquitoes could be released into the U.S. environment as early as January of 2012.
A private firm plans to initiate the release of the GE mosquitoes in the Florida Keys. Florida will be the first beta testing grounds to determine whether or not the mosquitoes lead to detrimental environmental and genetic impact. Residents in this area will also be subjected — without choice — to these genetically manipulated insects, unless the private firm decides to seek permission.
Genetically Modified Mosquitoes -- An Unknown Dangerous Experiment
The first mosquito release took place in the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean in 2009. On Sunday, October 27, the release was discussed in a scientific paper by the journal of Nature Biotechnology with the report concluding the release's success.
A second trial occurred in 2010, where 6,000 mosquitoes were released in Malaysia for further experiments. The mosquitoes are genetically modified with a gene designed to kill them unless given an antibiotic known as tetracycline. Offspring of the GM mosquitoes will receive this same lethal gene which will kill the offspring before it can ever reach adulthood. As more genetically modified mosquitoes mate with wild mosquitoes, the idea is that more and more offspring will be produced with the lethal gene, thereby reducing the mosquito population.
FDA Approves Seafood 10,000 Times Over Toxic Limits
Despite seafood showing extremely high levels of contamination, the FDA still deems the food safe for consumption. The FDA not only falsely softened the risk of seafood consumption due to carcinogenic contaminants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the seafood supply, but also ignored individual FDA staff members who called for higher levels of contamination protection.
The oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 was one of the largest offshore oil spills in history. One recent study conducted by researchers at the Natural Resources Defense Council found that FDA Gulf seafood “safe levels” actually allowed 100 to 10,000 times more carcinogenic PAHs in seafood than what is safe. This move by the FDA is not only only irresponsible for environmental and human safety, but puts those who are more vulnerable at a higher risk, such as pregnant women and children.
The oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 was one of the largest offshore oil spills in history. One recent study conducted by researchers at the Natural Resources Defense Council found that FDA Gulf seafood “safe levels” actually allowed 100 to 10,000 times more carcinogenic PAHs in seafood than what is safe. This move by the FDA is not only only irresponsible for environmental and human safety, but puts those who are more vulnerable at a higher risk, such as pregnant women and children.
Pineapple Enzyme Superior To Chemotherapy
Every once in a while a study pops up on the National Library of Medicine's bibliographic database known as MEDLINE that not only confirms the therapeutic relevance of natural substances in cancer treatment, but blows the conventional approach out of the water.
Published in 2007 in the journal Planta Medica, researchers found that an enzyme extracted from pineapple stems known as bromelain was superior to the chemo-agent 5-fluorauracil in treating cancer in the animal model. The researchers stated:
This antitumoral effect [bromelain] was superior to that of 5-FU [5-fluorouracil], whose survival index was approximately 263 %, relative to the untreated control. [view entire study]
What is so remarkable about this research is that 5-FU has been used as a cancer treatment for 40 years, and has been relatively unsuccessful due to its less than perfect selectivity at killing cancer, often killing and/or irreversibly damaging healthy cells and tissue, as well.
As a highly toxic, fluoride-bound form of the nucleic acid uracil, a normal component of RNA, the drug is supposed to work by tricking more rapidly dividing cells -- which include both cancer and healthy intestinal, hair follicle, and immune cells -- into taking it up, thereby inhibiting (read: poisoning) RNA replication enzymes and RNA synthesis.
The dose at which 50% of the animals given the drug die is 115mg/kg, or the equivalent of 7.8 grams for a 150 lb adult human.
Keep in mind that a 7.5 gram dose of 5-FU, which is the weight of 3 pennies, would kill 50% of the humans given it. Bromelain's MSDS, on the other hand, states the LD50 to be 10,000 mg/kg, or the equivalent 1.5 lbs of bromelain for a 150lb adult, which means it is 3 orders of magnitude safer!
How then, can something as innocuous as the enzyme from the stem/core of a pineapple be superior to a drug that millions of cancer patients over the past 40 years have placed their hopes of recovery on, as well as spending billions of dollars on in the process?
There is a well-known effect associated with a wide range of natural compounds called "selective cytotoxicity," whereby they are able to induce programmed cell death (the graceful self-disassembly known as apoptosis) within the cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells and tissue unharmed. No FDA-approved chemotherapy drug on the market today has this indispensable property, which is why cancer treatment is still in the dark ages, often destroying the quality of life, and accelerating the death of those who undergo it, often unwittingly. When a person dies following conventional cancer treatment it is all too easy to "blame the victim" and simply write that patient's cancer off as "chemo-resistant," or "exceptionally aggressive," when in fact the non-selective nature of the chemotoxic agent is what ultimately lead to their death.
Keep in mind that bromelain, like all natural substances, will never receive FDA drug approval.
Published in 2007 in the journal Planta Medica, researchers found that an enzyme extracted from pineapple stems known as bromelain was superior to the chemo-agent 5-fluorauracil in treating cancer in the animal model. The researchers stated:
This antitumoral effect [bromelain] was superior to that of 5-FU [5-fluorouracil], whose survival index was approximately 263 %, relative to the untreated control. [view entire study]
What is so remarkable about this research is that 5-FU has been used as a cancer treatment for 40 years, and has been relatively unsuccessful due to its less than perfect selectivity at killing cancer, often killing and/or irreversibly damaging healthy cells and tissue, as well.
As a highly toxic, fluoride-bound form of the nucleic acid uracil, a normal component of RNA, the drug is supposed to work by tricking more rapidly dividing cells -- which include both cancer and healthy intestinal, hair follicle, and immune cells -- into taking it up, thereby inhibiting (read: poisoning) RNA replication enzymes and RNA synthesis.
The dose at which 50% of the animals given the drug die is 115mg/kg, or the equivalent of 7.8 grams for a 150 lb adult human.
Keep in mind that a 7.5 gram dose of 5-FU, which is the weight of 3 pennies, would kill 50% of the humans given it. Bromelain's MSDS, on the other hand, states the LD50 to be 10,000 mg/kg, or the equivalent 1.5 lbs of bromelain for a 150lb adult, which means it is 3 orders of magnitude safer!
How then, can something as innocuous as the enzyme from the stem/core of a pineapple be superior to a drug that millions of cancer patients over the past 40 years have placed their hopes of recovery on, as well as spending billions of dollars on in the process?
There is a well-known effect associated with a wide range of natural compounds called "selective cytotoxicity," whereby they are able to induce programmed cell death (the graceful self-disassembly known as apoptosis) within the cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells and tissue unharmed. No FDA-approved chemotherapy drug on the market today has this indispensable property, which is why cancer treatment is still in the dark ages, often destroying the quality of life, and accelerating the death of those who undergo it, often unwittingly. When a person dies following conventional cancer treatment it is all too easy to "blame the victim" and simply write that patient's cancer off as "chemo-resistant," or "exceptionally aggressive," when in fact the non-selective nature of the chemotoxic agent is what ultimately lead to their death.
Keep in mind that bromelain, like all natural substances, will never receive FDA drug approval.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
TSA Gate Rape Or Try This
Flights for Those Who Refuse To Submit To Gate-Rape, Pedophilia, Voyeurism, and Theft Before Boarding
Posted by Becky Akers on December 19, 2011 01:52 PM
A new company, Social Flights, promises to restore some of the freedom, convenience, and magic the totalitarian TSA stole. “We’re essentially using social networking to fill vacant seats on private aircraft that go all over the place every day, often with nobody on board,” the company’s CEO, Jay Deragon, explains.
Since these aircraft fly out of General Aviation’s airfields, the TSA cannot hassle nor assault customers. Indeed, “’We say, “Just show up 15 minutes before your flight and walk right on,”’ said Deragon...”
It gets better: “On these charter flights, passengers don’t have to go through metal detectors or X-ray machines, Deragon said.” Yippee! The one drawback: “Their names are run through the TSA’s no-fly list, however, so any suspected terrorists would not be able to board the planes, he added.” Ditto for any suspected political dissidents, alas.
Flights nationwide are available at prices that will surprise you: a “one-way special” when I checked Social Flights’ homepage advertised Hilton Head Island, SC, to Nashville, TN, at $300. I urge everyone who misses flying — and those serfs who have had to choose between employment and tax-supported degradation — to check out this exciting venture!
Posted by Becky Akers on December 19, 2011 01:52 PM
A new company, Social Flights, promises to restore some of the freedom, convenience, and magic the totalitarian TSA stole. “We’re essentially using social networking to fill vacant seats on private aircraft that go all over the place every day, often with nobody on board,” the company’s CEO, Jay Deragon, explains.
Since these aircraft fly out of General Aviation’s airfields, the TSA cannot hassle nor assault customers. Indeed, “’We say, “Just show up 15 minutes before your flight and walk right on,”’ said Deragon...”
It gets better: “On these charter flights, passengers don’t have to go through metal detectors or X-ray machines, Deragon said.” Yippee! The one drawback: “Their names are run through the TSA’s no-fly list, however, so any suspected terrorists would not be able to board the planes, he added.” Ditto for any suspected political dissidents, alas.
Flights nationwide are available at prices that will surprise you: a “one-way special” when I checked Social Flights’ homepage advertised Hilton Head Island, SC, to Nashville, TN, at $300. I urge everyone who misses flying — and those serfs who have had to choose between employment and tax-supported degradation — to check out this exciting venture!
PG&E Now Says Analog Meters Ok To Keep
After months of protests by consumers worried that PG&E SmartMeters are negatively impacting their health, PG&E extended a big olive branch Monday, saying for the first time that customers should be able to keep their traditional analog meters.
"We need to listen to our customers," PG&E CEO said Anthony Earley in an interview. "Why should we be fighting with our own customers over something like this?"
PG&E's new proposal will now go to the California Public Utilities Commission, which could vote on it as early as next month.
SmartMeters are digital devices that use radio signals to transmit information about customer electricity and gas use to utilities, eliminating the need for meter readers to manually check the meters. Utilities across the country and around the world are installing them, and PG&E is on track to have 10 million in place throughout its Northern California territory by mid-2012.
But PG&E's rollout has been marred by complaints, initially over billing accuracy and in recent months over health concerns. A small but vocal group of PG&E customers in Santa Cruz, Marin County and elsewhere has flooded state regulators with allegations that PG&E's SmartMeters make them sick and cause migraines. Santa Cruz resident Bianca Carn hired an electrician to remove the SmartMeter at her home after her children started suffering headaches.
"We need to listen to our customers," PG&E CEO said Anthony Earley in an interview. "Why should we be fighting with our own customers over something like this?"
PG&E's new proposal will now go to the California Public Utilities Commission, which could vote on it as early as next month.
SmartMeters are digital devices that use radio signals to transmit information about customer electricity and gas use to utilities, eliminating the need for meter readers to manually check the meters. Utilities across the country and around the world are installing them, and PG&E is on track to have 10 million in place throughout its Northern California territory by mid-2012.
But PG&E's rollout has been marred by complaints, initially over billing accuracy and in recent months over health concerns. A small but vocal group of PG&E customers in Santa Cruz, Marin County and elsewhere has flooded state regulators with allegations that PG&E's SmartMeters make them sick and cause migraines. Santa Cruz resident Bianca Carn hired an electrician to remove the SmartMeter at her home after her children started suffering headaches.
Half American Population Poor, By Accident Or Design?
Millions of Americans now endure protracted Depression conditions at a time half the population is either poor or low income. Long-term unemployment is unprecedented, and federal aid is being cut, not increased.
Two new reports highlight enormous depravation levels and human suffering, getting little or no major media attention. Many affected families used to be middle class. They're now low-income or impoverished by unemployment or spotty low-pay part-time work.
Most important is that much worse conditions are coming during America's greatest ever Depression to last years and devastate many more households than already.
In December, the US Conference on Mayors published its "Hunger and Homelessness Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities."
It covered 29 cities. The period between September 1, 2010 and August 31, 2011 was examined. Key findings reflected dire nationwide conditions.
Two new reports highlight enormous depravation levels and human suffering, getting little or no major media attention. Many affected families used to be middle class. They're now low-income or impoverished by unemployment or spotty low-pay part-time work.
Most important is that much worse conditions are coming during America's greatest ever Depression to last years and devastate many more households than already.
In December, the US Conference on Mayors published its "Hunger and Homelessness Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities."
It covered 29 cities. The period between September 1, 2010 and August 31, 2011 was examined. Key findings reflected dire nationwide conditions.
New Lawsuit Challenges Unconstitutional Animal Terrorism
A new lawsuit challenges the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act as unconstitutional because it has given activists reason to fear that they could be prosecuted as “terrorists” for non-violent civil disobedience, protests, and First Amendment activity.
The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of 5 longtime animal rights activists. The activists say the vague wording of the law, and the corporate-led campaigns against animal rights activism, have made them alter their own advocacy.
The landmark case has implications for all social justice movement, beyond the animal rights activists targeted. It sets a dangerous precedent for labeling anyone who effectively threatens corporate profits a “terrorist.” As the Occupy Wall Street Movement grows rapidly, and has begun reclaiming foreclosed homes from banks and shutting down ports, this lawsuit couldn’t come at a more pressing time. And with the impending passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, the dangers of this parallel legal system for “terrorists” has become strikingly clear.
The lawsuit seeks to strike down the law for violating the First and Fifth Amendments [read the criminal complaint in Blum v. Holder]. Specifically, it argues that the law is unconstitutional for 3 reasons:
It is so broad that it has had a chilling effect on free speech. The law hasn’t outlawed animal rights activism, but it has made activists think twice about using their rights. This was the primary point I raised in my Congressional testimony against the law in 2006, and since then the political climate has become even more toxic. The first use of the law was based on activists allegedly chalking slogans on the sidewalk and wearing bandanas. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is an attempt by corporations to use the power of fear in order to silence their opposition.
The language is so vague that people can’t decipher what is illegal. The law’s criminalization of “interfering with” the operations of an animal enterprise, or causing a “loss of profits,” leave activists wondering if they could be labeled a terrorist for a successful lawful campaign. This is compounded by the law’s emphasis on “tertiary targeting”: it not only protects animal enterprises,” but any business that does business with an animal enterprise. When politicians, the courts, lawyers, and national organizations cannot agree on the meaning of this law, it is dangerously over broad.
It singles out animal rights activist because of their political beliefs and their effective advocacy. Meanwhile, violence by anti-abortion extremists is not being labeled as terrorism. For more on this: “If Sarah Palin Were an Animal Rights Activist, She’d Have Already Been Convicted of ‘Terrorism.” Singling out groups of people because of their political beliefs, and restricting their First Amendment rights, is antithetical to a healthy democracy.
The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of 5 longtime animal rights activists. The activists say the vague wording of the law, and the corporate-led campaigns against animal rights activism, have made them alter their own advocacy.
The landmark case has implications for all social justice movement, beyond the animal rights activists targeted. It sets a dangerous precedent for labeling anyone who effectively threatens corporate profits a “terrorist.” As the Occupy Wall Street Movement grows rapidly, and has begun reclaiming foreclosed homes from banks and shutting down ports, this lawsuit couldn’t come at a more pressing time. And with the impending passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, the dangers of this parallel legal system for “terrorists” has become strikingly clear.
The lawsuit seeks to strike down the law for violating the First and Fifth Amendments [read the criminal complaint in Blum v. Holder]. Specifically, it argues that the law is unconstitutional for 3 reasons:
It is so broad that it has had a chilling effect on free speech. The law hasn’t outlawed animal rights activism, but it has made activists think twice about using their rights. This was the primary point I raised in my Congressional testimony against the law in 2006, and since then the political climate has become even more toxic. The first use of the law was based on activists allegedly chalking slogans on the sidewalk and wearing bandanas. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is an attempt by corporations to use the power of fear in order to silence their opposition.
The language is so vague that people can’t decipher what is illegal. The law’s criminalization of “interfering with” the operations of an animal enterprise, or causing a “loss of profits,” leave activists wondering if they could be labeled a terrorist for a successful lawful campaign. This is compounded by the law’s emphasis on “tertiary targeting”: it not only protects animal enterprises,” but any business that does business with an animal enterprise. When politicians, the courts, lawyers, and national organizations cannot agree on the meaning of this law, it is dangerously over broad.
It singles out animal rights activist because of their political beliefs and their effective advocacy. Meanwhile, violence by anti-abortion extremists is not being labeled as terrorism. For more on this: “If Sarah Palin Were an Animal Rights Activist, She’d Have Already Been Convicted of ‘Terrorism.” Singling out groups of people because of their political beliefs, and restricting their First Amendment rights, is antithetical to a healthy democracy.
FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Are Terrorists
The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.
This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.
The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they “illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm… and videotaped conditions of animals.”
The animal activists caused “economic loss” to businesses, the FBI says. And they also openly rescued several animals from the abusive conditions. This was not done covertly in the style of underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front — it was an act of non-violent civil disobedience and, as the FBI agent notes, the activists distributed press releases and conducted media interviews taking responsibility for their actions.
Based on these acts — trespassing in order to photograph and videotape abuses on factory farms — the agent concludes there “is a reasonable indication” that the activists “have violated the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 18 USC Section 43 (a).”
This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.
The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they “illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm… and videotaped conditions of animals.”
The animal activists caused “economic loss” to businesses, the FBI says. And they also openly rescued several animals from the abusive conditions. This was not done covertly in the style of underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front — it was an act of non-violent civil disobedience and, as the FBI agent notes, the activists distributed press releases and conducted media interviews taking responsibility for their actions.
Based on these acts — trespassing in order to photograph and videotape abuses on factory farms — the agent concludes there “is a reasonable indication” that the activists “have violated the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 18 USC Section 43 (a).”
Uk To "Rescue" Their Expats If Banks "Fail"
'Evacuation plans for British expats stranded in Spain and Portugal if their banking systems collapse are being drawn up by the Foreign Office.
The contingency plans are being put in place to help thousands of Britons if they were unable to get to their money in the event of a catastrophic banking collapse in two of the most vulnerable eurozone economies.'
The contingency plans are being put in place to help thousands of Britons if they were unable to get to their money in the event of a catastrophic banking collapse in two of the most vulnerable eurozone economies.'
Highly Toxic Mercury In Processed Foods
Why has the FDA ignored the fact that mercury, an element that is highly toxic in all forms, was found in a large number of brand-name processed foods?
Specifically, the mercury content was found to be contained in high-fructose corn syrup, which also reportedly contains genetically modified ingredients.
Instead of addressing this major public health concern, the FDA is focusing their time on crushing beneficial supplements through ridiculous NDI regulations that threaten the entire infrastructure of the nutraceuticals industry.'
Why Does FDA Allow 10,000 Times Safe Levels of Seafood Carcinogens
Ever since the largest offshore oil spill in history spewed into the Gulf of Mexico last year, independent public health experts have questioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's efforts to effectively protect Americans from consuming contaminated seafood.
Now a recent study by two of the most tenacious non-government scientists reveals that FDA Gulf seafood "safe levels" allowed 100 to 10,000 times more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in seafood than what is safe. The overarching issue the report addresses is the failure of the FDA's risk assessment to protect those most vulnerable to the effects of these chemicals, such as young children, pregnant women and high-consumption seafood eaters.
In an effort to pinpoint how the FDA decided to set its acceptable levels for PAH contaminants in Gulf seafood, researchers at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which performed the study -- published in the leading peer-reviewed environmental health journal Environmental Health Perspectives -- also scoured documents wrested from the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act.
These include internal emails and unreleased assessments that suggest the FDA not only downplayed the risk of contamination but also that the EPA, and even members of FDA staff, had proposed higher levels of contamination protection, which in the end were ignored.
In vehemently denying the NRDC study's findings, the FDA argues that its chemical risk assessments are inherently biased "on the side of safety" and that setting higher protective health measures for PAHs in Gulf seafood would actually "do more harm than good."
Robert Dickey, director of the FDA's Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, who's taken the lead for the agency in responding to the NRDC report, elaborated in an email to AlterNet, "Overly conservative estimates would lead you [to] remove a great deal of food from our refrigerators and pantries than is needed."
Now a recent study by two of the most tenacious non-government scientists reveals that FDA Gulf seafood "safe levels" allowed 100 to 10,000 times more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in seafood than what is safe. The overarching issue the report addresses is the failure of the FDA's risk assessment to protect those most vulnerable to the effects of these chemicals, such as young children, pregnant women and high-consumption seafood eaters.
In an effort to pinpoint how the FDA decided to set its acceptable levels for PAH contaminants in Gulf seafood, researchers at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which performed the study -- published in the leading peer-reviewed environmental health journal Environmental Health Perspectives -- also scoured documents wrested from the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act.
These include internal emails and unreleased assessments that suggest the FDA not only downplayed the risk of contamination but also that the EPA, and even members of FDA staff, had proposed higher levels of contamination protection, which in the end were ignored.
In vehemently denying the NRDC study's findings, the FDA argues that its chemical risk assessments are inherently biased "on the side of safety" and that setting higher protective health measures for PAHs in Gulf seafood would actually "do more harm than good."
Robert Dickey, director of the FDA's Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory, who's taken the lead for the agency in responding to the NRDC report, elaborated in an email to AlterNet, "Overly conservative estimates would lead you [to] remove a great deal of food from our refrigerators and pantries than is needed."
Bovine Growth Hormone Banned in 27 Countries, OK In USA
'Are you consuming Monsanto’s genetically engineered growth hormone known as rBGH?
The synthetic hormone is created using molecules and DNA sequences that are a result of molecular cloning, which has been linked to breast and gastrointestinal cancer. Unfortunately, it is estimated that around 1/3 of cows in the United States are injected with this synthetic hormone, which means that you have most likely been highly exposed to rBGH if you live in the U.S. or have eaten U.S. dairy products.'
The synthetic hormone is created using molecules and DNA sequences that are a result of molecular cloning, which has been linked to breast and gastrointestinal cancer. Unfortunately, it is estimated that around 1/3 of cows in the United States are injected with this synthetic hormone, which means that you have most likely been highly exposed to rBGH if you live in the U.S. or have eaten U.S. dairy products.'
Get The Vasaline, Another Trillion $ Bailout
'As first reported here, two weeks ago European banks saw the amount of USD-loans from the Fed, via the ECB's revised swap line, surge to over $50 billion - a total first hit in the aftermath of the Bear Stearns failure prompting us to ask "When is Lehman coming?"
However, according to little noted prepared remarks by Anthony Sanders in his Friday testimony to the Congress Oversight Committee, "What the Euro Crisis Means for Taxpayers and the U.S. Economy, Pt. 1", we may have been optimistic, because the end result will be not when is Lehman coming, but when are the next two Lehmans coming, as according to Sanders, the relaunch of the Fed's swaps program may "get to the $1 trillion level, or perhaps even higher."'
However, according to little noted prepared remarks by Anthony Sanders in his Friday testimony to the Congress Oversight Committee, "What the Euro Crisis Means for Taxpayers and the U.S. Economy, Pt. 1", we may have been optimistic, because the end result will be not when is Lehman coming, but when are the next two Lehmans coming, as according to Sanders, the relaunch of the Fed's swaps program may "get to the $1 trillion level, or perhaps even higher."'
$4Million For Pres Christmas Holiday?
Around $4 million (£2.6 million) – the expected total cost to the US taxpayer of the Obama Christmas family vacation to Hawaii according to the Hawaii Reporter (hat tip: Rob Bluey at The Foundry). This is an astonishing amount of public money to be spending in an age of austerity – when the president is supposed to be leading efforts to cut the US budget deficit, the largest since World War Two, and a towering $15 trillion national debt:
Hawaii Reporter research shows the total cost for the President’s visit for taxpayers far exceeded $1.5 million in 2010 – but is even more costly this year because he extended his vacation by three days and the cost for Air Force One travel has jumped since last assessed in 2000. In addition, Hawaii Reporter was able to obtain more specifics about the executive expenditures.
The total cost (based on what is known) for the 17-day vacation roundtrip vacation to Hawaii for the President, his family and staff has climbed to more than $4 million.
This $4 million figure is nearly 100 times the average annual salary of an American worker, which currently stands at $41,673. The Hawaii Reporter calculates that travel costs alone for the president and his entourage via Air Force One (plus a separate trip for Michelle Obama who has traveled in advance), in addition to a United States Air Force C-17 cargo aircraft to transport "the presidential limos, helicopters and other support equipment", amounts to a whopping $3,629,622.
Housing for security staff costs an estimated $151,200, and luxurious hotel rooms for the president’s 24-strong staff a further $72,216. Based on these figures the total cost to the federal US taxpayer (and the additional burden on the national debt) is a staggering $3,853,038. If you add in local taxpayer costs of $260,000 (including police overtime and city ambulances), the total public expense is $4,113,038.
Hawaii Reporter research shows the total cost for the President’s visit for taxpayers far exceeded $1.5 million in 2010 – but is even more costly this year because he extended his vacation by three days and the cost for Air Force One travel has jumped since last assessed in 2000. In addition, Hawaii Reporter was able to obtain more specifics about the executive expenditures.
The total cost (based on what is known) for the 17-day vacation roundtrip vacation to Hawaii for the President, his family and staff has climbed to more than $4 million.
This $4 million figure is nearly 100 times the average annual salary of an American worker, which currently stands at $41,673. The Hawaii Reporter calculates that travel costs alone for the president and his entourage via Air Force One (plus a separate trip for Michelle Obama who has traveled in advance), in addition to a United States Air Force C-17 cargo aircraft to transport "the presidential limos, helicopters and other support equipment", amounts to a whopping $3,629,622.
Housing for security staff costs an estimated $151,200, and luxurious hotel rooms for the president’s 24-strong staff a further $72,216. Based on these figures the total cost to the federal US taxpayer (and the additional burden on the national debt) is a staggering $3,853,038. If you add in local taxpayer costs of $260,000 (including police overtime and city ambulances), the total public expense is $4,113,038.
Medical Journal Claims 14,000 US Deaths Due To Fukushima
he IJHS article will be published Tuesday and will be available online as of 11 a.m. EST at http://www.radiation.org.
Just six days after the disastrous meltdowns struck four reactors at Fukushima on March 11, scientists detected the plume of toxic fallout had arrived over American shores. Subsequent measurements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found levels of radiation in air, water, and milk hundreds of times above normal across the U.S. The highest detected levels of Iodine-131 in precipitation in the U.S. were as follows (normal is about 2 picocuries I-131 per liter of water): Boise, ID (390); Kansas City (200); Salt Lake City (190); Jacksonville, FL (150); Olympia, WA (125); and Boston, MA (92).
Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, said: "This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal. It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation."
Mangano is executive director, Radiation and Public Health Project, and the author of 27 peer-reviewed medical journal articles and letters.
Internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman, MD, said: "Based on our continuing research, the actual death count here may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death. Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults."
Dr. Sherman is an adjunct professor, Western Michigan University, and contributing editor of "Chernobyl - Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" published by the NY Academy of Sciences in 2009, and author of "Chemical Exposure and Disease and Life's Delicate Balance - Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issues weekly reports on numbers of deaths for 122 U.S. cities with a population over 100,000, or about 25-30 percent of the U.S. In the 14 weeks after Fukushima fallout arrived in the U.S. (March 20 to June 25), deaths reported to the CDC rose 4.46 percent from the same period in 2010, compared to just 2.34 percent in the 14 weeks prior. Estimated excess deaths during this period for the entire U.S. are about 14,000.
Just six days after the disastrous meltdowns struck four reactors at Fukushima on March 11, scientists detected the plume of toxic fallout had arrived over American shores. Subsequent measurements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found levels of radiation in air, water, and milk hundreds of times above normal across the U.S. The highest detected levels of Iodine-131 in precipitation in the U.S. were as follows (normal is about 2 picocuries I-131 per liter of water): Boise, ID (390); Kansas City (200); Salt Lake City (190); Jacksonville, FL (150); Olympia, WA (125); and Boston, MA (92).
Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, said: "This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal. It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation."
Mangano is executive director, Radiation and Public Health Project, and the author of 27 peer-reviewed medical journal articles and letters.
Internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman, MD, said: "Based on our continuing research, the actual death count here may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death. Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults."
Dr. Sherman is an adjunct professor, Western Michigan University, and contributing editor of "Chernobyl - Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" published by the NY Academy of Sciences in 2009, and author of "Chemical Exposure and Disease and Life's Delicate Balance - Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issues weekly reports on numbers of deaths for 122 U.S. cities with a population over 100,000, or about 25-30 percent of the U.S. In the 14 weeks after Fukushima fallout arrived in the U.S. (March 20 to June 25), deaths reported to the CDC rose 4.46 percent from the same period in 2010, compared to just 2.34 percent in the 14 weeks prior. Estimated excess deaths during this period for the entire U.S. are about 14,000.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Butter Shortage In Norway Means $500 A Pound
An acute butter shortage in Norway has emptied store shelves and propelled prices through the roof.
The shortfall – expected to last into January – has been blamed on a rainy summer that cut into feed production and therefore dairy output, but also the ballooning popularity of a low-carbohydrate, fat-rich diet that has sent demand for butter soaring.
Online sellers have offered 500-gramme packs for up to 350 euros ($465).
The shortfall – expected to last into January – has been blamed on a rainy summer that cut into feed production and therefore dairy output, but also the ballooning popularity of a low-carbohydrate, fat-rich diet that has sent demand for butter soaring.
Online sellers have offered 500-gramme packs for up to 350 euros ($465).
100 White Dolphin Trapped In Bering Sea Ice
At least 100 white Dolphins are stuck in the ice in the Bering Sea. The regional governor, Roman Kopin, has requested icebreakers to go to the location to try and free the dolphins. Kopin is concerned that the dolphins will starve if not released soon.
Another concern is the ice. The dolphins are quickly running out of room as the ice is expanding around them. The white dolphin is a protected species in Russia. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has been part of survival campaigns in the past.
The white dolphin is also known as beluga or white whale and can grow up to 7 meters in length and live to 40 years of age.
The report says that their habitats are threatened by global warming.
So much for the false picture of drowning polar bears because the ice would be melting.
White Dolphins are stuck because the sea around them is freezing, that is the truth. But do the MSM report this?
Another concern is the ice. The dolphins are quickly running out of room as the ice is expanding around them. The white dolphin is a protected species in Russia. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has been part of survival campaigns in the past.
The white dolphin is also known as beluga or white whale and can grow up to 7 meters in length and live to 40 years of age.
The report says that their habitats are threatened by global warming.
So much for the false picture of drowning polar bears because the ice would be melting.
White Dolphins are stuck because the sea around them is freezing, that is the truth. But do the MSM report this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)