Hanford Site: West Coast Radiation Crisis

By Yoichi Shimatsu 5-23-13

The radioactive particles billowing out of the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant caught the officers and crew of the USS Ronald Reagan unawares. The gargantuan vessel is equipped with radiation sensors that can identify the spectrum of isotopes from civilian accidents up to all-out nuclear warfare. Although the vessel was cruising at a presumably safe 80 nautical miles from the meltdowns, the shipboard alarms started to buzz wildly.   Carrier Row, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington, where the Fukushima-contaminated USS Ronald Reagan was refitted over an 18-month period.   Reconnaissance helicopters roared back to the mother ship, which then carved an arc through the chill waters of the Liman Current. The pride of the U.S. Navy was fleeing the coast of Japan like a wounded whale from a shiver of hungry sharks. The USS Reagan’s support role for Operation Tomodachi sustained far more injuries than any of the 9th Carrier Group’s exercises off the Korean Peninsula. The crews of three helicopter suffered high exposure levels, and sailors operating the ventilation controls have since come down with severe radiation-related symptoms.   A railroad bridge crossing the Columbia River was traversed by the train that transported radioactive waste from the USS Ronald Reagan to the Hanford Site.   Fukushima radiation seeped beyond soft tissue into hard steel. Below the flight deck, nuclear isotopes in the air flowed into the air vents and below-deck ducts, while radioactive seawater surged through its turbine pumps and tubes that suck in seawater for the desalination system and to cool the vessel’s twin nuclear-power reactors. The artificially produced freshwater for washing and drinking aboard ship was soon toxic.    The detection of war-grade plutonium residues sparked rumors of a nuclear strike on Fukushima in undeclared war by an unidentified power. Meanwhile a blanket of censorship was imposed over the condition and whereabouts of the USS Ronald Reagan, which at that moment could have possibly been the first casualty of World War III. Not until months later did confidential leaks emerge from U.S. nonproliferation experts disclosing secret transfers of highly enriched plutonium from Texas blended into mixed-oxide fuel rods for Fukushima Reactors 3 and 4.   Wanapum Hydropower Dam, 30 miles upstream from Hanford, was mysteriously dusted with radioactive isotopes   Over the two years since the March 2011 meltdowns, the radiation-stricken carrier vanished from the sailing schedule, leaving other naval behemoths to take over its missions in the South China Sea, Gulf of Aden, the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. Then this spring, the vessel reappeared in San Diego as if nothing had happened.    Casey Jones, Watch Your Speed    The story behind the USS Ronald Reagan’s long absence from active duty was revealed by a Navy long-timer perched at a bar outside the Bremerton Naval Shipyard in Seattle.   A guard post at Hanford Site keeps out uninvited visitors.   After flushing its pipes while transporting sailors’ cars to Alaska, the carrier was docked for decontamination and refitting along Bremerton’s “Carrier Row”. From early autumn 2011 until mid-March 2013, a period of 18 months, shipyard workers replaced irradiated air ducts, pumps, pipes, gaskets, hoses and electronic controls sensitive to radiation. The work gangs were ordered to prevent release of any contaminated liquid into Puget Sound in compliance with a prior Environmental Agency pollution complaint issued in 2010.    (My dosimeter readings at Bremerton and at several points in Puget Sound confirmed the absence of radiation leakage from the USS Reagan. Frequent sightings of dead Dungeness crabs with floppy legs, however, suggested mortality caused by chemical toxins, probably surfactants used for cleaning the carrier and possibly heavy-metal compounds, possibly chrome, to deter barnacles from the hull.)   A backhoe and steel ring are hauled to Hanford’s leaking 200 storage tank area.   The vast pile of radioactive scrap and barrels of liquid waste were then loaded onto a freight train that rumbled out of the shipyard to a final resting place. Its destination was and still is undisclosed to the news media, the public and state officials. The terminus of that old rail track, say the shipyard workers, is Hanford Site.    Mapping the Terrain    Moral outrage at the disposal of the military’s radioactive hardware in a Department of Energy (DOE) facility supposedly under decommissioning was pushed to the back of my mind by the astonishing natural beauty of the Cascade Range. The four-hour drive from Seattle to Hanford offers a first-hand study in ecology. The lacework of inlets and rocky islands of Puget Sound was carved by glaciers during the Ice Age, when the sea was much lower. Those rivers of ice originated in the Cascades, a sawtooth chain of basalt pillars, remnants of ancient volcanoes. Its ridgeline divides Washington State into two major eco-zones, the temperate rainforest of the Pacific coast and, on the leeward side, arid lands stretching toward the Rockies.   A bulldozer starts to excavate a trench for the military’s nuclear waste. Earlier burial sites can be seen in the background.   The eastern slope of the watershed creates hundreds of streams that merge into the Columbia River, which quenches apple orchards and the green pastures for Angus cattle, dairy cows and bison. The mighty current is slowed by a series of hydropower dams before hitting its lower reaches at Portland, Oregon.    Under a high bluff at Wanapum Dam, about 30 miles northwest of Hanford, my dosimeter readings climbed to 0.16 microsieverts. Downstream, the findings were much lower. When the air is bone-dry, how can evaporated wastewater from leaking tanks at Hanford move so far upstream against the prevailing wind? Why are there no traces of its passage up the gorge? I take mental note of this baffling riddle before moving on.    Nuclear Boneyard   A plutonium processing reactor   Endless flows of water and hydropower are the necessary utilities for the production of nuclear weapons, and the Columbia provides these in abundance to Hanford Site, founded in 1943 under the Manhattan Project. Ringed by rosy red hills peppered with fingers of black basalt and clumps of sage, the first impression of Hanford basin is one of awe at Nature’s raw power rather than fear of a grim manmade Mordor. Technology’s supreme force shrinks against such grandeur; its fabrications scattered like the Mad Hatter’s overturned teacups and sugar cubes alongside the Columbia.    Yet one of those fly specks down there, inside the facility’s 586 square miles (1,517 sq. km) area, is the world’s first plutonium-production reactor. Hanford 100B provided the implosive force for the Trinity test blast and for Fat Man, the hydrogen bomb that annihilated Nagasaki in August 1945. Nagasaki, so much like Puget Sound, with its cathedral, shipyards, parks, saloons and Victorian era facades . . . vanished like dream in a flash of blinding light.   To the right of the power line is a 100 series reactor.   After passing under its rusty bridges in the hills, here on dry pale ground, I spot the railroad track pointing toward the 200 West Area. On lonesome roads outside and inside the vast facility, long-bed trucks haul yellow bulldozers and back hoes, the grave diggers for dead machines. The earth-movers are fitted with glass-enclosed air-filtered cabins, the thinnest of protective shields for the drivers.    In rows of trenches inside that dusty tract are the guts of the USS Ronald Reagan along with the nuclear reactors from 117 decommissioned submarines. The reactor cores are left uncovered so that Russian satellites can verify reductions in America’s strategic arsenal. A retired nuclear-plant operator explains how those reactor cores, too heavy and bulky for the train, are instead transported by barge up the Columbia River. At Port Benson, adjoining Hanford Site, the load is rolled aboard a land carrier with 16-wheel axles and hauled at 5 miles per hour to the nuclear graveyard.         The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton is the only facility that dismantles America’s fleet of aging nuclear submarines. The fuel from the scrapped reactors is sent by rail to a federal storage facility near Idaho Falls. Little is known about the movements of naval cargo because several maritime lanes in Puget Sound are protected by armed guards on speed boats, Navy SEAL divers prowling underwater and surveillance dolphins equipped with electronic sensors and GPS tracking devices. Fishermen, clam diggers and recreational sailors know better than to mess with this security force.    There is no legal mandate to inform Washington State communities of passing reactor-toting barges because the Navy designates the cargo as “low level” waste. Local residents who are curious about these shipments will not find the route map posted at their docks or bridges, so here it is, courtesy of the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility:    “The route begins at the (Bremerton) Shipyard and goes though Rich Passage, past Restoration Point, and northerly though Puget Sound. The barge will then move west through the Strait of Juan De Fuca, past Cape Flattery, before turning south and going along the Washington Coast. As the barge makes its way to the mouth of the Columbia River it will not enter the area near the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary known as the Area to Be Avoided.  The barge will then go up the Columbia River following the regular shipping channel that is used for commercial cargo. The ocean tugs turn over the barge to river tugs on the lower Columbia. The river route passes through the navigation locks at the Bonneville, Dalles, John Day, and McCanry dams, until finally reaching the Port of Benton. “ Portlanders are hereby informed that radiation is coming and going, upstream and downstream. It’s been happening since 1986 and will continue indefinitely.    Hearts Afire A point of light is flickering from inside one of the older thermal power plants. Next to a No Entry sign, my travel party passes a pair of binoculars for a closer look. It is not sunlight reflected off a window pane. Incredibly, there’s a massive fire blazing inside the nuclear plant. Flames are blowing out of the open door, which is at least two stories tall and wide enough for several trucks. No black smoke is being emitted, nor do the flames diminish in intensity. Alarms are not blaring and there are no firefighting sirens. Therefore, it must be a gas fire, deliberately set.    The sight of a structure’s innards on fire is dumbfounding. Nothing about this sort of incident has ever been reported in Hanford press releases. What could DOE be up to? Surfacing in my mind’s eye is a flashback of the dosimeter reading at the Wanapum hydropower dam. Hanford is being decommissioned, and the fastest way to clean out a thermal power plant used in the past to incinerate nuclear waste is to torch it. The invisible hot fumes lift the radioactive particles hundreds of meters into the desert sky, and then at nighttime an updraft carries the airborne waste up the Columbia gorge to Wanapum and beyond. Thus, the radioactive residues disappear as if by magic, and the monitors, inspectors and visitors remain none the wiser.    Atmospheric releases blowing out of Hanford are swirling up and down the Columbia gorge, unbeknownst to ranchers, apple growers, restaurant operators, school teachers and truckers along the riverbanks. Nobody on the outside is being warned of the threat. This is still the Wild West, where an outlaw gang like the DOE can kill everyone and anything that stands in their way.    Above the Aquifer     For plant workers, the most fearsome piece of equipment inside plutonium-processing and warhead-production facilities is the glove-box. Since the more delicate operations must be done by hand, glove-boxes have a window and fitted with a pair of holes for insertion from fingers to elbow. In both Fukushima and Hanford, the best way to test exposure levels in nuclear workers is to measure castoff gloves. At a roadside spot convenient for quick relief, a black work glove was lying on the gravel. It registered 0.28 microsieverts, meaning whoever urinated is a dead man walking.    By the 1960s, waste disposal became a major problem at Hanford due to the expanding number of 100 series reactors, along with plutonium processing centers and a power generation plant. Initially, the DOE planned to drill long-term storage caverns into Gable Mountain, a saddle-shaped mound of basalt on the plant’s north side between the Columbia River reactors and the plutonium-enrichment facilities.   The warning sign is posted at a waste disposal site adjoining a fast-flowing drainage ditch.   Geologists, working on the environmental feasibility report, found that Hanford Site sits atop the Pasco Aquifer, the source of well water for towns, ranches and fruit farms inside the big bulge of the Columbia. This discovery prompted the 1978 DOE study of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a permanent repository of nuclear waste, but the proposed site was later abandoned due to political opposition from nearby Las Vegas interests.    The termination of Yucca Mountain led to an untenable situation at the 200 East Tank Farm. There, 177 rusted-out single- and double-shelled tanks “are far gone, past their 20-year lifetime,” said the plant operator. Tritium has been leaking onto the ground and in the air. A greater problem is that solid particles of plutonium and other radioactive elements are settling to the bottom of the wastewater tanks. When atoms are in close proximity, the release of neutrons from radioactive decay can result in a chain reaction.    DOE engineers are anxious about the possibility of an explosive chain reaction at the tank farm similar to the tritium blast that wrecking Fukushima’s Reactor 3. Tritium and deuterium, also known as heavy water, along with hydrogen gas, could blow the tanks apart, sending radioactive steam into the clouds. A much greater threat, said the plant insider, is a downward blast into the Pasco Aquifer, sending ripples of death through hundreds of miles of drinking water for local residents. Leakage from ruptured tanks into the Columbia would doom downstream communities, including Portland and its Silicon Forest industrial parks, anchored by Intel.   Grape vines are planted across the river from Hanford’s nuclear power complex.   To prevent this doomsday scenario, the DOE contracted the Bechtel engineering company to design as unmanned mixing system to prevent the precipitation of plutonium from the wastewater. The controversial design for the vitrification plant uses jet pulses through tubes, called turkey basters, to repeatedly remix the radioactive soup, keeping the radioactive particles in permanent suspension. The design is fraught with weak points that could easily burst under corrosion and high pressure. Cost overruns and construction delays have postponed completion from 2007 to 2022, which is probably much too late to head off a catastrophe.    DOE, the Pentagon and nuclear industry should admit the obvious: Hanford is broken and cannot be fixed. A radical alternative to storage at Hanford needs to be developed rapidly and a crash program will require vast sums of money and the political will to stop all nuclear operations from coast to coast. Permissiveness toward the nuclear industry is suicidal. A new energy policy must begin with zero tolerance for nuclear.     Grape vines are planted across the river from Hanford’s nuclear power complex.   Turn Out the Lights The music’s over for the nuclear industry. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima have savaged the myth of cheap and safe power from atom-splitting. Hanford takes this fiasco a step further by implicating the military in nuclear skullduggery. Despite its bloated defense budget, the Pentagon is misappropriating the fiscal resources of the DOE, which must dispose of nuclear-contaminated military hardware. Funds that could otherwise be allocated to replacing the storage tanks at Hanford are being spent on burying submarine reactors. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is facing a radioactive mess of waste, fraud and mismanagement.   A housing development reflects fatal problems in local zoning ordinances.   The ominous situation at the Hanford rust belt is the result of a false sense of national security. Nuclear weapons have been ineffective as an instrument for global stability since their inception. Nuclear deterrence has failed to prevent outbreaks of war and terrorism, and the Cold War would have ended sooner without warheads. Instead of preserving the peace, the nuclear arsenals of the major powers have only spurred on proliferation by minor regional players.    However fast or slow the pace of future nuclear drawdown, the problem of long-term storage remains a formidable challenge, now that Yucca Mountain is nixed. The search for a safe site for a nuclear-waste repository should have started yesterday. The federal government controls millions of acres in sites that have outlived their usefulness, for example, military zones like Fallon test range or Area 51. The Pentagon should use its own turf to store its waste instead of dumping on the hard-pressed DOE. The cost of the relocating naval reactors should be deducted from the inflated military budget and not from the shrinking pockets of taxpayers. Ozone Loss Led to Climate Chaos    If the threat from Fukushima isn’t enough to bear, lethal radioactive releases from Hanford and San Onofre, along with Indian Point and the Napoleonville sinkhole, should motivate Americans to political action against the nuclear lobby and its sycophants. National security and, much more, the very existence of American society and the continent’s natural environment, are coming apart from the effects of high-energy particles in the jet stream, which cause ozone depletion over the Northern Hemisphere. The consequences include the recent tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma, and an epidemic of winter twisters, derecho storms, flooding and drought.     The ribs of a wild faun indicate dangerous radiation levels in coyotes.   The harmful influence of carbon dioxide on global weather, as exaggerated by supporters of TEPCO and the Tennessee Valley Authority, is a convenient ruse to divert attention and funding from the immediate task of shutting down nuclear power.    An end to nuclear tyranny is directly linked to the revival of genuine democracy. A sinister and cynical force within America’s political establishment, economic elite and scientific elect is desperately trying to prevent Americans from recovering this nation’s foundational values of civic duty, ethical responsibility and common sense. Any physicist, engineer, bureaucrat, president or monarch who persists in uttering ultra-absurd nonsense in defense of nuclear power should be hauled away to a padded cell for deprogramming and decommissioning. If anything is going to be buried, it should be that deceiving pack of con artists and scoundrels.    With so many burned-out reactors and morally warped scoundrels to deal with, let’s hear what Nick Santoro (Joe Pesci) of Casino has to say: “A lot of holes in the desert, and a lot of problems are buried there. You gotta have the hole already dug before you show up with a package in the trunk. Otherwise, you’re talking about a half-hour to 45 minutes of digging. And who knows who’s gonna come along at that time? Pretty soon you gotta dig a few more holes. You could be there all fricking night.”    Quick Reads of the Technical Details   Cattle manure along the Hanford fence show extreme levels of radiation ingestion.   The Columbia River, once a life-giver for the Pacific Northwest, has become the bringer of death on an unimaginable scale. Testing of radiation levels in its waters is not being done by any government agency. My dosimeter readings at the Hanford and on the mid-reaches of the Columbia cannot be a substitute for a wider monitoring program, but they do point to the rising threat of nuclear contamination.    Even with scientific Geiger counters, the testing of water remains an elusive task. Gamma rays are reflected in water, throwing off readings by as much as 20 times lower than the actual level of contamination. Thus, the only way for a layman to make estimates in the field is by measuring biological accumulation in plants and animals.    Dosimeter readings on the bluffs northwest of Hanford showed low levels, due to the prevailing wind and lack of airborne moisture.    At a riverine chokepoint on the north bend between Reactors D and H, a wide variation in readings, from 0.08 to 0.28 microsieverts, with the highest in sage, indicated different rates of water absorption by various species of flora.   A reactor of the 100 series is on the horizon behind the sign.   At points downriver, near the southern tip of Hanford, the measurements on different plant species ran consistently in the 0.28 range, equivalent to coastal areas inside the Fukushima exclusion area (9 km from the meltdowns). A ribcage from a faun devoured by coyotes showed remarkably high contamination, suggesting higher levels inside predators.    The high water from the spring snowmelt prevented access to underwater vegetation. The readings along the outer bank of the Columbia, however, indicate levels dangerous to downstream communities and coastal populations in northern Oregon.    Author: Yoichi Shimatsu is a Hong Kong-based science writer and environmental health consultant who provides herbal therapy to Fukushima residents.

Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on States' Rights

Reliable sources in Washington D.C. have informed the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) that Monsanto has begun secretly lobbying its Congressional allies to attach one or more “Monsanto Riders” or amendments to the 2013 Farm Bill that would preempt or prohibit states from requiring labels on genetically engineered (GE) foods.

In response to this blatant violation of states’ rights to legislate, and consumers’ right to know, the OCA and a nationwide alliance have launched a petition to put every member of Congress on notice: If you support any Farm Bill amendment that would nullify states’ rights to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we’ll vote – or throw – you out of office.

On Wednesday, May 15, an amendment to the House version of the Farm Bill, inserted under the guise of protecting interstate commerce, passed out of the House Agricultural Committee. If the King Amendment makes it into the final Farm Bill, it would take away states’ rights to pass laws governing the production or manufacture of any agricultural product, including food and animals raised for food, that is involved in interstate commerce. The amendment was proposed by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), largely in response to a California law stating that by 2015, California will allow only eggs to be sold from hens housed in cages specified by California.  But policy analysts emphasize that the amendment, broadly and ambiguously written, could be used to prohibit or preempt any state GMO labeling or food safety law.

Will the King Amendment survive the Senate? No one can be sure, say analysts. However few doubt that Monsanto will give up. We can expect that more amendments and riders will be introduced into the Farm Bill--even if the King Amendment fails—over the next month in an attempt to stop the wave of state GMO labeling laws and initiatives moving forward in states like Washington, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut and others.

Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) have admitted privately that they’ve “lost the battle” to stop GE food labeling at the state level, now that states are aggressively moving forward on labeling laws. On May 14, Maine’s House Ag Committee passed a GMO labeling law. On May 10, the Vermont House passed a labeling bill, 99-42, despite massive lobbying by Monsanto and threats to sue the state. And though Monsanto won a razor-thin victory (51 percent to 49 percent) in a costly, hard fought California GMO labeling ballot initiative last November, biotech and Big Food now realize that Washington State voters will likely pass I-522, an upcoming ballot initiative to label GE foods, on November 5.
  
If Monsanto can’t stop states from passing laws, then the next step is a national preemptive measure.  And all signs point to just such a power grab.  Earlier this year, Monsanto slipped its extremely unpopular “Monsanto Protection Act,” an act that gives biotech immunity from federal prosecution for planting illegally approved GE crops, into the 2013 Federal Appropriations Bill.  During the June 2012 Farm Bill debate, 73 U.S. Senators voted against the right of states to pass mandatory GE food labeling laws. Emboldened by these votes, and now the House Ag Committee’s vote on the King Amendment, Monsanto has every reason to believe Congress would support a potential nullification of states’ rights to label.

The million-strong OCA and its allies in the organic and natural health movement are warning incumbent Senators and House members, Democrats and Republicans alike, that thousands of health and environmental-minded constituents in their Congressional districts or states will work to recall them or drive them out of office if they fail to heed the will of the people and to respect the time-honored traditions of shared state sovereignty over food labels, food safety laws, and consumers’ right to know.

Trouble in Monsanto Nation.
Over the past 20 years Monsanto and the biotech industry, aided and abetted by indentured politicians and corporate agribusiness, have begun seizing control over the global food and farming system, including the legislative, patent, trade, judicial and regulatory bodies that are supposed to safeguard the public interest.

In the U.S., despite mounting evidence of the damage GE crops inflict on human health and the environment, approximately 170 million acres of GE crops, including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, papaya, and squash, are currently under cultivation. These crops, untested and unlabeled, comprise 41 percent of all cultivated cropland, or 17 percent of all cropland and pastureland combined. According to the GMA, at least 70 percent of non-organic grocery store processed foods contain GMOs. And GE grains and mill byproducts now supply the overwhelming majority of animal feed on the factory farms that supply 90 percent to 95 percent of the meat, eggs and dairy products that Americans consume.

Yet despite their marketplace dominance, record profits and enormous political clout in Washington D.C., Monsanto and the biotech industry are in deep trouble. Evidence is mounting that Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide, Roundup, is a deadly poison, destroying important human gut bacteria and likely contributing to the rapid increase of food allergies and serious human diseases including cancer, autism, neurological disorders , Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), dementia, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Those most susceptible to poisoning by Monsanto’s Roundup are children and the elderly.

Scientists aren’t the only ones raising new questions about Roundup. Farmers are complaining that they’re being forced to spray more and more chemicals on crops increasingly under siege from a growing army of herbicide-resistant weeds.  The situation is so bad that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just raised the limits of Roundup residue allowed on grains and vegetables to even more dangerous levels. But just in case the EPA someday stops raising the limits, Monsanto, Dow and the biotech industry are working on a new “solution” to the onslaught of herbicide-resistant Superweeds: They’ve applied  for approval of a new and highly controversial generation of super toxic herbicide-resistant GE crops, including “Agent Orange”  (2,4-D and dicamba-resistant) corn, soybeans and cotton.

As a recent widely-circulated article points out,  

• “The use of 2,4-D is not new; it’s actually one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. What is new is that farmers will now ‘carpet bomb’ staple food crops like soy and corn with this chemical at a previously unprecedented scale—just the way glyphosate has been indiscriminately applied as a result of Roundup Ready crops. In fact, if 2,4-D resistant crops receive approval and eventually come to replace Monsanto's failing Roundup-resistant crops as Dow intends, it is likely that billions of pounds will be needed, on top of the already insane levels of Roundup being used (1.6 billion lbs were used in 2007 in the US alone).”

In addition to these Agent Orange crops, an expanded menu of genetically engineered organisms are awaiting approval. Next on the menu?  GE apples, trees, and salmon.

State Labeling Laws: The ‘skull and crossbones’ that terrify Monsanto
Monsanto’s greatest fear isn’t a federal government charged with protecting the health and safety of its citizens.  Congress and the White House seem only too happy to oblige the biotech industry’s unquenchable thirst for growth, power and dominance. No, it’s the massive, unstoppable (so far) grassroots movement of Millions Against Monsanto that strikes fear in the heart of the Biotech Bully. U.S. citizens are waking up. They’re demanding labels on genetically engineered foods, similar to those already required in the European Union. They’re calling for serious independent safety-testing of GE crops and animals, both those already approved (especially Monsanto’s Roundup-resistant crops) and those awaiting approval.

The anti-GMO movement has finally figured out, after 20 years of fruitlessly lobbying Congress, the FDA and the White House, that the federal government is not going to require labels on GE foods. Instead the movement has shifted the battleground on GMO labeling from Monsanto and Big Food’s turf in Washington D.C. to the more favorable terrain of state ballot initiatives and state legislative action—publicizing the fact that a state GMO labeling law will have the same marketplace impact as a national labeling law.

State laws spell doom for Monsanto. Companies like Kellogg’s, General Mills, Coca-Cola, Pepsi/Frito-Lay, Dean Foods, Unilever, Con-Agra, Safeway, Wal-Mart and Smuckers are not going to label in just one or two states.  Monsanto knows that U.S. food companies will go GMO-free in the entire U.S., rather than admit to consumers that their products contain GMOs.

As Monsanto itself has pointed out, labels on genetically engineered foods are like putting a “skull and crossbones” on food packages. This is why Monsanto and their allies poured $46 million into defeating a California ballot initiative last year that would have required labels on GMO foods. This is why Monsanto has lobbied strenuously in 30 states this year to prevent, or at least delay, state mandatory labeling laws from being passed. This is why Monsanto has threatened to file federal lawsuits against Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and Washington if they dare grant citizens the right to know whether or not their food has been genetically engineered or not.

And this is why Monsanto’s minions are trying to insert amendments or riders into the Farm Bill that will make it nearly impossible, even illegal, for states to pass GMO labeling laws. And there’s nothing to stop them when Congress is filled with pro-biotech cheerleaders who could care less that 90 percent of U.S. consumers want mandatory labels and proper safety testing of genetically engineered crops and foods.

Countering Monsanto’s Final Offensive: Throw the Bums Out!
Only a massive grassroots resistance will deter the U.S. Senate and House from stomping on our rights. Only an unprecedented campaign of public education, petition-gathering and grassroots pressure will be able to convince the ever-more corrupt and indentured politicians in Washington D.C. to back off.

Eighteen state constitutions have century-old provisions for state registered voters to collect petitions and recall state and local officials, forcing them to either resign or stand for reelection. But what very few Americans, and even members of Congress, realize is that 11 states have constitutional provisions to recall U.S. Senators and House of Representative members, as well as state elected officials.

It’s time we exercise the full power of direct democracy, not just state and municipal ballot initiatives. We must continue to support efforts like the current state ballot initiative to label GMOs in Washington state, and county ballot initiatives to ban GMOs, factory farms and other corporate crimes, in the 24 states and hundreds of counties and municipalities where these are allowed.  But we also need to use the power we have to recall and throw out of office our out-of-control Congressional Senators and Representatives as well.

If our elected officials in Congress continue to represent Monsanto and big corporations, rather than their constituents, then let’s throw the bums out! If the Washington political Establishment, both Democrats and Republicans, continue to trample on our inalienable constitutional rights and contemptuously disregard the 225-year principle of a shared balance of power between the federal government, the states and local government, then we have no choice but to recall them or throw them out of office.

Please join the nation’s organic consumers and natural health advocates in this strategic battle, the Food Fight of Our Lives. Please join this campaign to save, not only our right to choose what’s in our food, but our basic right to democratic representation and self-determination as well.  Sign the petition.  Tell your Congressmen and women, especially the 73 incumbents who voted last year to eliminate states rights’ to legislate on GMO labels, and those in the House this week who voted to support the King Amendment that “enough is enough,” “ basta ya.” Power to the People!

Australian Newspaper Pushes Aggressive Pro Vaccine Agenda

(NaturalNews) In a new low for even the mainstream media, the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers in Australia are pushing a campaign of outright medical child abuse they call "NO JAB NO PLAY." The campaign demands that unvaccinated children be barred from all social contact with other children and condemned to the life of a social outcast where parents are presumably supposed to raise them in cages in dark basements. The paper has launched its horrific, anti-human-rights campaign, "NO JAB NO PLAY" that demands children who are not vaccinated with state-mandated chemicals (which include mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum and other toxins) be denied interaction with other children.

I'm not making this up. The paper, which seems to be run by a band of human rights haters and child abuse proponents, all but admits wanting to turn children into anti-social monsters and psychological criminals -- just one of the side effects of forcing children to be raised without healthy social interaction with other children. This is the first time in history that an Australian newspaper has directly called for the medical abuse of children -- and seem to be happy about doing so! Is their editor the ghost of Jimmy Saville from the UK?

It's a new low for even the Telegraph. Click here to see the campaign push by the newspaper.

See the image of the paper's "No Jab No Play" campaign on the right. This is the actual image taken from the paper's editorial page where they are pushing this idea of socially condemning all children whose parents do not submit to state-sponsored medical terrorism.

Telegraph caught with huge conflict of interest, taking money from vaccine manufacturers

Oh, and by the way: The Telegraph takes money from vaccine manufacturers while pushing their editorial agenda. Yet it never discloses this in its medical child abuse campaign for mandatory vaccinations. What we have here is a clear conflict of interest with the paper now being caught with its hand in the cookie jar of Big Pharma cash flow.

Here's one full-page ad the paper ran for Pfizer, a globally-known vaccine manufacturer. There are hundreds more examples of ads from vaccine companies who are financially supporting The Telegraph and essentially paying the salaries of its staff.

Are the Telegraph's editors vaccine-damaged or just scientifically illiterate?

To justify this medical child abuse against children, the Telegraph engages in an astonishing display of junk science logic that demonstrates the complete illiteracy of the paper's editors. It says, "Most parents are rightfully fed up with those who put other people's children at risk."

So let's examine that with actual scientific reasoning, shall we? (Something with which the Telegraph is entirely unfamiliar.)

This statement asserts that there are two groups of children: 1) Children who are vaccinated and therefore "protected" from infectious disease, and 2) Children who are unvaccinated and therefore "carriers" of infectious disease and a threat to others.

It further asserts that children from group 2 ("carriers") can somehow infect children from group 1 ("vaccinated").

But hold on a second. Wasn't group 1 ("vaccinated") supposed to be immune to the disease precisely because they were already vaccinated?

If vaccinations work, then a vaccinated child should be able to strut through even the most snot-nosed, coughing, sneezing, sick group of other children and have no concern whatsoever for catching any disease, right? The vaccine offers them 100% protection, doesn't it? So why would vaccinated children need to fear unvaccinated carriers?

Here is where the entire myth of vaccination falls completely apart -- and where the editors of the Telegraph show just why they are so easily discredited on issues requiring actual scientific reasoning. Vaccines do NOT offer 100% protection. In fact, if you look hard at the numbers for things like flu vaccines, it turns out that vaccines offer, at best, about a 1% protection effect. Flu shots, in other words, are worthless on about 99% of the children who receive them.

Even worse, flu shots always contain neurologically-damaging chemicals, so they risk harm to children's brains. The flu shot manufacturers could, if they chose, produce "clean" flu shots without methylmercury (a potent brain poison), formaldehyde, aluminum or other adjuvant chemicals, but they choose not to. Thus, every flu shot administered to your child is like playing Russian Roulette with your child's brain. Sometimes the result is disastrous and the child goes into a seizure. When they emerge from the seizure hours later, they are suddenly autistic, now a victim of permanent brain damage caused by vaccines.

The Telegraph doesn't seem to mind this idea, however. After all, the paper wants unvaccinated children to be medically abused and live like anti-social monsters, growing up in total isolation and suffering immense developmental harm as a result. It's no surprise the paper's editors also don't mind the fact that what they are pushing causes provable brain damage to children, turning healthy young boys and girls into screaming, moaning, lobotomized human beings who will require a lifetime of social support to keep alive and functioning in society. That's a good thing, according to the Telegraph. The more lobotomies, the better! After all, somebody's gotta be left behind with a low enough IQ to subscribe to the paper.

Now, to understand this even further, the real truth about all this is that vaccines weaken the immune system against future infections, and it's all the non-vaccinated children who are statistically far more naturally immune from infection. Take a sample of 100 sick children anywhere in Australia, and you'll find that the ones who have the most severe symptoms are the ones who were vaccinated. Every measles outbreak happens among children who were vaccinated against the measles. Flu outbreaks are carried and spread primarily by children who receive flu shots! This is the "inconvenient truth" the vaccine-pushing medical establishment doesn't want you to know.

In truth, it's the vaccinated children who are the risky "carriers" of disease, threatening the non-vaccinated children!

Vaccinations are now a weapon against children

But the real upshot of all this is that the Telegraph is now the first newspaper in the world to recommend that vaccines be used as an anti-human-rights weapon against children. By saying no to vaccines as an informed, scientifically literate parent, you might soon be condemning your child to the life of a social outcast... a psychologically-imbalanced misfit. This is medical child abuse at its worst, and it's openly endorsed by the Australian media.

This no doubt pleases the Telegraph in the same way that destroying the planet Alderaan might please the Grand Moff Tarkin from the Star Wars universe. What's a few billion lives lost compared to the raw power of total control over the lives of other humans, after all?

 Medical choice is a terrible, terrible thing, and parents must be denied any choice whatsoever... at gunpoint, if necessary, for their own good!

This is the logic of The Telegraph, a disgusting, anti-human rights, anti-children rag of vaccine quackery and cognitively impaired writers who most likely are vaccine damaged themselves. Perhaps that's their wish: to pay forward the "gift" of vaccine lobotomization to the next generation of children so that yet more Australians can grow up with sufficient brain damage to actually work for the Telegraph.

I'm just curious what's next for the Telegraph. Is this "NO JAB NO PLAY" campaign doesn't fly, will they up their game and recommend that all unvaccinated children be sexually molested, too? What are the limits to the degree of child abuse the Telegraph thinks is justifiable to make sure little children are penetrated with deadly chemical injections? "Sick" doesn't even begin to describe what's going on at the Telegraph.

These people are bordering on criminally insane, and if any state-sponsored action is to be taken in all this, I would recommend a police investigation of the Telegraph editors to make sure they aren't abusing their own children in some sick way in their own homes. They obviously think there's nothing wrong with abusing children in order to accomplish their goals. Might they also be abusing their own?

How About Economical RatBurgers From China?

(NaturalNews) (Note: Everything mentioned in this story is based on actual findings of food scandals in China. While the tone is satire, the basis of this story is factually true.)

Introducing the Ratburger! If you've never tried the Ratburger, you're missing out on the latest in affordable cuisine from China, home of the most trusted food on the planet.

The Ratburger is made only of hand-picked, select cuts of rat meat, finely textured and enhanced for your enjoyment. Don't worry: The head, feet and tails are completely removed by slave labor workers!

The Ratburger comes with a side of "rice" made largely out of plastic, meaning zero calories! Eat as much as you want, we'll make more!

It's served up on a sesame seed bun made, in part, from human hair from which the l-cysteine amino acid is derived. This ingredient, by the way, is used throughout the commercial bread industry as a "dough enhancer." It is derived from human hair collected from the floors of hair salons across China, making it fashionable! You'll also find this ingredient in the pizza dough at your favorite pizza restaurants across the USA.

The bun is adorned with black sesame seeds that have been turned black by dousing regular sesame seeds with black ink. A little ink is good for ya!

When you buy our Ratburger, you get a free Melamine Milkshake, made with extra melamine that causes permanent kidney damage! But kidney damage is cool, because you get to experience the joys of dialysis for the rest of your life, so what's not to like?

On top of all that, every ingredient in the Ratburger is loaded with an extra dose of heavy metals poisoning, including cadmium, arsenic, lead, mercury and also aluminum as a bonus. Where else can you get this kind of value across the full table of elements? Only in the Ratburger from China!

Don't miss the RATBURGER from China, available for a limited time only!

 

 

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. 

Sources:
http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/02/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government-part-2/
http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/09/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government/
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-labeling-gmo-genetically-modified-foods
http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/feb/15/update-obama-goes-rogue-gmos-tell-him-say-no-monsa/

---

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.”

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.