Friday, December 28, 2012

People Who Don't Desise Prosecutors Simply Aren't Paying Attention



 
   
"Hi, my name is Larry Wasden," explained the short, stocky man, flashing a politician's practiced smile and extending a hand. "I'm the Attorney General."

"Mr. Wasden, my name is Will Grigg," I replied, shaking his hand. "Several years ago you tried to put a 66-year-old retired nun named Carol Asher in prison for fourteen years because she acted as a conscientious juror. Have you ever apologized to her for that abuse of discretion?"

My ice-breaker caused Wasden's smile to evaporate, and it was quickly replaced with an expression of perplexed surprise. 

"What – what abuse of discretion? What case are you talking about?" he stammered.

"Carol Asher is a retired nun from northern Idaho who was called to serve on a jury in a narcotics case," I explained. "She was one of several jurors who voted to acquit, and during the deliberations – made in the confidentiality of the jury room – she apparently made some comments about the fully-informed jury principle. This was seen as a violation of assurances that she would be bound by the judge's instructions. After the case was dismissed, one of the jurors reported her to the prosecutor – and your office filed felony perjury charges against her."

"Well, I don't remember any of the details of this matter," Wasden replied as he started to sidle away from me.

"Perhaps you should re-acquaint yourself with them," I suggested.

"I don't really see any reason to," he said, walking away while displaying a dismissive smirk.

The occasion that brought about this brief but telling conversation was a December 12 meeting held at the Portia Club in Payette, Idaho to discuss the state's open records and open meetings law. Wasden and several of his associates – people whose livelihood depends on official opacity, not public transparency – were present to teach us how to ask just the right questions in order to get the self-serving answers they were willing to provide.

Wasden was obviously caught off-guard by a polite but pointed question, and more than likely offended by it. After all, a meeting to discuss the open records law was hardly the proper forum at which to demand accountability from a public servant such as himself. 

My only purpose in attending the meeting was to ask Wasden about the Asher case. I knew he would be in attendance, and intended to confront him about his misconduct – but since he was the one who approached me, I can't honestly be accused of ambushing him. Our conversation took place about five minutes before the meeting began, which meant that I was able to devote most of my evening to more productive pursuits.

Wasden was utterly mystified by the mention of the Carol Asher case, which was the source of considerable controversy in Idaho back in 2006. He honestly didn't remember who Carol Asher is, which is understandable. But he absolutely didn't care about what his office did to her, which is unforgivable. 

"It's interesting that Mr. Wasden doesn't remember me or anything about my case, because he was certainly aware of it at the time," Asher told Pro Libertate. "And after the charge against me was dismissed I wrote him a long, polite letter letting him know that I held no rancor toward him, and explaining why I took the stand that I did. He never responded to my letter."

If I had inflicted needless misery on an innocent, law-abiding, 66-year-old woman, sleep would be a stranger to me until I had done everything possible to make amends. Beyond what I've learned from the public record and a very brief conversation I know nothing of Larry Wasden. The fact that he has forgotten everything about his attempt to imprison Asher for life suggests to me that his is the untroubled sleep known only to the most innocent of children, and the most incurable of sociopaths.

In late 2005, Asher was called to jury duty for the narcotics trial of William Edward Clark, a young man of Indian ancestry who lived in a northern Idaho village called White Bird. Clark was employed at a local restaurant. He also had a police record replete with petty charges of the kind that suggested he was the focus of frequent and largely unwarranted police attention. 

One afternoon the previous March, Clark was given the keys to the company vehicle – an old pickup truck – and sent to Grangeville with a large load of aluminum cans to be recycled. He stopped at the Tolo Lake Mammoth Replica, locked the truck, and went to see the exhibit. A Grangeville City Police Officer drove by and spotted the truck. 

At the time, Clark was the subject of a "fugitive warrant," but the available record in the Idaho Repository doesn't clearly state why. He was sentenced to probation on a misdemeanor battery charge, and then slapped with a statewide "failure to appear" bench warrant that appears to have been revoked in January. In any case, the officer recognized either Clark or the vehicle he was driving, executed a U-turn, and pulled in behind the truck.

When the officer approached Clark, he demanded the keys in order to search the truck. Clark quite properly refused to turn over the keys, pointing out that the pickup was, in effect, a company vehicle that didn't belong to him. The officer called for backup, and an Idaho County Sheriff's Deputy soon arrived. The two of them ganged up on Clark, seized the keys, and searched the truck.

On the dashboard of the truck the officers found a CD case containing a tiny ziplock bag in which was hidden .15 of a gram of meth, which had an estimated street value of about five dollars.
"No physical evidence or eyewitness testimony connected Clark to the drugs," Asher recalls of Clark's two-day trial. "The prosecution wasn't able to demonstrate that Clark was aware that it was in the vehicle. Since it was used by many other people, and the drugs were very carefully hidden, there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt. And since the search was clearly illegal, there wasn't really any reason for the arrest in the first place. But the court-appointed defense attorney just sat there like a stump and didn't raise the issue, and the trial judge wouldn't allow jurors to raise it, either."

In his smug assurance that the case was a slam-dunk, the Idaho County Prosecutor Kirk MacGregor didn't bother to prove it. After all, Clark was a socially marginal Indian kid with a bad reputation and a growing rap sheet; his accusers were two valiant defenders of the public weal; and besides, this was a drug case, which means that the defendant simply must be guilty of something. 

What MacGregor didn't realize is that there was at least one member of the jury who intended to force the state to prove its case against the defendant. 

Prior to the trial, Judge John Bradbury had informed the jurors that they would be able to submit questions directly to him.

"Each of us was given a notepad on which to write our questions, and several of them were given to Judge Bradbury," Asher relates. "All of them were read by the judge verbatim – except for the two I submitted, which he paraphrased and then dismissed."

During the testimony of the two police officers involved in the arrest, Asher asked the same question: "In your understanding of the law, Officer, was it lawful and proper to force a search of the defendant's pickup without first obtaining a warrant?" 

"The first time I posed that question, rather than reading it aloud Bradbury simply said that a juror had asked about the legality of the search and he said that at some point prior to the trial it had been 'agreed' that the search was legal," Asher recalls. "The second time he said something to the effect of, 'There's a juror here who is still having trouble regarding the legality of the search. That matter is decided and must be left aside.'"

When the jury began its deliberations, Asher was amazed – and somewhat disgusted – by the eagerness displayed by the other jurors to offer an uncritical ratification of the prosecution's case.
"I listened to various initial comments from at least half of the jurors," she summarized in an affidavit filed prior to her own trial in 2006. "Rather than focusing on real evidence presented against him (or the lack of it), the young man was being criticized for everything from his casual dress to 'looking cocky' to his (supposed) cocky eye contact and confident smiles he frequently directed to members of the jury."

When it was Asher's turn to speak, she expressed "concern about what seemed to me a wrongful search on the part of the police. The jury foreman then reminded me that the judge had ruled out the matter of the search, and that we were not allowed to consider it."

Displaying the dutiful docility so commonplace among collectivist drones, the foreman insisted that the proper role of the jury was to act as an instrument of state power, rather than an impediment to it. Asher tried to remind her fellow jurors that their duty was to follow the law, rather than ratify the prosecution's case.

"I can't take my orders merely from a judge, but am bound by a higher authority to render fair and just judgment according to the dictates of my own conscience in trying to protect the rights of the accused," Asher explained. 

"Well, then, it looks like you could be facing big trouble here," sneered the foreman. "You just could be charged with perjury."

After taking comments from the other jurors, the foreman called for a vote. Eight members of the panel voted guilty; Asher and three others voted to acquit. The hung jury resulted in a mistrial. 

As soon as court was adjourned, the foreman – in violation of the confidentiality of jury deliberations – did his duty to the State by reporting Asher's comments to MacGregor. The vindictive functionary immediately contacted Wasden and demanded that the State of Idaho file a felony perjury charge against Asher.

 This was clearly an act of petty retaliation. It was also an actionable instance of malicious prosecution for which neither MacGregor nor Wasden has ever been held accountable.
There is no legal basis in the State of Idaho for the prosecution of a juror who ignores a judge's instructions regarding the law. Although the Idaho Code dictates that the court will "decide all questions of law which may arise in the course of the trial," it also states that the judge "can give no charge to the jury" – in other words, he cannot bind them to his interpretation of the law. 

Idaho's official Guide for Jury Deliberations repeatedly and explicitly state that once the jury begins its deliberations, it has plenary authority to decide the case as it sees fit. The purpose of a judge's instructions, according to the guide, is to "tell you if there are special rules or a set process you should follow. Otherwise, you are free to conduct your deliberations in whatever way is helpful."

Some measure of the poverty of the state's case against Asher can be seen in the haste with which it was dismissed by Magistrate Judge Michael Griffin following a March 7, 2006 evidentiary hearing.
"I'm pretty sure that the charge was dismissed so quickly because they wanted the issue of fully-informed jurors to go away," Asher observes. "The courtroom was full the day of the evidentiary hearing, and I've been told that the court had received hundreds of phone calls from people who were really upset over what was being done to me. It seems clear that the people behind the prosecution simply wanted the matter to disappear and be forgotten." 

Carol Asher was neither the first nor the only woman face a "perjury" charge for thwarting the punitive impulses of an ambitious prosecutor. Sitting next to her in the Grangeville courtroom on March 7, 2006 was Colorado attorney Paul Grant, who had represented Laura Kriho, another woman who had been maliciously prosecuted for exercising her authority as a fully informed juror in the 1996 narcotics trial of a 19-year-old girl charged with possession of methamphetamine.
Along with other potential jurors, Kirho was asked by the judge if there was "anything" in her past that "would interfere with your sitting as a fair and impartial juror

." She didn't disclose that as a teenager she had received a deferred sentence on a minor drug charge, which was subsequently dismissed (but not removed from the record – nothing ever is). She also supported both drug de-criminalization and jury nullification. 

During jury deliberations, Kriho annoyed the other panelists by casting doubt on the reliability of the chief prosecution witness – the arresting officer in the case. She also pointed out that the likely sentence seemed wildly disproportionate to the offense. One juror sent a note to District Judge Kenneth Barnhill demanding that Kriho be dismissed. This led to a mistrial – after which a juror contacted the judge to accuse Kriho of conspiring to hang the jury by not disclosing her beliefs.
Initially charged with felony perjury, Kriho was acquitted of that offense but found guilty of "contempt" and fined $1,200 by Gilpin County Judge Henry Nieto. 

As Paul Grant pointed out, Kriho was the first American to be convicted of "the newly minted crime of failure to volunteer information during jury selection. No longer is it enough to honestly answer the questions you are asked; now you also have to answer the questions you were not asked, but that you 'knew' the judge wanted answered."

This was the supposed crime for which Larry Wasden wanted to imprison Carol Asher – and the struggle to beat back that spurious prosecution cost her thousands of dollars she didn't have.
"At the time, I was 66 years old, and although I've tried to take care of myself a 14-year sentence would probably have meant that I would have died in prison," Asher pointed out to me.

Given that he was armed and committed his crime with the aid of several armed colleagues, his act qualified as aggravated battery under Idaho law, for which the prescribed penalty is up to fifteen years in prison. (By itself, the chokehold he inflicted on Finley constitutes "attempted strangulation," which is also punishable by a term of fifteen years.) 

At the very least, Buttars was guilty of "unnecessary assault by a police officer," which for some reason is considered a misdemeanor in Idaho. The specified punishment for that crime is a year in jail and a $5000 fine. This is a lighter punishment than the typical Idaho resident would receive for driving with a suspended license. 

Wasden signed off on a plea deal under which Buttars served two weeks in jail, paid a $500 fine and court costs, and spent a year on probation – time he put to productive use by filing a "wrongful termination" lawsuit against the City of Montpelier.

Lawrence Wasden was just as expansively accommodating toward a violent degenerate in a government-issued costume as he was perversely determined to imprison an elderly woman for the supposed crime of being a conscientious juror. He vindicates one of my oft-repeated maxims: People who don't despise prosecutors simply aren't paying attention.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

NDAA?

18 Things You Can Do Now To Be More Positive, Kind & Loving

We live in denial of our inherent negativity for the most part, and often wonder why the world around is so mean and reckless. Unlike dogs we may not be born eternal optimists, but positivity is something that can be imbibed even if a tad forcibly; such as by trying to tweak our sense of humour, the way we react to a given situation, by being more pleasant and believing others too have a mind, and by smiling each time somebody says ‘thank you’.

 While positivity is a state of mind, the answer lies in our perspective. Here are 18 things you can do right now to becoming a more loving and positive person.

It’s one thing to wax eloquent on positivity, but quite another to be a positive person at heart. Despite believing to have a positive outlook, we invariably weigh the cons first. What’s more, we prefer needless sarcasm for humour, manage a wry smile when something is genuinely funny, and believe deep down that the glass is actually half empty.

18 Things To You Can Do To Change Your Outlook:

1. Have the desire: To become a positive person one must have a strong desire to be positive. And the desire will come only if you are convinced that becoming a positive person will enhance the quality of life. Positivity is like an aura, and you know you are a positive person when people start trusting you, random people become polite with you, colleagues at work respect your positive outlook and you start building rapport easily.

2. Believe in all possibilities: About what you can or cannot do. About what is possible or impossible. Don’t allow your limiting beliefs to keep you stuck in the wrong place. Spread your wings and fly! Once you realize all is possible, the doors of limitation that were closed in your mind will open be connected to all those aspects of consciousness.

3. Be realistic: Do not try to become a saint. Becoming a positive person does not mean you can never have any negative emotion or encounter any negative situation. It is the overall attitude that matters and your reaction to every experience. Don’t get bogged down by failure, and disappointed when your expectations are not met. Understand that everything is of service to you. All experiences are neutral and our perception is what creates our positive or negative outlook.

4. Experience empowerment rather than criticism: Give up your constant need to complain and criticize about those things — people, situations, events that make you unhappy, sad and depressed. Nobody can make you unhappy, no situation can make you sad or miserable unless you allow it to. When you criticize, you are passing self-judgement for something lacking in your life that you refuse to let go of. Never underestimate the power of positive thinking. For every opportunity you feel the inclination to criticize, try to think about how that specific situation is serving or benefiting others.

5. Experiment: Be a keen observer. Use everyday life incidents to see how you can manage them in a more positive manner. These will serve as perfect instances to turn your outlook more positive. For starters, contemplate how you could have better handled a situation by being less hostile and more indulgent. Come up with five ways that could have saved the day, and learn to take things at face value sometimes. Remember, your ability to trust the other person also reflects your genuineness.

6. Accept responsibility: Guilt is a trick of the mind. Accept responsibility for yourself, your life and your actions. You are response-able. You are an adult. You are account-able, meaning, with every action you take, you account for it. You chose to do it; you must accept the consequences of it and you did it all for a reason…to learn. If you continue to feel guilty, you stop learning.

7. Speech and body language: Try and make positive words a part of your daily lingo, and work on your body language in way that you come across as friendly and approachable. Look amused when something is amusing, laugh when something is funny, congratulate when credit is due, and give others a chance to narrate their side of the story. Never think you are the only interesting, knowing one around.

8. Be yourself:
 You are unique. Enjoy your uniqueness. Nobody in the world is just like you. Stop trying so hard to be something that you’re not just to make others like you. The moment you take off all your masks, the moment you accept and embrace the real you, you will find people will be drawn to you, effortlessly.

9. Company: One way to becoming positive is to seek positive company as both positivity and negativity are infectious. If the people you spend most of your time with are grumpy or have a pessimistic standpoint, you’ll find yourself inadvertently mirroring the same emotions with others. In order to inculcate positivity it is imperative that your friend circle is a positive, energetic, and a happy bunch. You’ll find yourself carrying the same positivity everywhere you go.


10. Think here and now: The past and future often set us on a path of emotional turmoil. We often assume the past looked so much better than the present and the future looks so frightening, but you have to take into consideration the fact that the present moment is all you have and all you will ever have. The past you are now longing for — the past that you are now dreaming about — was ignored by you when it was present. Stop deluding yourself. Be present in everything you do and enjoy life. After all life is a journey not a destination. Have a clear vision for the future, prepare yourself, but always be present in the now.

11. Activities: Do not remain idle and brood. Take up positive activities with others or in isolation. Share a joke, narrate a pleasant incident, take part in sporting activities, go for a run in the evening after work, have healthy sex, and you’ll find yourself bubbling with positive energy.

12. Take it easy: Everyday life is bound to give you shocks. Be prepared to minimise impact and shrug it off. For instance, you may get too hassled everyday while driving to work or trying to park your car. When you accept the fact that certain things cannot be changed, you’ll be more at ease with yourself and those around too.

13. Drop your expectations:
 Let go of any expectations of yourself that will limit your growth. If you hold high expectations for how others should behave, you will often be disappointed if they do not represent themselves in the manner you expected. It is only your expectations of people that cause you to judge them which ultimately is a judgement of yourself. Far too many people are living a life that is not theirs to live. They live their lives according to what others think is best for them, they live their lives according to what their parents think is best for them, to what their friends, their enemies and their teachers, their government and the media think is best for them. They ignore their inner voice, that inner calling. They often forget what makes them happy, what they want, what they need. You have one life — this one right now — you must live it, own it, and especially don’t let other people’s opinions distract you from your path.
14. Maintain a diary: Instead of recounting all events of the day, filter out only the positive ones and make a note of them. It could be anything trivial from your bus arriving on time, your mom cooking a delicious breakfast, to remembering to pay the bills on time. When we look for positivity in the little things that make our lives worthwhile, we leave no room for negativity. Try consciously practising this for 10 days, and at the end of day ten when you read your diary back you’ll only have memories of all the good things that happened to you.

15. Meditate: Not only does it secrete happy hormones but also creates a sense of awareness within you. You will learn to control your breathing, and by way of it, control your mind from wandering. Every time you meditate, you feel a surge of positive energy through your body that calms your nerves, soothes your mind, elevates your mood, and not to mention enhances your level of tolerance.

16. Embrace change: 
Change is good. Change will help you move from A to B. Change will help you make improvements in your life and also the lives of those around you. Follow your bliss, embrace change — don’t resist it.

17. Re-invent your need to be right: There are so many of us who can’t stand the idea of being wrong — wanting to always be right — even at the risk of ending great relationships or causing a great deal of stress and pain, for us and for others. We love to right-fight. It’s just not worth it because the state of being right is all subjective with so many layers and perspectives of truth. Whenever you feel the ‘urgent’ need to jump into a fight over who is right and who is wrong, ask yourself this question:“Would I rather be right, or would I rather be kind?” ~ Wayne Dyer.

18. Say ‘thank you’: Thank god, thank your parents, friends, and thank yourself for all the hard work you did, for everything you achieved. Saying thank you frequently makes you humble, and a humble person is seldom cynical.

The Real Story Behind The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz

Hatr



The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was first published in Chicago in 1900. Its author, L. Frank Baum, was the editor of a South Dakota newspaper and a supporter of William Jennings Bryan who stood three times, unsuccessfully, as a U.S. Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.

The particular concern of both Baum and Bryan was the nature of the money supply then prevalent in the United States, and in the Mid-Western States in particular.
In America during the 1890s, as in Britain, there had been a severe depression.

 Many businesses had gone bankrupt, farmers forced to sell up, factories closed and workers made unemployed. True, some farms in the Mid-West were suffering from drought, but most were still capable of growing food; the businesses and factories were still capable of providing the things that people needed; the workers still wanted to work to provide those things, and people would still want the goods and services produced if they had the money to buy them.

The money in the USA then, as now, was entirely created by the private banking system. The pretence existed then that money was based on gold. (Even now some people still think that it is!) The major banks, based on the East and West coasts, could vary the amount of money in circulation, lending more to encourage commercial activity, then fore-closing on loans to put people out of business, enabling the banks to acquire their businesses cheaply.

Baum and Bryan wanted money to be based on silver, not gold, as silver was more readily available in the Mid-West, where it was mined. Such a money supply could not be manipulated by the banks. So the story of the Wizard of Oz starts with a cyclone in the form of imagined electoral success for Bryan…

Dorothy, a sort of proverbial ‘Everywoman’, lands on the Wicked Witch of the East (the East-coast bankers), killing her, so freeing the Munchkins, the down-trodden poor, but the Wicked Witch of the West (the West-coast bankers) remains loose.

To deal with her and to get back to Kansas (normality), the Good Witch of the North, representing the electorate of the North (this is less than 40 years after the civil war), tells Dorothy to seek out the Wizard of Oz (‘oz’ being short for ounce, the means of weighing both gold and silver). She also gives her a pair of silver slippers (as they were in the book – they became ruby ones in the film). Only these silver slippers will enable her to remain safe on the yellow-brick road, representing the bankers’ gold standard, as she heads towards the Emerald City, representing Washington DC.

On her journey, Dorothy encounters a Scarecrow, representing the farmers, who do not have the wit to understand how they can end up losing their farms to the banks, even though they work hard to grow the food to feed a hungry nation. If only they could think it through!

Next, she encounters a Tin Woodsman, representing the industrial workers, rusted as solid as the factories of the 1890s depression, and who have lost the sense of compassion and co-operation to work together to help each other during hard times. Also, a spell cast upon him by the Wicked Witch of the East meant that every time he swung his axe, he chopped off a bit of himself – he downsized!

Then the growing party encounters a Cowardly Lion, representing the politicians. These have the power, through the power of Congress and the Constitution, to confront the Wicked Witches, representing the banks, but they lack the courage to do so.

Dorothy is able to motivate these three potent forces and leads them all towards the Emerald City, whence ‘greenbacks’ had once come, and an encounter with the omnipotent and wonderful Wizard of Oz.

The Wizard of Oz is initially quite majestic and apparently awesome, but he turns out to be a little man without the power that people assume he possesses. He does, of course, represent the President of the United States. With the Wizard’s illusion of power shattered, he is replaced by the Scarecrow who would ‘be another Lincoln’.

The Wicked Witch of the West, fearful for her own power, then attempts to destroy Dorothy but is herself dissolved in a bucket of water, as rain relieves the Mid-West drought, saves the farmers’ livelihoods and prevents repossession by the banks.

The Good Witch of the South, representing the Southern electorate, tells Dorothy that her silver slippers, silver-based money, are so powerful that anything she wishes for is possible, even without the help of the Wizard. Dorothy wishes to go home. There all is now well, because the land has a stable and abundant money supply.

Still a Pertinent Message

So ends this famous modern American ‘fairy-tale’. Its true message has been lost to the mists of time and the demands of Hollywood, but its message is no less pertinent now than when it was written.

William Jennings Bryan was neither the first nor the last American politician to try to reform the US money supply. In fact, two money reformers achieved the office of President and attempted to put money reform into action, but just like in the Oz story, the ‘Most Powerful Man in the World’ was not as powerful as people believed.

In 1865, Abraham Lincoln introduced the original ‘greenbacks’, which were paper money issued by the US Government, largely to pay for the Federal war effort during the civil war. It was ‘fiat’ money, money made legal tender by Act of Congress. Unfortunately, Lincoln died suddenly a few weeks later and his plans died with him.

In 1963, John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110 which would have removed the power of money creation from all US private banks, including the privately-owned Federal Reserve, and invested that power in the US Government. Unfortunately, Kennedy died suddenly a few weeks later and his plans died with him.

The Problems of Debt

In the USA 100% of the money supply is created by the private banks. In Britain the figure is over 97%. In the rest of the world, the figure is estimated to be over 95%. All this money is created as a debt. It is created when people borrow money, as banks do not lend existing money; they just create new money out of thin air to lend.

Money created as a debt by the banks bears a charge of interest. This increases the amount of money that the economy owes by an amount greater than the amount in existence. This means that the economy is a saddled with a debt that can never be paid off, merely passed around like a game of Pass-the-Parcel in a Belfast pub. It is like a game of musical chairs, where someone has to lose out.

A Solution

Money does not have to be based on debt, nor indeed does it have to be based on precious metals. Real wealth is the goods and services that people create for each other. Money is merely a means of exchange. It could be created by HM Treasury and spent on providing public services, saving us all a modicum of taxation, and then the economy would not have to be saddled with large debts.

The Money Reform Party

Like Baum and Bryan, the Money Reform Party recognises that the money supply is a political issue. The MRP has been created expressly to educate the British people about the money supply so that, through the greater awareness of the electorate (good witches, scarecrows, tin-woodsmen and Munchkins all), our cowardly lions… sorry, our politicians will no longer be able to ignore this vital issue.

Geo Engineered Snow Causing World Wide Havoc?

Can Snow Storms Really Be Engineered?

What do a mountain of data including recorded experiments, satellite imagery, lab tests of snow, and observations on the ground, and existing patents, say absolutely? Two known patents for the process of “artificial ice nucliation for weather modification” are posted at the bottom of this article.

The Chinese government has openly admitted they are creating ”artificial snow storms” but later backtracked after causing a billion dollars of damage to Beijing. If the Chinese government can routinely create snow storms out of what should have been a rain event, how much more advanced must our government be at this same process?

When monitoring radar images of rain during a storm, it is now common to see the rain “flash out” to snow for no appearant reason. No mountains, no colliding air mass, nothing. The “meteorologists” at the Rothschild’s/ military industrial complex owned Weather Channel call this “turning over to snow”. Why would rain just “turn over” to snow for no reason?

Engineered Ice Nucleation Cools Air Masse
Many of the snow events occurring around the US, even at this time of year, are amazingly still occurring at above freezing temperatures. Some are at temperatures of 10 degrees or more above freezing. How is this possible? Have the laws of physics changed?

It is done with various processes of chemical ice nucleation. This is the same as the first aid chemical ice pack. Mix the chemicals and you have ice. Whatever the existing temperatures of a storm and the surrounding air mass at the time the artificial nucleation is commenced,
temperatures are lowered significantly further by the nucleation process.

 If the nucleation process is started at far above freezing temperatures, then the temps can fall to near freezing or below as the process continues. If the region where an “ice nucleated” event is being carried out is already well below freezing, the temperatures will fall to still lower temperatures. If the chemical nucleation process is inflicted aggressively enough, in already cold regions, temperatures can be driven to deadly levels well below zero. Northern Europe is currently in the grip of what appears to be just such a geoengineered event.

Why Would They Do This?
First, because they can. Why would the global power elite detonate over 1800 nuclear bombs? Because there is no one to stop these experiments. Because there is no regulation whatsoever of the ongoing global geoengineering programs though many “outlines” for such governance exist as if these programs are not yet a reality.

 There are likely other straight forward reasons. 60 years of global climate experimentation have done horrific damage to the global climate system. The planet is warming, it would appear in large part due to the damage done by the ongoing geoengineering programs. Massive ozone holes and methane releases are occurring.

 Now it appears that those at the helm of the global spraying programs are trying to “cover up” the damage that has been done from the spraying by spraying yet more, and probably with an ever growing list of toxic elements. Isn’t this the true definition of insanity? Doing the same thing on an ever bigger scale and expecting a different result?

Though all available data makes clear that stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG) can and does cool large regions temporarily, it comes at the cost of a worsened overall warming to the planet.

Though all available data makes clear that stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG) can and does cool large regions temporarily, it comes at the cost of a worsened overall warming to the planet.  NASA’s own data confirms this.

What Are The Consequences?
The problems that arise when ice nucleation is imposed on the atmosphere are many. Some consequences we can not yet know for sure, but what we do know is bad enough.

First, the entire  hydrological cycle is disrupted, and in general, greatly reduced. This means less precipitation in any form, rain or snow. Though the Weather Channel is doing their absolute best to ra ra all the snow falling in various locations, the fact is there is a “snow drought” in the US. Yes it’s falling, but there is not that much and it’s generally not that cold considering the time of year. The ice nucleated snow storms create the illusion of a normal winter when in fact all available statistics paint a very different picture.

 As we get through “winter” and closer to spring, ice nucleated events will become much more obvious. “Above freezing” snow events will become more and more common. Still, it is important to remember that geoengineered snow storms can also be carried out under extreme cold scenarios. Whatever the initial air mass temperatures, the chemical nucleation mix appears to lower the surrounding temperatures much further. Snow from artificial ice nucleation at higher temperatures is almost always “heavy wet snow”. This is a newly introduced term pushed by the Weather Channel and other main stream media sources.

The snow that does fall is toxic. There are numerous lab tests to confirm that the same highly toxic heavy metals named as primary elements in geoengineering patents are being found in this “artificially nucleated” snow. This poisons the air, soils and waters. The effects on the Northern boreal forests are already horrific. Trees are dying in mass and soil PH values are changing radically. The artificially nucleated snow can be incredibly dense and heavy, often causing major damage to trees and structures.Wind patterns and ocean currents are also being negatively effected by the ongoing spraying and manipulation of natural wind currents. (The HAARP ionosphere heater installations around the globe also appear to be routinely manipulating the jet stream)  This in turn is releasing methane hydrate deposits which threatens all life on earth. (search “geoengineering/methane release”)

Photosynthesis is also being radically reduced. Extremely expansive “geoengineered” cloud cover results from the particulate dispersement. This type of cloud cover is often in the form of a largely featureless overcast sky.

What Is Such An Event Like First Hand
On 12/21/12 this author had to suffer through yet another ice nucleated snow storm in the woods of Northern California. In the days leading up to the storm, it was comical if not completely tragic watching the local TV “weathermen” trying to explain just how it was going to snow so much when only days earlier Redding California was almost 75 degrees. They tried to explain how the 30 to 40 mile an hour winds from the storm would mysteriously die down only over the upper Sacramento Valley and that’s when the snow would fall, even with temperatures in the upper 30s to low 40s. 4-(diminished wind is also a known consequence of atmospheric aerosol saturation/geoengineering spraying. )

As is now the rule, the approaching storm brought skies full of jet dispersed geoengineering trails which covered the entire horizon in short order. A sickly colored light penetrated this toxic canopy from the early morning hours of 12/20. Natural clouds eventually drifted into view under the man made over story but they did not have the usual majestic appearance as they were “melted” into engineered clouds above.

 The leading edge of almost all storms are sprayed heavily. This is the “AR” of the storm. The “atmospheric river” and is a stated area of preferred spraying by the geoengineers themselves. The usual effect of this is a day or so delay of the storm and this case was no different. On 12/20 the local weathermen did there best to explain why the storm did not come in the day before as originally predicted. It “slowed down” they said.

As the evening of 12/20 progressed, the 500 ft snow level that was predicted  for that afternoon did not happen. It seemed in this case the temps were so warm that the big chemical “cool down” took more effort, more spraying. It seemed the geoengineers might not pull it off as by 11 pm it was still raining at the 2000+ foot level on the mountain top where I and my family live. It was still well above freezing.

Waking up at 5 am, I could already see broken trees from the massively heavy concrete snow that had apparently started some hours earlier in the night though the temperatures were still slightly above freezing. I quickly bundled up and went outside to beat the “snow” off the drooping lims of countless trees. This is easier said than done in the case of such “heavy wet snow”. It sticks like glue to everything it hits as it is in the process of melting even as it is still falling.

 It is not like the snow of my youth, fluffy powdery snow which easily came off the trees. There was, as predicted, no more wind. In the silence of the woods, jet after jet could be heard flying slow and low above the clouds. The snow kept falling. Into the night of 12/21, though soaked to the bone from the soggy snow, I kept up my attempt to save the trees on our mountain.

As the night went on, a sound that is very painful to me could be heard in increasing frequency on distant ridges and in deep canyons, somewhere in the darkness, the sound of trees crackling and snapping, being crushed under the weight of the “heavy wet snow”.

These are native trees. Trees that have adapted to the historical conditions in this region. I have been through snow events here that dropped twice the depth of snow with no damage, but this snow is different. Even the Canyon Live Oak, the strongest oak in the region, buckles under the weight and adhesion of this snow. It does not sluff off the trees but only sticks and builds.

Later in the night, the frequency of collapsing trees somewhere in the distant dark was almost overwhelming. The only other sound that broke the silence constantly was the continual parade of jets overhead in the clouds, so close and low during the storm.

By morning, half of the 20 inch depth of cement snow had already melted. The temperatures were still in the upper 30s and the snow had stopped. Countless broken and uprooted trees lay on the forest floor. Why?

For the moment, there are virtually no jets to be heard. None. Soon enough, they will no doubt return.

What Can We Do
We are in a fight for life, literally. Our climate system and atmosphere are being ripped apart. Every breath we take is tainted with the toxic metals and chemicals they are spraying. Every bite of food we eat, the same. There is no “organic” anything at this point as researchers from Europe and other parts of the planet  have recently shown. These toxic elements and other influences are being taken into all that lives.

Educate yourself on this most dire issue. Arm your self with essential tools for educating others. It is far more productive to hand someone some credible information they can review at their leisure than to corner them with a rant that only puts up their defenses. Examples of information flyers can be found at “geoengineeringwatch.org/ads”. An extremely important tool to use with a flyer is a copy of Michael Murphy’s new documentary, “Why In The World Are They Spraying” which can be found at“whyintheworldarethespraying.com”.

Once you own a copy, you can duplicate all you want at a very small cost.
Stand up, make your voice heard by sharing credible data with all you know. It’s now or never.

Time To Take Your Children Out Of Government Schools?

Dave Hodges, Contributor
Activist Post

Many Americans are speaking about removing their children from government-run schools and finding alternatives to an increasingly failing system. In lieu of the recent rash of school shootings, many parents feel that moving their children to another educational venue will help to protect them from crazed, lone gunman who are on psychotropic medications and are seeking to do harm to our children while attending school in gun free zones with no protection. In a few isolated incidences, this may be true.

However, school shootings are such an isolated event, I am not sure how to protect against students other than by having armed guards on every campus in America.

Aside from school violence, there are some other very compelling reasons that parents may want to consider when deciding where and how to educate their child. This is the first in a multi-part series which will clearly delineate the reasons why those in the know will never let their child darken the doors of the nation’s government schools.

Many American government run schools are largely becoming bastions of ignorance and underachievement. In short, many schools are not doing their job. School districts across America flirt with every new educational fad, most of which most are scientifically unproven when it comes to positively improving the academic performance of students, thus, resulting in an enormous waste in tax dollars. Subsequently, much is made of reforming the schools and improving student performance.

On the surface, reforming the public schools is indeed needed when one considers that:
  • Only 43 percent of all U.S. high school students have any idea the Civil War was fought in the 19th century.
  • ·More than 65% of all U.S. high school students cannot find Great Britain on a map.
  • Twelve percent of U.S. high school students cannot find the United States on a map.
  • More than 25% of all U.S. high school students thought that Christopher Columbus made his famous voyage across the Atlantic Ocean after the year 1750.
  • About 33% of all U.S. high school students do not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech, religion and due process.  
  • Only 55% of all U.S. students can name the Vice-President.
Yes, government schools are doing their job. They are producing students who are educated enough to greet you at Walmart, but too stupid to question authority with any meaningful resolve. Government schools are perpetuating a state of perpetual idiocracy.

What are parents to do about the epidemic underachievement of our government-educated children? The short answer appears to be move. Move your children out of the government-run schools. Or perhaps, move your children totally out of the country.

This is not an outrageous statement when one considers that students in Latvia, Chile and Brazil are making gains in academics three times faster than American students  and those in Portugal, Hong Kong, Germany, Poland, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Colombia and Lithuania are improving at twice the rate states a recently published by Harvard University’s Program on Education Policy and Governance.

The Harvard researchers estimate that the educational gains made by students in those 11 countries equate to about two years of learning.

The Harvard study found no relevant correlation between increasing the per-pupil spending and gains in test scores. In 2009, the U.S. spent more than $10,000 per student, ranging from $6,356 in Utah to $18,126 in New York.  Utah graduates a higher percentage of its students than does New York. Yet, school funding is the number reason given by government officials to support the need to impose a property tax on American citizens. Property tax is one of the planks of the Communist Party.

Eric Rudner (1999) analyzed the test scores of over 20,000 American homeschooled students and found them to be exceptionally high with the median scores of homeschoolers placing in the 70th to 80th percentile. This is a mean difference of about 25% between homeschooled children and children educated in the government schools. Twenty five percent equates to three grade levels. Do you remember the Harvard study in which our foreign competitors were two grade levels ahead of American schools. The message is clear, close the government schools and home school the children.

Government schools are increasingly propagandizing our children. For example, the new unproven religion being worshipped in the government schools is environmentalism and global warming. Oops, I meant to say climate change, not global warming. I almost forgot that the global warming crowd changed their name when they got caught committing scientific fraud three years ago from hacked emails at East Anglia University in which researchers admitted, through their hacked emails, that global warming was a hoax. Yet, this is the new religion of the American educational system and the facts be damned.


homeschooling obama and crow 6

The government schools are conditioning our children to accept a lower standard of living and to pay tribute to the global elite through carbon taxes. Universities like Arizona State University are now offering graduate degrees in sustainability based upon this pseudoscience. It is interesting to note that the President of Arizona State University is CFR member, Michael Crow. Crow is also an ex-CIA operative. This is just one small example of who is running the government schools at the supposed elite level.

One of the more compelling reasons to home school your children is because parents do not want their children going to school with this guy…

homeschooling 3

or with this guy….


or with this guy


And most reasonable parents certainly do not want their children obtaining their world view from this guy….

moore 3

Federal Reserve, IRS, Communism & Laws That Never Were

Codex Chooses Malnutrition

By Scott C. Tips
The Sleuth Journal
December 26, 2012

In a stunning display of nutritional ignorance, three women ram through a Codex standard that leaves many with sub-optimal nutrition

The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) just finished meeting all last week (December 3-7) in Bad Soden, a small German city near Frankfurt am Main. Nearly 300 delegates were in attendance, comprised of government functionaries and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) representatives. 

So, for one week, the assembled delegates – including the INGO delegation of the National Health Federation (NHF)[1] –met, discussed, and debated a wide number of food and food-supplement issues, including the controversial draft Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for vitamins and minerals.

Remember, the food guidelines and standards adopted by this Committee, and approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, are important because they are then used domestically by numerous countries worldwide and by virtually all countries in international food trade.

Nutrient Reference Values
Those who have been following the National Health Federation’s efforts at Codex since the mid-1990s will recall that at the Codex Nutrition Committee meeting in Dusseldorf, Germany in 2009, the NHF singlehandedly launched the opposition that stopped the Australian delegation and others from “dumbing down” these Nutrient Reference Values.[2]

Australia and its supporters had wrongly proposed that lower NRVs be adopted for certain important vitamins and minerals, including Vitamin C.  For example, the Proposed Draft Additional or Revised NRVs for Labelling Purposes in the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling suggested reducing the Vitamin A NRV from 800 micrograms down to 550 micrograms, Vitamin C down from an already-abysmally-low 60 milligrams to 45 milligrams, Thiamin down from 1.4 milligrams to 1.2 milligrams, Niacin from 18 milligrams down to 15 milligrams, Magnesium down from 300 milligrams to 240 milligrams, and so forth.[3]

These values are already at subsistence levels, and most consumers need far more than the miserable amounts that Codex would parsimoniously dole out to them in order to enjoy optimal and robust health.  Yet Australia and its supporters are so fixated on reducing the values even more that they have blinded themselves to the real science showing the absolute need for more nutrient intake, not less.

Fortunately, thanks to NHF and its key supporters India and Iraq at the 2009 meeting, the Committee wisely chose not to move forward with any of those proposed NRVs and instead held the work back for further review and study.  Three years have passed since we first stopped these NRVs from being adopted, and each year of non-adoption has been a victory for NHF, and for you.

The Electronic Working Group
Last year, the Committee created an electronic Working Group (eWG) – chaired by ever-present Australia – to look at the hard numbers for each of the vitamins and minerals under consideration.  NHF was a member of that group along with twenty other delegations.  Working through e-mails, the Australian-led eWG gradually prepared a report; and the NHF and other delegations submitted comments throughout 2012, to be included in that report.

Unfortunately, the United States seemed to have had more of Australia’s ear than anyone else; and the eWG accordingly submitted to this year’s Committee a Final Report (over NHF’s objections) that essentially split the vitamins and minerals into two groups: One that the “eWG” (read here, Australia and the United States) considered “suitable” for adoption; and a second group that was considered “unsuitable” and would need further work.[4]

Strangely enough, this was exactly the approach pushed by the United States at the 2010 CCNFSDU meeting held in Santiago, Chile, but which NHF, the European Union, and others had opposed and defeated back then.  Resurrected from its vampire grave just in time for this 2012 meeting, this plan found support with both Australia and the United States working hard to ensure that, this time, at least half of the dumbed-down nutrient values could be pushed forward towards adoption.

apple

The 2012 Meeting

As planned, the Committee once again took up discussion of the appropriate NRVs for Codex to adopt, using the eWG Report as its starting point. Of course, the Committee covered other topics, such as draft guidelines on the addition of essential nutrients to foods and formulated supplementary foods for older infants and children.  The latter was as hotly-debated a topic as the NRVs.

The Chairwoman was once again Dr. Pia Noble, appointed by the German Health Ministry.  Co-NHF delegate, Katherine Carroll, spent time during breaks speaking with Dr. Noble to advance NHF, but it is clear that Dr. Noble has little regard for the INGOs, who are just nuisances getting in the way of pushing her agenda forward.  Not surprisingly, Dr. Noble is popular with some of the delegates because, as they put it, “she moves things along.”
Well, “moving things along” – like “Fly Me To The Moon” – has become something of a theme song for this Codex Committee.

Real nutritional science is trampled into the mud as the Committee rushes pell-mell to adopt guidelines and standards without considering the consequences of what it is doing. Unfortunately only a few delegates realize what is happening, the majority are content to drift along in concert with and at the direction of the few leaders.

On the second day of the meeting, just before the lunch break, the Australian delegate, Janine Lewis, read through her eWG Final Report while we all listened. I knew what was coming because I had spoken with her before the meeting had started, asking her to, at the very least, withhold calcium from her “suitable” list of nutrients that she would advance for adoption.[5]  When she asked and heard in response that I had only spoken with her and the U.S. delegate about that, her position visibly hardened and she told me simply, “Let’s see what the Committee does.”

It became obvious soon enough what the Committee would do, as I pushed the button on my microphone to speak when the meeting resumed after the lunch break.  As in 2009, I was the second person to speak!  This is highly unusual since the Codex procedure is to let all of the country delegations speak first, and only then allow the INGOs to speak.  Being second meant that there were few who wanted to speak out on this issue.

Barbara Schneeman, the U.S. delegate, had spoken immediately before me and said the U.S. “liked these [NRV] figures” and thus liked the idea of advancing the “suitable” nutrients[6] to the Commission for adoption.  With that, my microphone illuminated red and it was my turn to speak.  I told the Committee that, except for calcium (whose value had been increased while magnesium’s had been decreased, the exact opposite of what should happen with these twin minerals), the Australian figures were all too low, that the NRVs were being reduced by anywhere from 15% to 25%, and questioned why Australia was always choosing the lowest values it could find, even lower than what the guidelines would call for. 

The safety of vitamins and minerals, I argued, was unparalleled, so that there could be no problem with having higher levels of these nutrients. Moreover, lowering the NRVs was inconsistent with Codex’s announced goal of preventing malnutrition.

nhf delegate

NHF delegate Kat Carroll conferring with Benin and Malaysian delegates
The International Alliance of Dietary Food Supplements Associations (IADSA) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) spoke up after NHF, both attacking the proposed values of a specific nutrient – IADSA advocating a higher value for Biotin and IDF a lower value for Calcium (because the higher value would mean that milk could no longer be considered a “rich” source of calcium). 

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), to the confusion of many, simply said “We would like to stress the scientific underpinnings of these numbers.”  Did that mean they supported the values, or opposed them?  It sounded more like the former, but we could not tell.

As expected, Australia responded in defense of the dumbed-down NRVs; and NHF then challenged those numbers yet again.  But this time, the Malaysian, Iranian, and South African delegates spoke up one right after another in strong support of NHF and in favor of more sensible NRVs. It was heartening to hear these three women speak out for sensible nutrition based upon real science.[7]

NHF and IADSA spoke up again, respectively opposing the adoption of any of these values and, in the case of IADSA, the Biotin value.  The European Union (EU) delegate, Basil Mathioudakis, quite sensibly asked the Chairwoman what logic did it make to advance some and not all of the NRVs at the same time. 

Switzerland disagreed with the EU, but NHF spoke up in support of the EU’s question and suggested that the so-called “suitable” NRVs be held back, or at the very least some of the more questionable ones such as Calcium and Vitamin K.  IADSA, in turn, pointed out that the Committee was going against its own guidelines by not selecting the proper value, a higher value, for Biotin.

But the Chairwoman, Pia Noble, was having none of that and insisted that these “suitable” NRVs were going forward despite the substantial opposition.  In a last-ditch effort, I asked the Chairwoman to at least move the Vitamin K, Biotin, and Calcium from the “suitable” Table to the “unsuitable” category. Not only was the answer “no,” but Dr. Noble decided that since opposition might grow against these so-called “suitable” NRVs, then they should be advanced along the path of adoption as quickly as possible.

  So, she unilaterally undertook to advance them along the 8-Step adoption process to Step 5/8, where they now hover on the edge of full adoption by the Commission itself next year.
As an added insult, the following day, the Committee discussed another Agenda Item, that is, revisions to the Codex General Principles for the Addition of Essential Nutrients to Foods, which in small but important part dealt with the question of whether Codex should or could state that nutrients can prevent or reduce the risk of disease. 

Amazingly enough, many delegations spoke out against such language.  Only the U.S. delegation and two INGOs (NHF and GAIN) defended this statement.

scott tipsScott Tips and Benin delegate Zinsou discuss the NRVs

Post-Script
The Troika of Pia Noble, Janine Lewis, and Barbara Schneeman succeeded in finally pushing forward eleven of the nineteen vitamins and minerals further along the road to adoption.  At the Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting next July there will be a further push to adopt these eleven vitamins and minerals and set their low (except for Calcium) values in stone.  Barbara Schneeman, the U.S. delegate, will not be there as her retirement was announced at the CCNFSDU meeting.

 Fortunately, there is still an opportunity to derail this effort to steam-roller consumers into ill-health and NHF intends to make the most of it.

In addition, the Chairwoman reauthorized the eWG to continue its work on the “unsuitable” nutrient values and the NHF is taking an active part in that working group’s activities.  The eWG will report back to the CCNFSDU when it meets again next Fall in Germany.

Legacy
Barbara Schneeman’s legacy at Codex has been an unfortunate one of pushing big corporate interests while thumbing her nose at consumers.  Whether it was her obstinate opposition to adopting a guideline for labeling GMO foods (at the Codex Committee on Food Labelling) or her questionable support for dumbing-down NRVs (at CCNFSDU), she has unfortunately been too often on the wrong side of the issues.  Perhaps, in the interests of better health for consumers worldwide, her retirement from Codex could have happened a few years earlier.  While this might sound uncharitable, inflicting ill-health upon billions of humans is far less charitable still.

Final Thoughts
The Troika has cleverly pushed forward some of the nutrient NRVs in the hope that the others must inevitably follow along.  Whatever their agenda might truly be, the sad fact is that consumer health will suffer from their thoughtless and stercoraceous actions.
The problem facing consumers is not vitamin-and-mineral toxicity, it is widespread deficiencies of those nutrients.

  Too many Codex delegates are stuck in the mindset that human populations only need bare subsistence nutrition; that is, that nutrition that merely keeps them breathing and their feet moving one step at a time.  The concept that there is a greater level of nutrition – of optimal nutrition – is as foreign to them as space flight would be to Stone Age people. 

They fail to comprehend that nutrients at proper levels can actually enable individuals to function at more proficient levels and without those diseases that afflict sub-optimally fed populations.
The disservice done to Humanity by those too lazy to think and then act is so profound as to be disheartening to many others

.  Many among us question the motivations of those who want to only push a guideline or standard forward to final adoption simply to “get it done and out of the way.”  Is their thinking really as shallow as that?  Maybe we better hope it is, as that is an easier mindset to deal with than one of active malevolence.

[1] The National Health Federation delegation consisted of Scott Tips and Katherine A. Carroll. The NHF-Germany Executive Director, Petra Weiss, took ill and could not attend this year.  Attorney Jeannine Stewart and others helped Scott Tips draft the NHF’s submission paper arguing for higher levels of NRVs.  This NHF paper was published by the German Codex Secretariat as Conference Room Document 13 (CRD 13) and made available to all of the CCNFSDU delegates at the meeting and can be found on-line at www.thenhf.com/codex/. All photographs in this article were taken by Katherine Carroll.
[2] Not to be confused with Maximum Upper Permitted Limits, NRVs are nothing more than souped-up RDAs.  These are numerical values assigned to specified nutrients that will supposedly cover 98% of the population’s nutritional needs for that nutrient. By referring to the NRV for a vitamin or mineral, the consumer is supposed to know whether he or she is getting an adequate intake of that nutrient, even if, as in the case of Vitamin C, 100% of the NRV is defined as 45 milligrams! These values are claimed to be set according to rigorous scientific evidence; but, in reality, “science” at Codex levels is often nothing more than a flimsy set of assumptions and erroneous conclusions cobbled together to justify keeping consumers “safe” from “dangerous” vitamins and minerals.
[3] The proposed Codex NRVs are: Vitamin A (dropped from 800 mcg to 550 mcg); Vitamin D (5 mcg or 200 IUs); Vitamin E (8.8 mg); Vitamin K (60 mcg); Vitamin C (dropped from 60 mg to 45 mg); Thiamin (dropped from 1.4 to 1.2 mg); Riboflavin (dropped from 1.6 mg to 1.2 mg); Niacin (dropped from 18 mg to 15 mg); Vitamin B6 (dropped from 2 mg to 1.3 mg); Folate (raised to 400 mcg); Vitamin B12 (2.4 mcg); Pantothenate (5 mg); Biotin (30 mcg); Calcium (raised from 800 mg to 1000 mg); Magnesium (dropped from 300 mg to 240 mg); Iodine (150 mcg); Iron (14.3-43.1 mg depending upon bioavailability); Zinc (dropped from 15 mg to 3.6-11.9, depending upon bioavailability); Selenium (30 mcg); Phosphorus (700 mg); Chloride (2.3 grams); Copper (900 mcg); Fluoride (3.5 mg); Manganese (2.1 mg); Chromium (30 mcg); and Molybdenum (45 mcg).
[4] See CCNFSDU document number CX/NFSDU 12/34/8.
 [5] NHF has been opposed to Australia’s desire to raise the Calcium NRV from 800 mg to 1000 mg for several reasons. First of all, it is infantile nutritional science to think that health can be improved by raising Calcium intake while simultaneously lowering Magnesium intake (here, from 300 mg to 240 mg!).  Magnesium and Calcium are twin minerals and raising Calcium intake while lowering Magnesium intake is a certain recipe for disaster, as it invites the calcium to settle into the soft tissue like the skin and arteries and not go to where it properly belongs, in the bones and teeth.  Secondly, by fixing the NRV for Calcium, the Committee has limited the range in which the Committee may now set the NRV for Magnesium.  If the Committee is to follow sound nutritional science, then the Magnesium NRV cannot now be set any lower than 500 mg.  That is a great distance from the measly 240 mg value that the Chairwoman and Australia would like to establish.
 [6] Vitamin K, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenate, Biotin, Calcium, and Iodine.
[7] These three strong-willed delegates are: Fatima Sulong (Malaysia), Atefeh Fooladi Moghaddam (Iran), and Andiswa Ngqaka (South Africa), who resisted the strong urgings of the Chairwoman to simply look the other way and advance the dumbed-down NRVs.  The three women took an unpopular stand and are true heroines, and to be much commended for speaking out for health.
SUPPORT H.R.3380 – THE DIETARY SUPPLEMENT HEALTH PROTECTION ACT NOW!

You Are A Slave To Your Government

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe “Disobedience, the rarest and most courageous of the virtues, is seldom distinguished from neglect, the laziest and commonest of the vices.” – George Bernard Shaw

Americans Chained By Illusion Called Brain Washing

Murder In The Medical Matrix


I have to begin this article with a bow in the direction of a remarkable site, SSRI stories. There you will find a huge assembly of media articles documenting the death and destruction wrought by psychiatric drugs. In particular, read the index:


It previews the whole picture. It connects the dots.

Keep in mind that all the indicted psychiatric drugs have been approved by the FDA as safe and effective.

Over the years, I've written much about the the FDA. I thought I'd assemble a small fraction of it in one place, to reveal what this federal agency is really all about and why it should be dismantled, amid a blizzard of prosecutions and convictions for negligent homicide and, yes, murder.


HIDDEN IN PLAIN VIEW
by Jon Rappoport
May 18, 2012
  
The day of the Smoking Gun has arrived.

The discovery of a page, on the FDA's own website, proves the FDA is fully aware that:

the drugs it certifies as safe have been killing Americans, at the rate of 100,000 per year.
  

 The FDA website page is currently available under the heading, "Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions."

The FDA takes no blame, no responsibility for its own actions, and yet it admits the death statistics are accurate.

As an investigative reporter, I have been tracking and writing about pharmaceutically-caused deaths for 10 years. I have, on numerous occasions, cited Dr. Barbara Starfield's report in the July 26th, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, in which she presents the figure of 106,000 deaths per year, in America, as a direct result of these drugs. I have claimed that the federal government and, in particular, the FDA, are aware of these numbers.

And now the page on the FDA's own website confirms the death toll. Yet, nowhere do we see the FDA taking one shred of responsibility for this ongoing holocaust.

Holocaust? Add up the figures. Medical drugs cause 100,000 deaths in America every year: that means a million Americans are killed every decade.

Understand this very clearly. No medical drug in America can be released for public use until and unless the FDA states it is safe. The FDA is the agency that makes every such decision on every drug. The buck stops there.

Yes, the FDA has a "special relationship" with the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, the FDA utilizes doctors on their drug-approval panels that have ties to the pharmaceutical industry. But, in the end, it is the FDA official seal that opens the gate and permits a drug to be prescribed by doctors and sold in the US.

In all my research on this medical-drug holocaust, I have never found a case in which any FDA employee was censured, fired, or criminally prosecuted for the killing effects of these drugs.

That is a track record Organized Crime would be proud of, and the comparison is not frivolous.

On this FDA website page that has just come to light, the FDA also readily admits that deaths from medical drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in America, ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile fatalities.

The FDA website page also states there are 2 million serious adverse reactions (ADRs) from the ingestion of medical drugs, annually, in the US. When the FDA says "serious," they aren't talking about headaches or slight dizziness or temporary nausea. "Serious" means stroke, heart attack, neurological damage; destruction of that magnitude. Therefore, per decade, that adds up to 20 million ADRs. 20 million.

Examining these figures for death and debilitation, can you find any comparable crime in the American landscape? And yet the major media have been silent. This is the kind of story that could make Watergate look like a Sunday-school picnic. If a paper like the New York Times let loose their hounds to relentlessly explore the horror, I assure you that, in time, doctors and medical bureaucrats and even drug-company employees would come out of the woodwork with confessions, and the resultant explosions and outcries would shake the medical/pharmaceutical foundations of America and the planet.

But these major media outlets are an intrinsic part of the Matrix that protects and sustains the crimes and the criminals. It isn't just drug-advertising profits that keep the leading newspapers and television networks silent. It's collusion to protect "a revered institution"-the medical system.

Also at stake is Obamacare. The connection is vivid and unmistakable. Millions more Americans, previously uninsured, will be drawn into the system and subjected to the very drugs are killing and maiming people at such a horrific rate.

Where has the US Department of Justice been all these years? Is there any way, under the sun, that a million deaths per decade can be excused? Is there any way the FDA and the drug companies can float safely in the upper atmosphere of privilege, while the concept of justice retains any meaning? Where are criminal prosecutions?

The revelations of ongoing knowledge to be found at the FDA website page stagger the mind. Here is yet another implication: what about all the studies on drugs that are published in prestigious medical journals, month after month? These studies unequivocally claim the drugs are safe. What level of fraud must exist for such peer-reviewed studies to attain the false status of medical fact?

Perhaps this quote from Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, will clarify that aspect of the scandal:

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."
(Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009)
  
Meanwhile, the FDA pursues an agenda of attacking nutritional supplements, and the latest federal regulations classify these supplements as "potentially dangerous"-despite the fact that supplements have a record of safety that is astonishing.
  
It is time for these murderous government crimes to end. It is time for all responsible parties to be brought to justice, to real justice. It is time for the public to realize that 100,000 people dying every year in the US, because they take medical drugs, is the equivalent of 33 airliner crashes into the Twin Towers, every year, year after year.
  
It is only necessary for Department of Justice officials to climb into cars and drive down the road to the headquarters of the FDA and start making arrests, on a charge of negligent homicide. At minimum.


ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: THE FDA VS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

By Jon Rappoport
June 12, 2012

If you worked for a federal agency that was killing people at the rate of 100,000 a year, every year, like clockwork, and if you knew it, wouldn't you feel compelled to say or do something about it?

At the FDA, which is, in fact, killing Americans at that rate, no one has ever felt the need to step forward and speak up.

Let's shift the venue and ask the same question. If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn't you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?

I'm talking about people like Sanjay Gupta (CNN, CBS), Gina Kolata (NY Times), Tim Johnson (ABC News), and Thomas Maugh II (LA Times).

And with that, let's get to the latest smoking gun. The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: "It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing 'serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.'"

The report called this "one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity."

And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA's own database of "serious adverse [medical-drug] events."

Therefore, to say the FDA isn't aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn't saying anything about it, because THE FDA CERTIFIES, AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, ALL THE DRUGS THAT ARE ROUTINELY MAIMING AND KILLING AMERICANS.

Previously, I have documented that the FDA knows; the FDA has a page on its own website that admits 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and two million more people are severely injured by the drugs. (Google "FDA Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions")

And for the past five years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield that indicates 106,000 people in the US are killed by medical drugs every year. Until her death last year, Dr. Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report, "Is US health really the best in the world?", was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

Since the Department of Homeland Security is working its way into every nook and corner of American life, hyper-extending its mandate to protect all of us from everything, why shouldn't I go along with Janet Napolitano's advice: SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING.

This is what I see and this is what I'm saying. Maybe DHS would like to investigate the FDA as a terrorist organization.

How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates the place, and prosecutes very large numbers of FDA employees?

Do we need 100,000 smoking guns? Do we need relatives of the people who've all died, in the span of merely a year, from the poisonous effects of FDA-approved medical drugs, to bring their corpses to the doors of FDA headquarters?

And let me ask another question. If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the 100,000 deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?

I'll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be attacking every health-food store in America. The resulting fatalities would be written off as necessary collateral damage in the fight to keep America safe and healthy.

But you see, the routine deaths of 100,000 Americans a year, after the FDA has certified the drugs are SAFE, isn't a recognized political issue. It doesn't play in a debate between Romney and Obama. It isn't perceived as a left-versus-right, liberal-versus-conservative topic.

Such is the power of the medical cartel. All those phony stories in the press, reported dutifully by so-called medical reporters? The stories about maybe-could-be-possible-miracle breakthroughs just over the horizon of state-of-the-art research? Those stories are there to obscure the very, very hard facts of medically-caused death on the ground.

The buck stops at the FDA.

It's quite something to behold. But here is the situation. No medical drug in the US can be released for public use unless and until the FDA says it is safe and effective. That's the rule. Therefore, if the FDA is spitting out drug approvals month after month and year after year, and if the drugs are routinely killing 100,000 people a year and maiming two million more, which adds up to a million deaths per decade and 20 million maimings per decade, and if the FDA and the federal government are doing nothing about it, even though they know what's going on, then you have a holocaust. Murder. Not accidental death. Murder.


WHEN MASS MURDER BECOMES ACCEPTABLE

by Jon Rappoport
May 23, 2012

Five days ago, I broke a story about the FDA. On one of its own web pages, the agency admits that medical drugs kill 100,000 Americans a year.

Of course, none of those drugs would have reached the public, if the FDA had ruled them out as dangerous. The FDA is the single entity responsible for certifying medical drugs as safe and effective. On its web page, the FDA neglected to mention that fact.

Imagine this. You go to an FBI web page and read the following: "Murders committed by FBI agents are the third leading cause of homicides in America every year."

Wouldn't that set off alarm bells? Wouldn't there be a public outcry? Wouldn't the the press go crazy with the story?

Yet somehow, the FDA gets away with its crimes, its homicides. There are no alarm bells, no arrests, no hearings, no public statements, no press reactions, no shakeups at the Agency.

It's a miracle.

As I've been saying and writing for a decade now, the power of the medical cartel is gigantic.

When I was running for a Congressional seat from the 29th District of California, in 1994, and during my participation in the Health Freedom movement of that period, I insisted we had to take the attack to the FDA. We had to make their crimes public.

I was told by the people who were leading the charge for Health Freedom that priority had to be given to passing a law that would protect us all from attacks on nutritional supplements. Then, when we had that law, we could think about going after the FDA.

Well, we got the law, which only gave us temporary protection, and afterward there was no "going after the FDA." It was suddenly a dead issue.

I remember the people who said, "Don't attack the FDA." I remember their attitudes, their faces, their words. They were not my friends, and they weren't your friends. Some of them were yuppies selling "let's be nice" New Age sentiment. A few were most likely plants who had infiltrated the Health Freedom movement to water it down.

Various liars sell their lies through various strategies.

I assure you, there are doctors out there who know the statistics on medically caused death in the US. They know about the drugs that kill. They know what's going on. They know the FDA is accountable. They remain silent. They feel no pressure to make a public statement. They're living under the umbrella of protection provided by the government and the press and the medical system. These doctors are silent witnesses to ongoing mass murder. Just as the FDA is a silent witness to its own mass-murdering practices. And of course, the doctors write the prescriptions for the drugs.

Obama, Bush, Clinton; none of these men have indicated the slightest awareness of the "problem." Did they know? Do they know? Just as I predicted, correctly, that the FDA knows, I say these men do know. They prefer to remain silent as well. They don't want to touch this genocidal crime. They don't have the character or the courage.

Presidents and deans of medical schools know. Teachers at these schools know. Pharmaceutical executives know. Medical researchers know. The CDC knows. The World Health Organization knows. Editors and reporters at major press outlets know. The DEA knows. The US Dept. of Justice knows.

And now, a growing segment of the Internet knows. Will this story, finally, build into an irresistible roar? Or will it again sink back into the shadows?

A Matrix of hypnotic effect and cognitive dissonance is the obstacle. People find it extremely difficult to believe that a federal agency, in broad daylight, year after year, countenances and sustains the unnecessary deaths of 100,000 people.

People find it extremely difficult to believe that, were such a story true, they would not have heard about it already.

People want to believe that a crime of this boggling magnitude would already have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

People want to believe the secular religion known as Medicine is devoted to healing in all its forms.

People want to believe that, since doctors can put accident victims back together in one piece and can set broken bones and temporarily reduce inflammation, the practice of medicine must be uniformly successful across the board.

To shatter all these firmly held conviction in one fell swoop is too much for many people to absorb.


FDA DRUG REVIEWER: "ONE FDA MANAGER THREATENED MY CHILDREN"

by Jon Rappoport
August 14, 2012

In a stunning interview with Truthout's Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Cavanagh, exposes the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.


Cavanagh: "...widespread [FDA] racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation."

"I was threatened with prison."

"One [FDA] manager threatened my children...I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators."

Cavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted that the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn't part of the FDA culture, and Cavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

What was his covert task at the FDA? "Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs." In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Cavanagh's revelations are astonishing. He recalls a meeting where a drug-company representative flat-out stated that his company had paid the FDA for a new-drug approval. Paid for it. As in bribe.

He remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the effects of nerve gas, "actually increased the lethality" of certain nerve agents.

Cavanagh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug---and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

Read the entire landmark interview for yourself and see what the FDA really is. We are not dealing with isolated incidents of cheating and lying. We are not dealing with a few isolated bought-off FDA employees. The situation at the FDA isn't correctable with a few firings. This is an ongoing criminal enterprise, and any government official, serving in any capacity, who has become aware of it and has not taken action, is an accessory to mass poisoning of the population.

Twelve years ago, the cat was let out of the bag. Dr. Barbara Starfield, writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, on July 26, 2000, in a review titled, "Is US health really the best in the world," exposed the fact that FDA-approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans per year.

In interviewing her, I discovered that she had never been approached by any federal agency to help remedy this tragedy. Nor had the federal government taken any steps on its own to stop the dying.

Should we tread daintily when we know the federal agency responsible for drug safety is allowing 100,000 people to die every year? This is murder. It's not really negligent homicide, not when it keeps happening. It's murder. It's on the order of a Nazi war crime.
  
Try this image: you are a gatekeeper. Your job, on the first day of every year, is to unlock the gate and leave it open, so people can pass through. But you know that, when you open the gate, 100,000 people who pass through will die in the following year. Yet, every January 1, you keep opening the gate.
  
That's what the FDA is. That particular gatekeeper.