Tuesday, April 30, 2013

How Did Obama Become Monsanto's Man in Washington?

And when are anti-GMO activist groups going to stop saying they’re “shocked and disappointed” by the president? 

Shocked and disappointed is polite-speak and politically correct reaction. It’s baloney. 

Don’t you get it? Obama has never been on your side. He never deserved your trust. 

Disappointment implies he was your buddy and then unaccountably walked away.
The man is a politician. He’s a liar. Different pols have different styles of lying. Some pretend  they’re your friend before they screw you over and leave you in the dust. 

I’ve previously published Obama’s track record as Monsanto’s number-one political supporter in America. 

Meet Monsanto’s prime lobbyist, Barack Obama:

After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA: 

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research. 

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.
Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court. 

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.
And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses.

 Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.
Monsanto GMO sugar beets.
Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.
Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.
Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.
Syngenta GMO stacked corn.
Pioneer GMO soybean.
Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.
Bayer GMO cotton.
ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.
A GMO papaya strain.

And soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade. 
Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture. 

He didn’t make that many key political appointments and allow that many new GMO crops to enter the food chain through a lack of oversight. 

Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Records don’t show Monsanto or other biotech giants pouring a landslide of (visible) campaign cash down on Obama, relative to other large donors.

Goldman Sachs was Obama’s number-one $$ donor, and Goldman touts GM-crop commodity contracts, for both buys and sells; but Goldman has its fingers in every significant money pot from Nome to Tierra Del Fuego.

The “Obama riddle” is as plain as the nose on the face of Globalism. Monsanto’s agenda, to monopolize the world’s food supply, is essential to the Globalist blueprint. That blueprint ultimately aims for redistribution of food to the world from a point of Central Planning 

As president, Obama has a sworn obligation to Globalism. His oath isn’t to protect the Constitution. Are you kidding?

Every recent president has had an overriding loyalty to Globalism. 

Obama’s signing of the Monsanto Protection Act, making that corporation senior in power to the US court system, wasn’t an accident. It was taken in keen awareness of his duty to his Globalist betters.

You won’t, of course, see this disclosed on the evening news.
Here is a president who, like Bush, has no plans for a better world. Obama’s notion of “better” is tied up in the Globalist agenda: 

An elite-run bureaucracy, promoting equality and justice, reduces all populations to a lowest common denominator, squashing freedom and prosperity.
Obama’s supporters will never learn the truth, because they’re blinded by the light, which they project on to the persona of the president. 

Obama is aware of the con, since he triggered it, and he leverages it.
He’s all nudge-and-wink. “Yes, we’ll help you and you and you. Of course we will.”
He might help you if you make a declaration of dependence. Sacrifice yourself on an altar of despair and then you might earn the right to be fed.

Obama, while on the campaign trail in 2008, was promising transparency in government, was claiming that every person has the right to know what’s in his food (GMO labeling). But clearly, that was all cover and fluff. He was lying through his teeth and he knew it. 

He’d been vetted for the presidency, and he knew the job entailed joining Monsanto and the larger Globalist agenda as a front man.
He hasn’t changed over the past four years. He’s been a covert agent since the beginning.

Imposter. Charlatan. 

These words fit Obama. He’s pretended, like Clinton, to care, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t care that GMO food is taking over the country and the world. He wants it to happen. He’s always wanted it to happen.

The sitting president of the United States, Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, among others, are prepared to do whatever is necessary to make GMO food dominate America.

They intend, through Monsanto-gene drift among millions of plants in ag fields, through increased planting of GMO crops, and through introduction of still more GMO crops, to wrap up the USA in genetically engineered food.

Obama is on board. He’s always been on board.

He is the GMO president.

If tomorrow, the Globalist Rockefellers of this world decided that all food grown in the US should be injected with Prozac, Obama would find a way to help.
Stop making excuses for the man. He’s not a victim of evil forces surrounding his presidency. He signed up for this trip with eyes wide open. 


Sunday, April 28, 2013

Florida Prof Teaches Conspiracy Classes

Outrageous: James Tracy claims that the government was behind the Boston Marathon bomber that left 3 dead and more than 180 injured

Outrageous: James Tracy claims that the government was behind the Boston Marathon bomber that left 3 dead and more than 180 injured
he Florida college professor who sparked controversy after saying that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School may not have taken place is now infuriating even more people by saying that the Boston Marathon bombings were an inside job. 

James Tracy, a media professor who writes extensively about conspiracy theories, said that last week's bombing appears as if it was planned by the government. 

'The event closely resembles a mass-casualty drill, which for training purposes are designed to be as lifelike as possible,' he wrote in a blog post.
Other topics of rumination on his site include a number of the classic conspiracy theories: the September 11 attacks, the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, the PATRIOT Act, the death of Osama bin Laden and Fukishima have all been of interest.

Mr Tracy, a tenured professor at Florida Atlantic University, argues that the media and 'play actors' have made up the bombing that left three dead and more than 180 injured. 

He takes particular issue with the endless stream of photos supporting the popular belief that the bombing did in fact happen. 

He writes that the multitude of pictures 'suggests the possibility of play actors getting into position after the detonation of what may in fact have been a smoke bomb or similarly benign explosive.'

Picking a fight: Tracy argues that the media and 'play actors' have made up the bombing that left three dead and more than 180 injured
Picking a fight: Tracy argues that the media and 'play actors' have made up the bombing that left three dead and more than 180 injured
Still at work: James Tracy, 47, has been teaching at Florida Atlantic University for 10 years and refuses to lessen his stance against the official version of events regarding the Sandy Hook shooting
Still at work: James Tracy, 47, has been teaching at Florida Atlantic University for 10 years and refuses to lessen his stance against the official version of events regarding the Sandy Hook shooting

'Since it is mediated, however, and primarily experienced from afar through the careful assemblage of words, images and the official pronouncements and commentary of celebrity journalists, it has the semblance of being, for all practical purposes, "real."’

University officials had a similar reaction to his latest rant as they did for the Newtown shooting.

'As with all postings on his personal blog, Florida Atlantic University does not agree with Mr. Tracy’s views or opinions,' the University spokesman said in a statement to FoxNews.com

'His editorialized postings do not reflect the positions of the University or its leaders.

'The University stands with the rest of the country in our support of the victims of the Boston Marathon tragedy. We, too, are Boston Strong.'

One difference between his comments on the Sandy Hook massacre and the Boston bombing was the amount of time that he left in between.
Last time, he waited nearly a month after the 20 young students and six school administrators were killed at the elementary school before making his controversial comments. 

This time he waited just nine days. 

The 47-year-old professor based his outrageous allegations largely on the flurry of conflicting media reports that were made as news of the shooting was released throughout the tragic day.

'I think that the entire country mourned about Sandy Hook and yet, once again, the investigation that journalistic institutions should have actually carried out never took place as far as I'm concerned,' Tracy said at the time. 

VIDEO News reporter confronts Tracy on his conspiracy theory

FBI Created 17 of 20 Terrorist Attacks On US Soil

FBI New agent training.

FBI agent being trained to shoot at paper terrorists. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, in the past 10 years, there’ve been 20 Terrorist plots against the US.  Three of those plots were real but were discovered and stopped by private Americans.  The other 17 were created–and then stopped–by the FBI.

The apparent purpose of these false flag operations was to deceive Americans into believing we’re under attack by foreign or domestic terrorists who are fictional.  Based on the false belief that we’re being persistently attacked, Americans tend to accept and even our government’s invasions of foreign countries and our own growing police state.

If you want to fly on an airplane, you must first be x-rayed or groped based, in part, on 17 plots created by the FBI to prove the existence of terrorists who don’t actually exist.
Every government agent–right up to the President–who authorized or participated in such fraudulent terrorist attacks should be tried for treason and, if found guilty, hanged by the neck until dead.

video   00:05:05

Here’s an article from the New York Times that explains that the FBI is not finding terrorists, so much as creating and grooming people who are upset with government to become “terrorists” in “sting operations”.  This article claims that “Of the 22 most frightening plans for attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 were developed in [FBI] sting operations.” These numbers don’t precisely match Judge Napolitano’s, but they’re similar.

More, the article interests me in that it reveals that most defendants charged in these “sting operations” claim “entrapment” for their defense and thereby lose in court.  That tells me that “entrapment” is probably an “affirmative defense” which, as I’ve previously explained, is first and foremost a confession.

I.e., you can’t claim to have been “entrapped” into committing a crime without first implicitly confessing that you did, in fact, commit the alleged crime.  Once you make any affirmative defense/confession, the prosecution’s case is made, and the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that, except for the influence exerted by the FBI (or whoever), the defendant would not have committed the crime.

 Because it’s almost impossible for the defendant to prove his state of mind and intent, convicting fools who make affirmative defenses is like shooting fish in a barrel.  If the defendant had not made an affirmative defense, the burden of proof would remain on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s state of mind/state.

The most important consequence of using the affirmative defense of entrapment to excuse some alleged criminal act inspired by the FBI (or some other governmental agency) is that such defense constitutes a confession that you have attempted to commit a crime.

The second most important consequence may be that “entrapment” implicitly admits that the person who tried to entrap the defendant was a government agent.  If so, by alleging that he was “entrapped” by a government agent, the defendant cloaks that government agent with “official immunity” that might not otherwise exist.  In other words, if a defendant doesn’t claim “entrapment,” the alleged “government agent” might be just as liable for the offense as the defendant.

If I were being prosecuted for attempting to commit some “terrorist act” that had been inspired by a purported FBI agent, I might not try a defense of entrapment.  I might instead challenge the credentials of the government agent, attempt to prove that he’s merely a private actor, corporate employee, and the real “brains” behind the terror plot.

 I would not thereby confess to the alleged “crime”.  By not confessing, I’d make the prosecution prove every element of the crime, including venue (The State vs. this state), and I might sue the purported FBI agent for misleading and deceiving me.

  I’d be careful to create evidence that the alleged “government agent” was the brains behind the crime and thus a co-defendant rather than some “official”.  I’d argue that if I were to be sentenced to 5 years, my co-defendant should be sentenced to 10.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Food & Water Watch Releases Report on the Corporate Giant Monsanto

hello, monsanto.jpg

Anyone and everyone who is even slightly into food, politics, or government conspiracy theories has at least heard something about Monsanto.

Whether it's the company's development of Agent Orange or farmer lawsuits, the consensus is that the company is pretty evil.

Well, to separate fact from fiction, Food & Water Watch compiled a report, Monsanto: A Corporate Profile, documenting the company's history and influence. Read on for details.

See Also:
- Oregon Saying No to GMO Frankenfish: Florida Senate GMO Labeling Bill Waiting to Be Added to Agriculture Committee Agenda
- Obama Signs Monsanto Protection Act
- GE Mandatory Labeling Laws Introduced in Florida

Food & Water Watch's team of researchers put together the report that outlines the corporation's history and strong ties to lawmakers, regulators, and academic researchers.
According to Lynna Kaucheck, senior organizer for Food & Water Watch, "We wrote the report to show that Monsanto is responsible for the fact that the vast majority of our food supply is both genetically engineered and not labeled as such."

Currently, Monsanto holds patents on 1,676 seeds, plants, and other agricultural applications. These products are grown on more than 282 million acres across the world, including 40 percent of croplands in the United States.

Started in 1901 by John Francis Queeney, the company released its first product, the sugar substitute saccharin -- a product feared to cause cancer. Since its inception, Monsanto has gone on to produce the notorious Vietnam War chemical Agent Orange, Roundup herbicide, GE Roundup Ready seed, and the dairy industry artificial growth hormone rBGH.

Sounds healthy, huh?

The report goes on to call out the numbers. In 2011, Monsanto brought in $11.8 billion in net sales. From 2000 to 2012, the corporation donated $829,662 to U.S. political campaign contributions. In addition, during the same period, Monsanto spent $62,356,730 on U.S. lobbying efforts.

Not exactly a bunch of farmers with pitchforks.

Food & Water Watch's report concludes with recommended actions for regulators.
"From seeds to grocery stores and every place in between, our food system is tremendously consolidated with a handful of corporations dictating what we eat," said Kaucheck. "This new report shows just what a huge influence Monsanto has on the entire food system, and I hope it will motivate concerned citizens everywhere to join the fight to label GE foods, because we all deserve the right to know what we are feeding our families."

In Florida, there are two mandatory labeling bills stuck in committee. Sponsored by Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda,  H.B. 1233 is awaiting approval from the Agriculture Natural Resources subcommittee in the House. Sen. Maria Sach's S.B. 1728 has not been added to Monday's Committee on Agriculture in the Senate.

To view the full Food & Water Watch Report, click here.

Mosquito Drone

Aldous Huxley Quote

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Nestlé CEO Says Water Is Food That Should Be Privatized – Not A Human Right

<iframe width="440" height="260" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nTqvBhFVdvE?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Do you believe water is a basic human right?

According to Nestlé CEO water is a foodstuff that should be privatized, not a human right. Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck says that with the global population rising water is not a public right, but a resource that should be managed by businessmen. Please do share your thoughts.

Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck: “Access to water should not be a public right.”

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Children Teach Adults About Geo Engineering Chemtrails

WHITE HOUSE APPROVES RADICAL RADIATION LEVELS, Civilian Cancer Deaths Expected to Skyrocket


Washington, DC — The White House has given final approval for dramatically raising permissible radioactive levels in drinking water and soil following “radiological incidents,” such as nuclear power-plant accidents and dirty bombs. The final version, slated for Federal Register publication as soon as today, is a win for the nuclear industry which seeks what its proponents call a “new normal” for radiation exposure among the U.S population, according Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, the radiation guides (called Protective Action Guides or PAGs) allow cleanup many times more lax than anything EPA has ever before accepted. These guides govern evacuations, shelter-in-place orders, food restrictions and other actions following a wide range of “radiological emergencies.”

The Obama administration blocked a version of these PAGs from going into effect during its first days in office. The version given approval late last Friday is substantially similar to those proposed under Bush but duck some of the most controversial aspects:

In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period;
  • In water, the PAGs punt on an exact new standard and EPA “continues to seek input on this.” But the thrust of the PAGs is to give on-site authorities much greater “flexibility” in setting aside established limits; and
  • Resolves an internal fight inside EPA between nuclear versus public health specialists in favor of the former. The PAGs are the product of Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for air and radiation whose nomination to serve as EPA Administrator is taken up this week by the Senate.
  • Despite the years-long internal fight, this is the first public official display of these guides. This takes place as Japan grapples with these same issues in the two years following its Fukushima nuclear disaster.
“This is a public health policy only Dr. Strangelove could embrace. If this typifies the environmental leadership we can expect from Ms. McCarthy, then EPA is in for a long, dirty slog,”

stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the EPA package lacks a cogent rationale, is largely impenetrable and hinges on a series of euphemistic “weasel words.” “No compelling justification is offered for increasing the cancer deaths of Americans innocently exposed to corporate miscalculations several hundred-fold.”

Reportedly, the PAGs had been approved last fall but their publication was held until after the presidential election. The rationale for timing their release right before McCarthy’s confirmation hearing is unclear.

Since the PAGs guide agency decision-making and do not formally set standards or repeal statutory requirements, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and Superfund, they will go into full effect following a short public comment period. Nonetheless, the PAGs will likely determine what actions take place on the ground in the days, weeks, months and, in some cases, years following a radiological emergency.

Black Box Data Recorder Required in All New Cars by 2014

Monday, April 15, 2013

Football, Beer, Gambling=Orwellian

The Orwellian Paradigm


Almost thirty years ago, cultural critic Neil Postman argued in Amusing Ourselves to Death that television’s gradual replacement of the printing press has created a dumbed-down culture driven by mindless entertainment. In this context, Postman claimed that Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World correctly foresaw our dystopian future, as opposed to George Orwell’s 1984.
Contrary to Postman’s critique, however, the principles of Newspeak and doublethink dominate modern political discourse. Their widespread use is a testament to Orwell’s profound insight into how language can be manipulated to restrict human thought.

Formulating the Language of Perpetual WarFrom AUMF to “Associates of Associates.” 

The semantic deception began shortly after September 11, 2001. “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda,” Bush said in his State of the Union address, “but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated (emphasis added).”

The defining feature of this rhetoric is that it declares war on a particular method of violence used by disaffected states or groups. In fact, the phrase “war on terror” functions as what semiotics calls a floating signifier, a term devoid of any real meaning and thus open to any interpretation.

Terrorism has no shape, mass, or boundary; it is an abstraction, a tactic of asymmetrical warfare used to achieve political goals. Imagine if Franklin D. Roosevelt had declared “war on surprise attacks” in the wake Pearl Harbor, or if Lyndon Johnson had vowed to defeat guerilla warfare in Vietnam. This linguistic construct, therefore, ensures an open-ended conflict with no conceivable end.

Unperturbed by this paradox, British Prime Minister Tony Blair dutifully reiterated that, “the fact is we are at war with terrorism.” But the bombing sorties over Afghanistan had barely begun when the label morphed into “The Long War,” and then the “decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation.” And now, the targeted killings program has been “extended to militant groups” with no connection to September 11, 2001 – that is, “associates of associates.” Removing the requirement for any linkage to al-Qaeda gives the government unfettered discretion to assassinate anyone without due process of law.

This phraseology makes it impossible to distinguish the dialectical concepts of war and peace. It makes peace synonymous with a state of warfare. Peace is defined in terms of a generational commitment to war and, in turn, war is framed as a necessity to keep the peace. In other words, War is Peace. 

This is the lexicon of perpetual war, the vocabulary of a conflict that is never meant to end. “You can’t end the war,” as one official admits to the Washington Post, “if you keep adding people to the enemy who are not actually part of the original enemy.”

Aggression is Self-Defense –Waging Full Scale War to Prevent War.
Operation Iraqi Freedom represented phase two in a linguistic framework meant to fuse two diametrically opposite concepts in the public mind: preemption and prevention.
The purpose of preemptive war is to thwart or neutralize an imminent attack – one that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation” – without absorbing the first blow. Conversely, preventive war is pure aggression – it is not tied to any notion of imminence and is primarily directed at securing some strategic advantage. Thus, the dimension of time is the primary difference between the former and the latter.

The Bush Doctrine blurred the lines between preventive and preemptive wars. It represented a seismic shift in national security strategy from one dominated by the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment, to one that now enshrined preventive war as a permanent feature of US policy. During his 2002 commencement speech at West Point, Bush stated:
“If we wait for threats to fully materialize we will have waited too long…Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge…” (emphasis added).”

Furthermore, the 2006 US National Security Strategy Paper states that “If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack (emphasis added). In true Newspeak fashion, such a conception of “preemptive action” inverts the traditional model of self-defense under customary international law by rendering imminence completely irrelevant. In doing so, it strips self-defense of any practical meaning.

 It conflates preventive war with preemptive war; it packages aggression as self-defense.
But as Cheney’s one-percent doctrine later revealed, the threat need not even be likely, let alone imminent, for self-defense (read aggression) to apply. According to this logic, even a one percent chance of an event occurring is sufficient to treat it as a certainty. “It’s not about our analysis,” Cheney reportedly said, “…It’s about our response (emphasis added).” Put simply, the likelihood of an event occurring is not a necessary prerequisite to wage war. This embeds the supreme international crime of aggressive war in the fabric of national security policy. Aggression is self-defense, Winston.

The Obama Administration gave the War on Terror a facelift by rebranding it “Overseas Contingency Operations.” But the sanitizing nomenclature has done little to halt the institutionalization of the apparatus of tyranny– from Kill Lists to Disposition Matrices to Drone Playbooks to indefinite detentions to persecuting whistleblowers to pervasive domestic surveillance. These developments are strikingly at odds with the post-9/11 metanarrative that frames this conflict as a clash between the forces of freedom and despotism. As Bush phrased it:

“Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this Chamber, a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms – our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”

From this point onward, spreading ‘freedom and democracy’ abroad became the rallying point for a nation enraptured by its new messianic role. But it soon became apparent that freedom at home cannot coexist with hyper-militarism abroad.

Accusation Is Guilt – Killing You for Your Own Safety.
What could be more destructive to the cherished freedoms that make America a “shining city on a hill” than giving a “high level official” the power to kill Americans on US soil without any due process, accountability or transparency?

 What could be more Orwellian than asserting such dictatorial authority, which has always been the hallmark of totalitarian states, in the name of protecting the public’s safety? The cost of war is not measured solely in terms of blood and treasure. War also corrodes human morality to a point where even the most inhumane acts become perfectly acceptable. In fact, summary executions without due process and the right to a fair trial served as one of the justifications for removing Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Not only does the recent Department of Justice White Paper resoundingly affirm this power grab, it also destroys the foundation of Anglo-American jurisprudence by nullifying the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ It eviscerates the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits any deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It obliterates the protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment, including the “right to a speedy and public trial,” by asserting that government allegations alone, based on secret evidence, are sufficient to establish guilt.

Accusation is guilt, Winston. As Glenn Greenwald cogently observes:
“But of course, when this memo refers to “a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida”, what it actually means is this: someone whom the President – in total secrecy and with no due process – has accused of being that. Indeed, the memo itself makes this clear, as it baldly states that presidential assassinations are justified when “an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US.

This is the crucial point: the memo isn’t justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that (emphasis in original).”

Rarely do apologists for the normalization of extra-judicial murder realize that this represents a permanent erosion of core liberties, an ever-lasting debasement of the Bill of Rights. “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it,” Orwell said. “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” Secret assassinations are here to stay.

The Great Shift Inward — From Enemy Combatants to Homegrown Terrorists.
Under international law, captured enemy soldiers are considered Prisoners of War (POWs), and thus shielded by the Geneva Conventions and the jus cogens prohibition against torture. Furthermore, terrorism was traditionally treated as a federal criminal offense before 9/11. Accordingly, those accused of terrorism could still invoke the protections of the Bill of Rights, including the right to counsel, right to a jury trial, right to confront one’s accusers, right against self-incrimination and conviction based on guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

As the 2002 Padilla Case demonstrated, however, the enemy combatant doctrine creates a category of detainees that are neither POWs nor terrorists. As such, they are beyond the reach of both the Bill of Rights and Geneva Conventions. This undefined label essentially circumvents the safeguards of the legal system and allows the state to treat the accused like a medieval King would a serf. It sets the groundwork for a parallel gulag system in the United States operating on the model of indefinite detention without charge or trial, no access to a lawyer, and confessions obtained through torture.

And then came Attorney General Holder’s recent premonition about a new threat: the “homegrown terrorist.” Speaking to ABC news, Holder’s statement signals a decisive shift in the script governing the ongoing campaign:

“It’s a very serious threat. I think what it says is that the scope, our scope, has to be broadened. We can’t think that it’s just a bunch of people in caves in some part of the world. We have to be concerned about the homeland to the same extent that we are worried about the threat coming from overseas” (emphasis added).

The implications of this statement are staggering, for it turns the United States into the new “battlefield.” Systems of tyranny perfected abroad are always turned inward. It only took a decade for the same tactics of warfare that were previously restricted to foreign countries to now being applied domestically.

Responding to Senator Rand Paul’s question whether the President can authorize drone strikes on US citizens on domestic soil, Holder revealingly states that “It is possible…to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” Even though the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits military involvement in domestic law enforcement, notice how Holder sees no problem with the military, not police, using lethal force against Americans on US soil.

Furthermore, when combined with the DOJ White Paper’s assertion that drone assassinations do “not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future,” it becomes frighteningly clear that an anonymous “high level official” can deploy these “faceless ambassadors of death” to strike you dead anytime, even absent any imminent or likely threat. This gives government the power of God. It repudiates every principle of liberty this constitutional republic was founded upon.

This is no exaggeration, as Holder’s follow-up response to Senator Paul clarifies: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no (emphasis added).” As any lawyer can attest, Holder’s heavily qualified statement creates more ambiguity.

Note the following points: (1) Holder is not saying that the President cannot kill an American on US soil. The phrasing of his question is much narrower, which can arguably be interpreted as allowing the President to kill without using “weaponized drones;” (2) most important of all, his statement implies that the President does have the authority to kill Americans “engaged in combat.”

Hence, the issue of how “combat” is defined carries great importance. In this regard, William Grigg brilliantly points out that al-Awlaki’s assassination sets a precedent that stretches the interpretation of “combat” to a point where there are few, if any, restraints on the Presidents power to kill:

“Combat” can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel. Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact.”

More than half a century ago Orwell had warned us that the scourge of war eventually turns inward. “The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word “war”, therefore, has become misleading” (emphasis added). Stated differently, war becomes a buzzword for concealing a rather insidious internal dynamic, one that treats those who oppose the status quo – the intrepid whistleblower, the outspoken journalist, the vocal activist – as a legitimate target for persecution.

Dissent Is Treason.
It is precisely the ability to express unpopular opinions and the autonomy to diverge from convention without fear of persecution that makes any society free. As Edward R. Murrow reminded us during the McCarthy era, dissent should never be confused with disloyalty because “we are not descended from fearful men […] who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.” That same principle holds true today, regardless of the nature of the claimed emergency.

Bradley Manning was caged like an animal under insanity inducing conditions for more than two and a half yearswithout trial. Manning’s treatment is an epiphenomenon of the current administration’s unprecedented war against whistleblowers, which makes an example of any lowly prole who dare expose corruption at the highest levels of the Inner Party. John Kiriakou rots in prison for the “crime” of informing the people about the CIA’s illegal waterboarding, whereas John Brennan ascends to the heights of power for endorsing torture and assassinations.

The operative effect of such incidents is to create a culture of intimidation and silence by making it a “thoughtcrime” to deviate from the official version of events.
Investigative journalist Chris Hedges points out that the NDAA (the Homeland Battlefield Bill) “permits the military to detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, who ‘substantially support’—an undefined legal term—al-Qaida, the Taliban or ‘associated forces,’ again a term that is legally undefined.”

This represents a clear step toward the criminalization of activities that were formerly protected under the First Amendment. It equates any meaningful dissent with treason.
As if this weren’t bad enough, some government employees are told to view “protests” as a form of “low-level terrorism,” and consider “Fury at the West for reasons ranging from personal problems to global policies of the U.S.” as a potential indicator of terrorist activity.

Recall that the PATRIOT Act was also billed a necessary counterterrorism tool. Even though it vastly expanded the state’s investigative power without any attendant checks and balances, Congress was given no time to read it due to the claimed exigency of the circumstances. Almost a decade later, however, its application has been expanded to ordinary, non-terrorism cases like drug dealing and child pornography.

Understanding how this process works is vital, for tyranny always treads a familiar path: first it clamors for unfettered authority to resolve some overriding problem; then it consolidates that power; next it gradually expands its vocabulary and application; finally, it turns around and uses that power to persecute everyone. Indeed, those who wield unrestrained power will inevitably abuse it.

Big Brother Is Watching You – Argus, TrapWire, Stingray, EARS and Total Information Awareness. 

Reporting on DARPA’s most recent project called Effective Affordable Reusable Speech-to-text (EARS), Wired magazine reports that “Darpa wants to make systems so accurate, you’ll be able to easily record, transcribe and recall all the conversations you ever have.” It’s a “little freaky,” the author admits, since it gives those who wield this technology total omniscience – the power to know everything about everyone at any time.

The parallels to 1984 are obvious: “Always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or out of doors, in the bath or in bed — no escape. Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull(emphasis added).” The only vestige of privacy is in one’s own mind – for now at least.

But even though the average citizen’s privacy has been eviscerated, the government continues to operate at unprecedented levels of secrecy. As the Associated Press reports:
…the government cited national security to withhold information at least 5,223 times — a jump over 4,243 such cases in 2011 and 3,805 cases in Obama’s first year in office.The secretive CIA last year became even more secretive: Nearly 60 percent of 3,586 requests for files were withheld or censored for that reason last year, compared with 49 percent a year earlier.

In that context, privacy is not dead per se; it is flourishing insofar as the government’s inner workings are concerned.

“They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality…and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything…”

Like Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, the opinion molders – the handful of corporations that control the flow of information – sanitize reality to cover for even the worst cases of executive wrongdoing. Their paternalism regards people as mere casual observers to be controlled, not stakeholders to be informed about the democratic process. Their function is to control the narrative of events, for “Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

Oceania Has Always Never Been At War With East Asia.
Orwell explained doublethink as “holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them…To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed…”

A recently declassified memorandum written by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2001, almost a year and a half before Operation Iraqi Freedom, adds to the plethora of evidence that Rumsfeld, along with the rest of the neoconservative war hawks, concocted false pretexts to market the invasion of Iraq. The same Donald Rumsfeld, who invoked Saddam Hussein’s non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) as a casus belli to invade Iraq in 2003, previously armed the same Iraqi dictator with chemical and biological weapons as Ronald Reagans Middle East envoy during the 1980s. Oceania was never at war with East Asia.

But this was an inconvenient fact in the prelude to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and therefore had to be forgotten. It never happened. “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.” Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.
Conclusion – The Grand Contradiction. 

In a historical irony, Orwell’s proposed preface to Animal Farm about censorship in the English press was suppressed and remained undiscovered for years after his death. In it, Orwell mounts a principled defense of intellectual freedom during a time when the western press brooked no criticism of Joseph Stalin or his murderous regime.

 “These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you,” Orwell warned. “Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists.” Make a habit of endorsing drone strikes in far off lands, and perhaps the next drone will show up in your neighborhood.

In conclusion, the grand contradiction lurking behind all the rhetorical smoke screens is simply this: in trying to rid the world of evil using the tactics of evil, we unleash even greater horrors; we become what we seek to destroy.

Faisal Moghul is an attorney. He can be reached at fez.moghul1@gmail.com

Dead sea lions washing on shore in California appear to have died from radiation poisoning


An unusual surge of stranded dying and dead sea lions (seals) have littered Southern California beaches from Santa Barbara to San Diego since earlier this year. Most of the area newspapers and media outlets have been alarmingly reporting this unusual phenomenon.

It's unusual because this is the season when sea lion pups flourish. Instead they're struggling ashore in starved, emaciated conditions, if they've managed to stay alive. Scientists say almost half the sea lions born this past winter have died.

When they get too thin, they're forced to go ashore for sun because they can't stay warm in cool waters. All the concerned marine biology scientists are scratching their heads. Some have commented on how this sort of mortality rate is usually predictable according to atmospheric or oceanic conditions.

But there are none of the obvious tell-tale signs that could have predicted this high occurrence of seal pup mortality.

"They're clearly not getting enough food," said Victoria Harris, Interim Executive Director with the California Wildlife Center. Yet another scientist claims there are sufficient squid and sardine populations for them off the coast of California.

Scientists seem to be determined to get to the bottom of this marine life tragedy. "Marine mammals are sentinels of the eco system," stated Victoria Harris, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA).

The NOAA publicly announced that they considered radiation unlikely as the cause, but it wasn't ruled out.

How radiation could be the primary causal event

Japanese marine scientists have announced extremely high radiation reading in sea water collected off Japan.

The New York Times article, "Fukushima's Contamination Produces Some Surprises at Sea" published September 28, 2011 contained information from scientists about extremely high amounts of radioactive cesium 137.

The extremely high readings recorded at different times indicated that cesium 137 was rising, and at that time in 2011, more radioactive material was continuing to leak into the ocean.

That article registered concern over the high amounts of radioactive material, but claimed at that time the ocean was diluting the radiation levels low enough to prevent humans from being harmed directly.

Of course, California sea lions are a long way off from the Japan coast, but different currents and eddies could spread a continuing accumulation of radioactive contamination farther out into the ocean from Japan.

Even tuna caught off the California coast have been found with higher than normal traces of cesium 137 from the Fukushima disaster in May of 2012.

An unpublicized cause of death for seal pups is domoic acid, produced by toxic algae bloom. It causes seizure and death in California sea lions. Domoic acid is a neurotoxin produced by a few specific types of harmful algae blooms among the phytoplankton on the ocean's surface.

Often this results in what's been termed "Red Tide" that kills off lots of marine life.

Here's where I'm going with this. Phytoplankton is easily corrupted. Although it's involved with providing well over half the earth's oxygen through the process of photosynthesis, excessive UV rays coming through ozone layer openings do damage them.

So now we have a 2011 report from researchers at the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology which stated that Fukushima's radioactive cessium 137 has contaminated ocean plankton. Plankton is the first food within the marine life food chain.

Professor Takashi Ishimaru, said the plankton were heavily contaminated because sea currents continuously carried contaminated water southward from the nuclear plant. There you have it. Radioactively contaminated plankton.

If it doesn't produce a form of domoic acid from that damage, it goes up the food chain to larger fish and sea mammals. Remember that quote from earlier in this article: "Marine mammals are sentinels of the eco system."

If not directly from radioactive contamination, which has not been ruled out since some Fukushima radioactive debris has washed ashore on the west coast, then the indirect consequences of radioactive plankton could be at the bottom of this seal pup tragedy.

Ridiculous McDonald's nutritionist claims chain's fast food is healthy


In some sort of desperate attempt to retain a formidable customer base in this changing nutritional climate, fast food giant McDonald's has come out publicly with some rather humorous claims about the alleged nutritional value of its food offerings. Speaking at the recent annual meeting of the Utah Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Cindy Goody, the official director of nutrition at McDonald's, tried to convince her listeners that the chain's processed food is somehow healthy, and that she and her kids eat it all the time as part of a balanced diet.

Apparently threatened by the menu offerings at Subway, its primary fast food rival these days, McDonald's is currently making the rounds trying to revamp its image based on its new menu items, which it claims are healthier than ever before. But as you will see from the following quote, McDonald's ideas about health are still far from accurate, as the company continues to tow the line that "fat" is bad, for instance, and that everything revolves solely around calorie consumption.

"In the past couple of years we've launched fruit and maple oatmeal, [and] blueberry banana nut oatmeal," explained Goody to her audience. "Premium chicken sandwiches have buns made with eight grams of whole grains. With the launch of the new Happy Meal [last year, it] automatically includes a smaller-sized kid fries [reducing calories from 230 to 100] and automatic inclusion of apples ... and we reformulated our one percent chocolate milk to now fat-free chocolate milk."

McDonald's engaged in massive 'health-washing' propaganda campaign

This all might sound good and fine to the average American with little nutritional knowledge, but a closer look at the facts reveals that such efforts by McDonald's are nothing more than "health-washing," that is trying to present an image of health rather than offering any substance of health. In other words, McDonald's wants its customers to believe that its food is becoming healthier because it is making mere rudimentary changes to its menu, while failing to phase out its garbage items with truly nutritious alternatives.

Grains, for instance, as many NaturalNews readers are already well aware, tend to be inflammatory, regardless of whether or not they are whole grain. This means that adding a few more whole grains to an already chemical-laden white bun does little or nothing to improve the nutritional value of hamburgers -- but Goody and the many other high-paid marketing charlatans at McDonald's sure want you to think it does!

Then there is the issue of the fat in McDonald's chocolate milk. The fast food giant would like its customers to believe that its new fat-free chocolate milk is healthier than the one percent fat chocolate milk it previously served to its customers -- because fat makes you fat, right? Wrong. As we continue to inform our readers, fats, and particularly saturated fats, are needed by the body to promote healthy metabolism and proper brain function.

As far as the new chocolate milk is concerned, a quick look at the McDonald's nutritional page for its non-fat chocolate milk reveals that it is loaded with sugar, which more than likely came from genetically-modified (GM) sugar beets, as well as toxic carrageenan and synthetic vitamins. The actual milk itself also more than likely came from cows treated with the GM growth hormone rBST, and fed GM corn and soybean feed -- this is hardly a healthy option to feed your children!

This is just a small cross-section, of course, of the much bigger problem with McDonald's ever-evolving food menu -- it is still loaded with GMOs, refined sugars, processed flours, unhealthy cooking oils and trans fats, and feedlot-based meat products, no matter how the company tries to health-wash its products. Don't be fooled.

San Diego County considers forcing residents to take psychiatric medication under Laura's LawM

 San Diego County in California is considering implementing Laura's Law, which would give the state's second most populous county - home to over three million people - the uncontested right to force psychiatric medication upon its residents.

Funds for the forced inpatient or outpatient psychiatric incarceration, known as "assisted outpatient treatment" are to be provided by taxpayers. Other bills under consideration would extend Laura's Law to schoolchildren, at the discretion of school administrators.

Laura's Law is heavily supported by law enforcement, the press, the American Psychiatric Association and host of "consumer and family advocate groups." In others words, those who believe the government deserves more control absolutely love Laura's Law. After all, Laura's Law offers those in power the ultimate form of control - over your brain chemistry.

What is Laura's Law?

Laura's Law is an existing state law, passed by the California state legislature in 2002 and signed by Governor Gray Davis. The law makes it possible for anyone to be ordered into psychiatric treatment if determined appropriate by authorities. Non-compliant "patients" are not given a choice, pending involuntary incarceration.

Each county within the state of California has the option of implementing Laura's Law. Los Angeles County implemented it in 2004. San Diego County undertook a 90-day review of the law in March 2013 as it considers implementation.

The law is named for Laura Wilcox, who was shot and killed at the age of 19 by a man with untreated, severe mental illness.

How do you qualify for forced psychiatric treatment under Laura's Law?

Authorities simply determine that you meet the state approved criteria. In California, the criteria are as follows:

Inpatient: (1) Danger to self/others or (2) unable to provide for basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.

Outpatient: Condition likely to substantially deteriorate, unlikely to survive safely in community without supervision, history of noncompliance which includes two hospitalizations in past 36 months or act/threat/attempt of violence to self/others in 48 months immediately preceding petition filing, likely needs to prevent meeting inpatient standard, and likely to benefit from assisted treatment.

Glancing over these standards quickly is dangerous because they are written to appear strict and reasonable. If we break them down, however, you can see that the wildly vague language used is open to broad interpretation.

The bottom line is this: Someone in authority needs to decide that you are a "danger." That's it. Then, they can lock you up and medicate you into oblivion. Case closed.

But wait, it says that you have to have a hard history of hospitalization and violence in order to qualify. Not so! All you need to qualify to lose your physical and mental freedom is, at any time during the last four years, to act/threat/attempt violence to self/others. An "act/threat/attempt" of violence, by the way, could be ANYTHING. Giving someone a dirty look could be interpreted as a threat of violence.

Finally, authorities have put themselves in a position to predict whether or not you are "likely to benefit" from assisted treatment. And the clause, condition likely to substantially deteriorate, suggests that they can take over your life if they feel you may do something wrong in the future.

I recently spoke with Sophie Faught at MindFreedom International about Laura's Law. MindFreedom International is a true patient rights advocacy group that believes in mental health freedom. Sophie said the following:

For over 25 years, we at MindFreedom have argued for VOICE and CHOICE in mental health care. We're against force in mental health care because it's simply not therapeutic. When you're suffering from mental or emotional distress, the last thing you need is to have a technology you don't believe in forced on you. Rather,you need to feel safe and loved by your fellow human beings. It's that human connection, which can be found in peer support and compassionate care, that helps you find the meaning in your experience and your path to a better mental/emotional place.

Many of our members describe the practice of forced drugging as dehumanizing, invasive, violent, and downright TRAUMATIZING. Because trauma is so often a contributing factor to mental/emotional distress, our first goal should be to provide care that does not exacerbate old traumas or create new ones. Forced drugging cannot possibly meet that goal -- many psychiatric survivors spend years coming to terms with the violence and violation of that kind of an act.

Forcibly injecting another human being with a mind-altering chemical cannot be considered therapeutic under any circumstances, but it's especially shocking to think of doing this to a person in his own home, the place (above all others), where he expects privacy, self-determination, and safety. What psychiatry says through this act is: "There is only a narrow spectrum of thoughts and emotions that are acceptable, EVEN IN YOUR OWN HOME, EVEN IN YOUR OWN MIND."

Why limit mankind? Why stop these journeys into the inner world of thoughts and feelings? What incredible discoveries do we -- as individuals and as a society -- miss in the process?

MindFreedom International will always oppose legislation like Laura's Law because we believe that there must be safe spaces for extreme thoughts and emotions. Mankind has much to learn from these experiences. They are a difficult but necessary part of the healing path.

Psychiatry has no answer to gun massacres

As much as our hearts go out to those who have suffered and lost loved ones to the violent and unpredictable acts of others, we need to face the hard truth.

Violence is not predictable.

Psychiatry does not have the answer.

Psychiatric medication does not prevent violence.

Stealing freedom and medically torturing innocent people will do nothing to protect anyone. The problem of violence will remain unsolved. The state will continue to gain unprecedented power and an easier path to implement that power. The freedom of the people will continue to vanish.

Peter Breggin, MD has the following to say about psychiatric approaches to violent behavior:

The most devastating recent shooters were all involved with psychiatric treatment and evaluation, and it did not prevent their violence. In some cases, it undoubtedly increased it.

On the possibility of identifying violent people and preventing violent acts, Dr. Breggin said:

So many people harbor feelings of violence, and so few perpetrate them, that it is impossible to screen society for violent individuals without untold numbers of "false positives." In a general psychiatric practice such as my own, a number of patients will be struggling to control their violent feelings and usually a few will have acted aggressively or violently in the past. Within society as a whole, there will be thousands of "suspicious-looking" people locked up and drugged for every genuine threat.

Read Dr. Breggin's full commentary on psychiatry and gun massacres here. For an amazing interview with Dr. Breggin about the violent, death-camp style history of psychiatry, listen to the March 13, 2013 episode of Mental Health Exposed. If you think psychiatry is rooted in a desire to help people heal, think again! These are the folks we are empowering with Laura's Law! Ice pick lobotomy anyone?

There you have it. States like California are using devastating acts of violence to increase their power with "solutions" that do NOTHING more than steal freedom from innocent people.

About the author:
Watch the free video The AHA! Process: An End to Self-Sabotage and discover the lost keys to personal transformation and emotional well-being that have been suppressed by mainstream mental health for decades.

The information in this video has been called the missing link in mental health and personal development. In a world full of shallow, quick-fix techniques, second rate psychology and pharmaceutical takeovers, real solutions have become nearly impossible to find. This presentation will turn your world upside down.

Banking Greatest Scam On Earth?

<iframe width="440" height="260" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G9IH-XKQpOI?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sequester Cuts From Poor Gives To War Efforts

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Chemtrails Frightening Lesser Known Facts


By David Richards

“In the last ten years, respiratory disease in the US has moved from 8th to 3rd highest cause of death. Asthma rates have more than doubled in the western world and Alzheimer’s’ disease, a condition that is caused by aluminum poisoning, has also skyrocketed. ”

If we don’t organize to stop this scourge, we deserve what we get.
There has been an increasing awareness of chemtrails in recent years. Protests have been organized, movies have been released and whistle blowers have come forward. Most significantly, former Los Angeles FBI chief Ted Gunderson made a video denouncing chemtrails shortly before his death in 2011.

The heavy spraying began in NATO countries in the late 90s, but today chemtrails are being recorded pretty much everywhere, from Russia to Brazil, South Korea to Cuba. This is a program of extraordinary scope and importance. However, while we know a chemtrail program exists, there is very little hard information on how it functions and what its goals are.
I have been researching chemtrails and, while I don’t yet have the full picture, I present this information will plug a few holes.

• Most politicians are as oblivious as we are. AC Griffin, a former CIA and NSA operative, says: ‘The monies that go into CIA projects don’t necessarily come from congressional appropriations. The congress as a whole is completely oblivious to the aerosol program. They are afraid to ask.’

People on the inside who oppose the program are punished. ‘One of the key people who designed the aerosol is now sitting in federal penitentiary. They still go to him to ask him questions.’

Griffin also revealed that former Clinton era Navy Chief of Naval Operations, Jeremy Boorda, left, was murdered because he opposed the program. Boorda was found dead in 1996 with three shotgun wounds in his chest. The authorities were quick to claim he committed suicide, and the autopsy results were never released to the public.

• Commercial airliners are involved in spraying. In the very beginning, the aerosols were sprayed solely by military planes, but now the program has been expanded and commercial airliners have been outfitted with aerosol units controlled by computers and satellites. Photos provide evidence of this, like this Lufthansa jet flying over the US (below,left).

In the airline industry, the operation is known as Project Cloverfield. In 2000, a high level executive at an American airline revealed his office was visited by two men from an unnamed government agency:

‘They told us that the government was going to pay our airline, along with others, to release special chemicals from commercial aircraft. When asked what the chemicals were and why we were going to spray them, they told us that information was given on a need-to-know basis and we weren’t cleared for it…We were made to sign non-disclosure forms that basically stated that we would go to prison if we told anyone what we knew.’

Delivery by commercial aircraft raises the possibility that many countries have not given consent to being sprayed, and may be unaware it’s even happening
• Weather manipulation is a daily occurrence – Chemtrails are used in conjunction with HAARP for geo-engineering (the technical term for weather control). Much is written about the ability to create disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis against an enemy, but we don’t realize that weather patterns are manipulated all the time. Scott Stevens was a TV weatherman in the US but quit his job upon realizing that this was happening on a nigh daily basis.


Global warming is the cover story for the increasingly severe and bizarre weather worldwide.
• Geo-engineering is used to force GMO crops on the world. Manufactured floods and droughts damage harvests and put farmers out of business.

Monsanto has the patent for GMO seeds that are drought and flood resistant, as well as resistant to the poisonous effects of aluminum, one of the key metals in chemtrails. Any farmer who refuses to grow GMO crops will not be able to guarantee a good harvest and will go out of business. Even worse, Monsanto’s end game is to force what are termed ‘Terminator’ seeds on farmers worldwide. These crops don’t produce seeds, meaning the farmer has to buy new seeds from Monsanto every planting season!

• Weather Derivatives are chemtrail insurance. – You may wonder how the big players protect their interests from weather warfare. Say, how does George Soros, who owns thousands of acres of farmland in America, protect his profits from engineered drought?


Companies use financial instruments to hedge against risk of adverse weather conditions. They first appeared in the late-nineties, the same time the heavy spraying started! Michael Agne, a trader at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, explains how they work:

‘You’re betting there’s going to be a weather disaster within a particular time-frame, at a particular location, and when it does happen there’s going to be a big pay-off.’ Obviously, insiders can make big bucks making bets based on the geo-engineering timetable.


• Chemtrails are a ‘soft kill’ operation – Soft kill attacks primarily aim to disable and weaken the enemy, not kill him. As Dr. Len Horowitz has explained, wars are an inefficient way to lower population numbers because they destroy infrastructure. The preferable scenario is to create a sick population dependent on the military-medical-industrial complex for their health. In this way, you have population control, make vast fortunes doing it and keep the infrastructure intact.

Chemtrails are a multi-pronged attack.

Firstly, the metallic salts used in the aerosols are highly toxic and require our bodies to waste tremendous amounts of energy removing them. Millions of people cannot do it. In the last ten years, respiratory disease in the US has moved from 8th to 3rd highest cause of death. Asthma rates have more than doubled in the western world and Alzheimer’s’ disease, a condition that is caused by aluminum poisoning, has also skyrocketed.

The second thing is the release of diseases. A high placed military insider claims that bacteria and viruses are freeze-dried and placed on fine filaments for release. The metals released along with the diseases heat up from the sun, creating a perfect environment for the bacteria and viruses to thrive in the air supply.

Third, chemtrails contain nano technological weapons. Surprisingly, this fact has remained so low-key in the alternative media. It is well proven by researchers like Dr. Hildegarde Staninger and former government scientist Clifford Carnicom.

The nanotech consists of genetically modified organisms that are basically bio-robots. When we inhale them, they take up residence in our bodies and live as parasites. When the infestation becomes advanced, the individual develops what is termed Morgellons disease. He is so weak that he can barely do anything and suffers an array of bizarre and ghastly symptoms: scabs that don’t heal, hair that falls out and is replaced by pseudo hair and unceasing crawling sensations beneath the skin.

Inhuman Radiation Experiments

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the declassification of top secret studies, done over a period of 60 years, in which the US conducted 2,000 radiation experiments on as many as 20,000 vulnerable US citizens.[i]

Victims included civilians, prison inmates, federal workers, hospital patients, pregnant women, infants, developmentally disabled children and military personnel — most of them powerless, poor, sick, elderly or terminally ill. Eileen Welsome’s 1999 exposé The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War details “the unspeakable scientific trials that reduced thousands of men, women, and even children to nameless specimens.”[ii]

The program employed industry and academic scientists who used their hapless patients or wards to see the immediate and short-term effects of radioactive contamination — with everything from plutonium to radioactive arsenic.[iii] The human subjects were mostly poisoned without their knowledge or consent.

An April 17, 1947 memo by Col. O.G. Haywood of the Army Corps of Engineers explained why the studies were classified. “It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans and might have adverse effect on public opinion or result in legal suits.”[iv]

In one Vanderbilt U. study, 829 pregnant women were unknowingly fed radioactive iron. In another, 188 children were given radioactive iron-laced lemonade. From 1963 to 1971, 67 inmates in Oregon and 64 prisoners in Washington had their testicles targeted with X-rays to see what doses made them sterile.[v]

At the Fernald State School, mentally retarded boys were fed radioactive iron and calcium but consent forms sent to parents didn’t mention radiation. Elsewhere psychiatric patients and infants were injected with radioactive iodine.[vi]

In a rare public condemnation, Clinton Administration Energy Sec. Hazel O’Leary confessed being aghast at the conduct of the scientists. She told Newsweek in 1994: “I said, ‘Who were these people and why did this happen?’ The only thing I could think of was Nazi Germany.”[vii] None of the victims were provided follow-on medical care.

Scientists knew from the beginning of the 20th century that radiation can cause genetic and cell damage, cell death, radiation sickness and even death. A Presidential Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments was established in 1993 to investigate charges of unethical or criminal action by the experimenters. Its findings were published by Oxford U. Press in 1996 as The Human Radiation Experiments.

The abuse of X-radiation “therapy” was also conducted throughout the ’40s and ’50s. Everything from ringworm to tonsillitis was “treated” with X-radiation because the long-term risks were unknown or considered tolerable.

Children were routinely exposed to alarmingly high doses of radiation from devices like “fluoroscopes” to measure foot size in shoe stores.[viii]

Nasal radium capsules inserted in nostrils, used to attack hearing loss, are now thought to be the cause of cancers, thyroid and dental problems, immune dysfunction and more.[ix]

Experiments Spread Cancer Risks Far and Wide
In large scale experiments as late as 1985, the Energy Department deliberately produced reactor meltdowns which spewed radiation across Idaho and beyond.[x] The Air Force conducted at least eight deliberate meltdowns in the Utah desert, dispersing 14 times the radiation released by the partial meltdown of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979.[xi]
The military even dumped radiation from planes and spread it across wide areas around and downwind of Oak Ridge, Tenn., Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Dugway, Utah. This “systematic radiation warfare program,” conducted between 1944 and 1961, was kept secret for 40 years.[xii]

“Radiation bombs” thrown from USAF planes intentionally spread radiation “unknown distances” endangering the young and old alike. One such experiment doused Utah with 60 times more radiation than escaped the Three Mile Island accident, according to Sen. John Glen, D-Ohio who released a report on the program 20 years ago.[xiii]

The Pentagon’s 235 above-ground nuclear bomb tests, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are not officially listed as radiation experiments. Yet between 250,000 and 500,000 U.S. military personnel were contaminated during their compulsory participation in the bomb tests and the post-war occupation of Japan. [xiv]

Documents uncovered by the Advisory Committee show that the military knew there were serious radioactive fallout risks from its Nevada Test Site bomb blasts. The generals decided not to use a safer site in Florida, where fallout would have blown out to sea. “The officials determined it was probably not safe, but went ahead anyway,” said Pat Fitzgerald a scientist on the committee staff.[xv]

Dr. Gioacchino Failla, a Columbia University scientist who worked for the AEC, said at the time, “We should take some risk… we are faced with a war in which atomic weapons will undoubtedly be used, and we have to have some information about these things.”[xvi]
With the National Cancer Institute’s 1997 finding that all 160,000 million US citizens (in the country at the time of the bomb tests) were contaminated with fallout, it’s clear we did face war with atomic weapons — our own.

John LaForge works for the nuclear watchdog group Nukewatch in Wisconsin and edits its Quarterly newsletter.

Look Out Monsanto The Global Food Movement Is Rising

Rarumuri GMO protest
A group of Rarámuri Indians from Bocoyna Municipality, who marched into the governor’s palace in 2008 to demand that genetically modified corn not contaminate their native seeds. Photo by David Lauer.
Chewing on a mouthful of locally grown lettuce, I wondered if the claims I’d heard about the global food-justice movement were true. Was there a line to follow, however crooked, between my purchase of these greens, land reform in Brazil and opposition to genetically modified seeds in California. Or was it all just empty calories?
Reading about how people transform the way they farm and eat makes you want to cook up your own plans with your neighbors.
As a somewhat conscientious consumer and occasional Taco Bell boycotter, I’ve hoped that the movement was real. But it hasn't always been easy to perceive the connection between marching for improved farmworker rights, signing a petition against factory feedlots, and cooking up beets from a CSA (that is, community supported agriculture, which usually comes in the form a box of assorted veggies delivered to people who contribute to a local farm’s financial well-being).

Those connections form a tight weave in the new book, Harvesting Justice: Transforming Food, Land, and Agriculture in the Americas. Using “food sovereignty” as the secret sauce, the book sautés the individual ingredients of sister movements into a coherent, flavorful whole.
Raramuri women work in field
Young Rarámuri women select corn for next year´s seed after a farmer-to-farmer workshop on seed selection in the community of Rekusachi, Chihuahua. Photo by David Lauer.
The book was created for the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance—a network of organizations allied with La Via Campesina, which advocates for culturally appropriate (think tortillas in Mexico instead of bread), ecologically sound (no GMOs), and small-farmer friendly food systems.

The book’s authors, Tory Field and Beverly Bell, do a lot more with food than just write about it. Field is a farmer who co-manages the Next Barn Over Farm, a CSA program in western Massachusetts. Bell has worked for decades with small farmer organizations in Haiti, including those who set fire to agricultural aid after the 2010 earthquake. The farmers didn't see the donated seeds as aid, but as a Monsanto “trojan horse” undermining their control over their own food.

Both authors are also members of Other Worlds, an organization that educates the public about citizen movements and builds community alternatives to corporate globalization. Introducing us to farmers speaking in their own voices, they describe how fighting the dominance of agribusiness and relocalizing the food system are indeed two sides of the same coin.

The book merges five years of field research and interviews, and describes more than 100 case studies of advocacy campaigns and alternative food systems in the United States and around the world. The authors interview New Mexican farmer and teacher Miguel Santistevan, who insists that “We don’t like the way the food system treats the earth and its negative health effects on the people, [and] we are working to actualize an alternative.”

They introduce us to Rosnel Jean-Baptiste of Heads Together Small Peasant Farmers of Haiti (Tèt Kole Ti Peyizan Ayisyen), who says, “It’s not houses that are going to rebuild Haiti, it’s investing in the agriculture sector.”

And they encourage consumer action through the words of Ben Burkett, president of the National Family Farm Coaltion. “No matter what us farmers plant, the consumer’s got to change the system, ” Burkett says. “As long as they don’t complain, there’s no need even talking about it. The marketplace dictates.”
Haitian peasants
A group of Haitian peasants meets to discuss strategies for rebuilding agriculture after the earthquake of 2010. Photo by Roberto (Bear) Guerra.

Designed for use as an organizing tool

Accompanying the book is a curriculum of teaching exercises called "Sowing Seeds," intended for use in community and academic settings. The curriculum is dizzyingly comprehensive, a kind of “best of” in food systems education culled from sister organizations.
The book connects the dots between community groups doing related work and breaks up any sense of going it alone.
Have you ever wondered how many tons of tomatoes a picker needs to pick each day to earn minimum wage, or what the salary of David Novak—the CEO of the company that owns Taco Bell—would add up to in tons of tomatoes at the same rate? It’s all in here. Consumer, producer, and retailer perspectives are all explored through engaging exercises. Suggested workshop formats may come in handy if you are an educator or organizer.

Mexican farm workers in Texas. 

Care about Your Food? Then Care about Your Farmworkers Too
It’s organic. It’s local. But did the workers who picked it have health insurance?
You may want to nudge your local bookseller to carry Harvesting Justice. I'm guessing they won't be sorry. It’s not only highly readable but may catalyze actions such as getting local food into school lunches. The stunning photos serve up inspiration to get off your duff and transform the local food system.

Because it provides that kind of inspiration, this is the kind of book that your local food co-op, farmer’s market, or anti-hunger organization might consider using as a study guide. It can help connect the dots between community groups doing related work and break up any sense of going it alone. The appendix fills nearly fifteen pages, introducing us to groups like the Food Chain Workers Alliance, First Nations Native Agriculture and Food Systems Initiative, and the Honduran Garifuna organization.

 While these organizations are scattered around the planet, they form the foundation of a localized, alternative food system.

Reading about how people transform the way they farm and eat makes you want to reach for a big soup pot, cut up some onions, and cook up your own plans with your neighbors. Harvesting Justice gives you more than the recommended dose of civic engagement.

Daniel Moss wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. As a consultant, Daniel works with communities and organizations around the world to advance democratic and sustainable stewardship of our shared commons.