Ecuador's Indigenous People Still Wait To Be Consulted

Monday, 06 May 2013 23:49

A bill addressing prior consultation with indigenous peoples on legislative measures remains tied up in Ecuador’s National Assembly. (IPS) - The Constitution of Ecuador adopted in 2008 establishes a broad range of rights for indigenous peoples and nationalities, including the right to prior consultation, which gives them the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives. But this right has yet to be fully translated into legislation, as the bill for a Law on Consultation with Indigenous Communities, Peoples and Nationalities is still being studied by the National Assembly. Article 57, section 7 of the constitution guarantees “free, prior and informed consultation, within a reasonable period of time, on plans and programmes for exploration, exploitation and sale of non-renewable resources located on their lands which could have environmental or cultural impacts on them.” The constitution also stipulates the right of indigenous peoples “to share in the profits earned from these projects and to receive compensation for social, cultural and environmental damages caused to them. The consultation that must be conducted by the competent authorities shall be mandatory and timely.” “If the consent of the consulted community is not obtained, steps provided for by the Constitution and the law shall be taken,” it adds. Legal grounds for consultation are also established in Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO), which Ecuador ratified in 1998, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007. Nevertheless, recent mining and oil drilling projects have put the government’s commitment to respecting the right to consultation to the test, and spurred indigenous organisations to take action. On Nov. 28, 2012, hundreds of indigenous representatives converged in Quito to protest the lack of consultation prior to the 11th oil auction round, in which exploration blocks containing an estimated total of 1.6 billion barrels of crude oil would be put up for bids from private companies. At the time, Domingo Peas, a leader of the Achuar indigenous ethnic group, declared that “the government says it has carried out prior consultation, but this is not true.” “The consultations carried out among the peoples and nationalities in the areas of influence are invalid, because there was no participation by indigenous peoples and nationalities in determining the way they were conducted, they did not respect their traditional methods of decision-making, and cultural aspects, such as language, were not adequately taken into account,” he stressed. Overall, said Peas, the consultations “were neither prior, nor free, nor informed, and were conducted in bad faith.” The president of the influential Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), Humberto Cholango, believes that the authorities have not done enough. “Prior consultation is still pending, we have still not seen the results we would like to see. We need the law to be approved; that would be a major advance,” he told Tierramérica*. The draft law, comprising 29 articles, refers to consultation on legislative measures and establishes four stages: preparation; a public call for participation and registration; the actual holding of the consultation; and analysis of the results and conclusion. In accordance with the law, the government will determine if a proposed bill affects the rights of certain communities, in which case the National Assembly will convene a prior consultation that will be conducted through the National Electoral Council. Lourdes Tibán, an indigenous National Assembly member from the leftist opposition movement Pachakutik, told Tierramérica that adoption of this law is crucial, because “it will guarantee the participation of indigenous nationalities in decisions on future laws that directly affect them, and will therefore prevent a lack of consensus.” Once this legislation is in force, other major bills can be addressed, such as the proposed law on water resources, on which debate has been postponed since 2010 precisely due to the resistance posed by indigenous peoples. One of their key concerns is that the proposals made during a prior consultation process will not be included in the final text of the law that was submitted to consultation. A number of other bills, such as those for laws on culture and land, are also on hold for the same reason. This is the heart of the conflict. One year ago, President Rafael Correa stated in one of his regular Saturday broadcasts that non-governmental organisations “want prior consultations to be popular consultations and to be binding; that means that for every step we want to take, we will need to ask the community for permission.” “This is extremely serious. This is not what the international agreements say. This would not mean acting in the interests of the majorities, but rather in the interest of unanimity. It would be impossible to govern that way,” he declared. In response to these statements, indigenous organisations sought reinforcement, calling on agencies such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the ILO to supervise the implementation of prior consultation. In fact, indigenous communities in Ecuador have already turned to some of these mechanisms in the past. In 2003, the Quechua community of Sarayaku filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the state for authorising oil exploration in their territory, without prior consultation. The community, located in the province of Pastaza, in Ecuador’s Amazon rainforest region, denounced damages to their territory, culture and economy. In June 2012, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of the community and against the state. The government is still studying how to pay the required compensation – a total of 1,398,000 dollars for material and moral damages and legal costs – and how to finish repairing the physical damage caused.

Uruguay: Birth of a Movement Against Mining and Extractivism

On March 7 one of Uruguay’s strongest myths was broken: trust in state enterprises. That day those who turned on their faucets were met with a foul smell and those who were drinking coffee or maté found a strange taste. The company in charge of the water supply, the State Sanitary Works (OSE), had to confess that there was “an episode” of algae contamination in the Santa Lucia River Basin, which supplies six out of ten Uruguayans.
Despite this, the state company said that the water was potable. 

A statement released days later said: “In relation to the event of the taste and odor perceived several days ago by the population of the metropolitan area, OSE informs that it was entirely due to a substance released by a type of microscopic algae in the Santa Lucia River. This substance, called Geosmin, has no bearing on the health of the population “[1].

The authorities closed ranks and denied emphatically the contamination of water sources, which had always been of high quality. However, much of the population did not believe the State’s arguments, buying bottled water and depleting stocks.


This event wouldn’t have had much significance if it were not for a movement that has grown in recent years against the installation of an Indian owned, open pit, iron mine called Aratirí. The movement has also been protesting the extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers that have polluted the soy crop and recently re-forested areas. In fact, environmental consciousness has grown widely due to a debate following the installation of a massive pulp mill on the Uruguay River.


At that time (approximately 2003 – 2008), amid the euphoria of to the rise to power of the Fente Amplio (2004) and an atmosphere of nationalism exacerbated by disputes between environmentalists and the Argentine government, the majority of the population supported the Uruguayan government. Now things have changed. The rural population (only 5% of the total) began to feel the harmful effects of agricultural development and small-scale traditional farmers (including livestock herders) began to mobilize.


A Contaminated Country


It’s difficult to accept that Uruguay’s rivers are polluted. The country was always a natural paradise, with few cars and light industry, with extensive ranches and grain farming. But in the last decade, with agricultural and mineral speculation, things have changed drastically.

The main changes that have been occurring over the last ten years have been concentrated in rural production. 

The price of land has increased six fold ($500 to $3,000 per hectare on average). Thirty-eight percent of agricultural land has been sold, and 41% has been leased [2]. Between 2000 and 2008 Uruguayan owners lost 1.8 million hectares that went to corporations that acquired a similar surface quantity.


There is a strong concentration of land owned by multinational corporations with one million hectares belonging to just 14 groups. Montes del Plata (Chilean-Swedish-Finnish) has 234,000 hectares followed by Forestal Oriental (Finnish) with 200,000 hectares. The U.S. company, Weyerheuser has 140,000 hectares and the Argentine owned El Tejar and Agronegocios de Plata (ADP) have 140,000 and 100,000 hectares respectively, completing the list of the largest foreign investments.


In the 2001-2002 season there were only 29,000 hectares of soybeans planted. In 2012 it exceeded 1 million hectares. Another million hectares of land was forested. This represents an exponential increase in the use of pesticides and fertilizers that have been washed by rain into rivers. This has initiated a drama that the people are beginning to feel.


A study of the Santa Lucia River (which provides 60% of the drinking water) conducted by the National Direction of the Environment (DINAMA) resulted in scandal. Internationally accepted phosphorus levels in water are 25 micrograms per liter, but the count detected in the river ranged between 70 and 12,900 micrograms per liter. [3] Scientists and environmentalists have been ringing alarm bells about the pollution, but the state has done little.


Biologist Luis Aubriot of the Sciences Department told reporters that “if there is no reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus” then the water problems will not be solved [4]. Another biologist, Mario Calcagno, recalled that in addition to the pesticides and fertilizers used for soybeans, the Santa Lucia River is polluted by refrigerator effluents, food industries and urban centers, and that native forest on its banks have been disappearing. “It’s a disaster,” he said [5].


Diego Martino, who represented Uruguay at the United Nations Program for the Environment, presented one of the strongest arguments: “In 2010, levels of atrazine were detected in the water. It is one of the components of glyphosate. There is no nationwide study that says what the consequences of very low levels of atrazine could be when consumed over ten years “[6].


In his opinion the main problem is the inability of the State to make and regulate decisions. He gave an example: How long did it take for the DINAMA to change the distance of 50 meters to 500 meters for spraying [pesticides] around a rural school? Years”. It’s not known how many children were made ill by this delay.


One of the main problems are [agricultural] reservoirs, which are used mostly for irrigation and rice cultivation. In a small country like Uruguay there are over a thousand dams that with the summer heat become incubators for algae growth because of the concentration of agrochemicals. Rain the water in the reservoirs overflows into rivers. All the rivers of Uruguay, including the extremely wide Río de la Plata, are green with pollution.


Livestock is also being affected. A rancher from the central part of the country, whose sheep drink in the large Rincón del Bonete dam, suffered the loss of 56 sheep in one year, all intoxicated [7]. The Director of Renewable Resources of the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries acknowledged, “Uruguay does not have a diagnosis of the state of its water”. The same official affirms that soy is grown only four meters from lakes, rivers and streams, even though there is legislation that establishes a distance of [at least] eight meters, which is also insufficient. [8]


The director of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences at the Sciences department, Daniel Panario, received in 2012 the National Award for Citizen Excellence. He is the country’s most distinguished and combative scientist that has been denouncing pollution for over 20 years. In his opinion, the best example [of pollution] linked to water is lead.


“In the 1940s in England it was concluded that the poor performance of children in schools was due to lead and immediately all the water pipes were changed. In Uruguay this conclusion was made in the 1970s. We are now in 2013 and they have still yet to finish changing out the lead pipes in Montevideo. They say they have other priorities and that it’s expensive”[9].


In addition to the State, the university is an obstacle in allowing the population in knowing the truth. “One does not have complete freedom to investigate issues of national interest. When one goes to talk they risk having to deal with the authorities. A few days ago the [university] president said that I did not speak representing the university and that I was damaging the [image] of the department”[10].


Here appear two problems: academics prioritize research that can be published in journals, usually in English, to which ordinary people do not have access. On the other hand, universities depend on conventions and funds from various international organizations and private companies that have no interest in making public criticisms of the products they sell.


Universities themselves often boycott researchers like Panario, despite their national and international recognition. He applied twice for the national research fund and was rejected both times. He had to appeal to higher authorities for admission. He now seems happy with the growth of the movement against open-pit mining.


A Different Movement


Iron ore prices were stable for twenty years. In 1985 a dry metric ton was worth $26. In 2004 it had reached $38 and climbed to $140 in 2008. In 2009 the price dropped to $101 per ton, but now it’s rising once again. Iron ore is not just any other metal, as it represents 95 percent of all metals used in the industry.


Aratirí Mining belongs to Zamin Ferrous, an Indian company based in London. It has seven projects in South America, five in Brazil, one in Peru and one in Uruguay, and expects to produce about 50 million tons of iron ore across the continent in 2013. But the company’s potential in the region amounts to 10 billion tons.

In Uruguay they were licensed to mine about 110 thousand hectares in areas devoted to cattle ranching and forestry, where exploratory drilling had been performed to detect areas of greater density of iron ore. The mining project has three parts: the area where the mining will be conducted, about 220 kilometers of pipeline to the Rocha coast and finally a freight terminal. The total investment is estimated to be $2 billion.


In late 2010, when Parliament passed the Mining Code, small-scale rural producers of Valentines and Cerro Chato (180 and 3,000 inhabitants each), the areas where Aratirí installed [it’s project], began to mobilize. In January 2011 neighborhood commissions from the coast, where a port will be installed to export the iron, started a petition against the project.


From there [opposition] activity intensified. First they attended a session of parliament to explain the reasons for opposing the project. Small-scale livestock ranchers would see disruptions in their production because they will either face land expropriations and thus be forced to emigrate or they will be forced to migrate because of air and water pollution. The coastal villagers would suffer a loss to their fisheries and tourism will become scarce.


Later they held dozens of informational events in different places, such as small towns of 50 to 100 people. Finally in May 2011 they convened the first national march in Montevideo with the slogan “No to mining, yes to natural resources”. 

The [mining] company held its own march in Cerro Chato mobilizing merchants and workers. The next day the [small-scale, opposition] producers doubled the number of people mobilized, challenging the multinational [company] that had also began conducting its own informational events that were boycotted by those opposed to mining.


In July 2011 the Confederation of Coastal villages was created with representatives from seven communities of the Rocha Department: La Paloma (pop. 3,500), Aguas Dulces (400), Punta del Diablo (800), Valizas (330), La Pedrera (200), La Esmeralda (57) and Cabo Polonio. These communities oppose the construction of a port in La Paloma designated for the export of wood to be sent to paper factories, and another port designated to export iron.


On October 12 the second national march was held with a confluence of collectives from the north, central region, south and coastal zone, made up of small-scale producers and rural workers. Several celebrities participated in a video against mega-mine projects. Since then each region now focuses on local activities and the Permanent National Assembly in Defense of the Land and Natural Assets was created with about 36 grassroots collectives [11].
In mid-2012 the government confirmed the construction of a deepwater port for the export of iron, wood and other products near La Paloma. In August the movement against mining held its first national assembly in Tacuarembó (North) attended by 300 people from 35 collectives.


In attendance were three unions, indigenous groups, community radios, small-scale producers and rural workers. Members of the coastal towns opted for direct action to prevent the construction of the port near La Paloma. On October 12 the third national march was held in Montevideo with 10 thousand people participating, dozens of gauchos on horseback, tractors, flags of indigenous peoples, environmentalists and unions.


The movement against mining in Uruguay has three unprecedented features.

 The first is that it was born in the rural central region, in villages of about 50 to 3,000 people, and then it appeared in the departmental capitals and later in Montevideo, where the first groups are still being organized. This is a reversal of what has happened throughout the country’s history of social struggles, where almost all have been born in the capital.


Secondly, it’s a grassroots, assembly based, horizontal movement, linked to land and territory. It finds its inspiration from rural populist identities rather than unions and labor of the traditional left. Although these sectors are integrated and participate they do not assume a hegemonic role. The speech and language invoke the independence struggle of 200 years ago led by Jose Artigas, also emphasizing that everything relates to the land.


The third is that the movement has thus far rejected being institutionalized. NGOs have their hands bound. Political parties are kept silent. But was is most interesting is that the movement hasn’t chosen the path of a national referendum, the modality that has been adopted by all the great Uruguayan movements since the restoration of democracy, beginning with human rights.


There are local collectives that gather signatures for departmental referendums, and after extensive discussions the choice to move to a national referendum has been avoided. The experience of over 20 years indicates that this path leads to the dismantling of the movement since it infringes upon the popular will.


This is the first social movement that was born under a progressive government. It directly questions the extractive model and the pollution of water only supports the movement’s arguments especially for gaining public support. As Panario said reflecting on the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in New York and the overall climate change debate: “You must have a catastrophe for the people to become aware.”

Amazon People Theaten War Against Brazil's Dam Projects Destroying Rivers

 

Brazil dam row – local activists march past machinery being used in the construction of the massive Belo Monte hydroelectric dam.

 

An Amazonian community has threatened to "go to war" with the Brazilian government after a military incursion into their land by dam builders.

The Munduruku indigenous community in Para state say they have been betrayed by the authorities, who are pushing ahead with plans to build a cascade of hydropower plants on the Tapajós river without their permission.

Public prosecutors, human rights groups, environmental organisations and Christian missionaries have condemned the government's strong-arm tactics.

Helicopters, soldiers and armed police have been involved in Operation Tapajós, which aims to conduct an environmental impact assessment for the first proposed construction, the 6,133 MW São Luiz do Tapajós dam.

The facility, to be built by the Norte Energia consortium, is the biggest of three planned dams on the Tapajós, the fifth-largest river in the Amazon basin. The government's 10-year plan includes the construction of four larger hydroelectric plants on its tributary, the Jamanxim.
Under Brazilian law, major infrastructure projects require prior consultation with indigenous communities. Federal prosecutors say this has not happened and urge the courts to block the scheme which, they fear, could lead to bloodshed.

"The Munduruku have already stated on several occasions that they do not support studies for hydroelectric plants on their land unless there is full prior consultation," the prosecutors noted in a statement.

A similar survey in November led to deadly conflict. One resident, Adenilson Kirixi, was killed and several others were wounded in clashes between local people and troops accompanying the researchers in Teles Pires village.

The ministry of mines and energy noted on its website that 80 researchers, including biologists and foresters, would undertake a study of flora and fauna. The army escort was made possible by President Dilma Rousseff, who decreed this year that military personnel could be used for survey operations.

Missionaries said the recent show of force in Sawré Maybu village, Itaituba, was intimidating, degrading and an unacceptable violation of the rights of the residents.

"In this operation, the federal government has been threatening the lives of the people," the Indigenous Missionary Council said. "It is unacceptable and illegitimate for the government to impose dialogue at the tip of a bayonet."

The group said Munduruku leaders ended a phone call with representatives of the president with a declaration of war. They have also issued open letters calling for an end to the military operation, "We are not bandits. We feel betrayed, humiliated and disrespected by all this," a letter states.

One of the community's leaders, Valdenir Munduruku, has warned that locals will take action if the government does not withdraw its taskforce by 10 April. He has called for support from other indigenous groups, such as the Xingu, facing similar threats from hydroelectric dams.
Environmental groups have expressed concern.

The 1,200-mile waterway is home to more than 300 fish species and provides sustenance to some of the most biodiverse forest habitats on Earth. Ten indigenous groups inhabit the basin, along with several tribes in voluntary isolation.

With similar conflicts over other proposed dams in the Amazon, such as those at Belo Monte, Teles Pires, Santo Antônio and Jirau, some compare the use of force to the last great expansion of hydropower during the military dictatorship.

"The Brazilian government is making political decisions about the dams before the environmental impact assessment is done," said Brent Millikan of the International Rivers environmental group.

"The recent military operations illustrate that the federal government is willing to disregard existing legal instruments intended to foster dialogue between government and civil society."

Be Very Careful About Believing Or Blindly Following Anonymous's Call To Arms, DO NOT RESPOND

Activist Post In the latest video from Anonymous, they have called for the most aggressive action yet. They're asking the American people to join them in a "call to arms" for the destruction and overthrow of the US Government. In the statement, Anonymous says the government is calling them "terrorists" because they truly fear a people's uprising. "The United States Government insists on labeling us as terrorists. The question is, "who do we terrorize?" Is it probable that the United States government is truly afraid of we, the people?" They are not calling for denial of service attacks on government websites or protests as is their normal modus operandi, but for freedom activists to join them in full-blown war to overthrow the US Government and return it to the control of the people. "We are not calling upon the collective to deface or use a distributed denial of service attack on a United States government agency website, or affiliate. We are not calling upon the people to once again occupy a city or protest in front of a local building, This has not brought on us any legislative change or alternate law. It has only brought us bloodshed and false criticism. For the last 12 years, voting has been useless. Corporations and lobbyists are the true leaders of this country and are the ones with the power to control our lives, To rebuild our government, we must first destroy it. Our time for democracy is here, Our time for resolution is here, This is America's time for revolution, To restore our constitutional rights, to once again, be free therefore, Anonymous along with the American people have decided to openly declare war on the United States government. This is a call to arms." The hacktivist collective lists a long train of abuses that can no longer be allowed: We refuse to be a police state. We refuse to be brutalized and dehumanized by the very people our tax dollars fund to protect our cities and streets. We will not allow the government to control our destiny, our right to build a life for ourselves. We demand freedom from government control, taxation, repossession and death. You will not come to our doors and take our guns, our property, you will not force the citizens of this great country to participate in the unlawful act of government mandated healthcare. We the people refuse to put in your control our health, our bodies, our minds, our lives. We will not grant permission for the government to deploy drones over our homes and communities. We must end the federal reserve. A private central bank should not issue our currency, set interest rates and run our economy. Rather, we need to return control over the currency to the American people where it belongs. They claim that all peaceful attempts to affect change within the system have failed and the time for action is now. "Our peaceful actions, patience and restraint have been demonstrated as we watched and waited for our Congress and Representatives to speak for the American citizens and protect us from the tyrant that sits in the oval office and happily strips the American people of our rights, one by one, executive order by executive order. We have waited long enough." NOTE: Who is Anonymous? Could it be a part of a Rogue Government group designed to provoke you into armed revolution? Isn't that exactly what would cause what many are trying to prevent? This is not the Art Of War, this is trying to attract a few more lone nuts....

West Point Trains Military To Take On Americans

Soldiers and police in America take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. But knowing who is a domestic enemy of the Constitution can be confusing to a young grunt. So a West Point think tank decided to broadly define what a domestic enemy may look like to ensure soldiers follow orders when the time comes.

In a study recently published by the West Point Combating Terrorism Center entitled, “Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” Arie Perliger, the author of the study, attempts to present a picture of an America infested with dangerous “Right Wing” domestic terrorists lurking in the shadows and waiting to launch an attack on government establishments, agents, and minorities.

In the study, what Perliger defines as the “Far-Right” is actually a mixture of race hate groups with ordinary militias, anti-abortion activists, Libertarians/Anarchists, and “conspiracy theorists.” Perliger suggets that this “Far-Right” contingent is glued together by an identification with an “anti-federalist” ideology as well as a belief in a “New World Order.” 

According to Perliger, these groups are concerned with the “corrupted and tyrannical nature of the federal government and its apparent tendency to violate individuals’ civilian liberties and constitutional rights.”

Perliger, who is the director of terrorism studies at the West Point Combating Terrorism Center writes in the Introduction to the study that its purpose is to provide “a conceptual foundation for understanding different far-right groups and then presents the empirical analysis of violent incidents to identify those perpetrating attacks and their associated trends.”

For all the repetition of the terms “terrorism” and "violent" however, it is important to mention just how broad a definition has been assigned to this term in recent years. As Madison Ruppert of End the Lie writes in his article, “West Point study identifies ‘violent far-right’ with recognizing tyrannical, corrupt nature of government,” “It is worth noting that the federal government is quite tyrannical and corrupt with a federal judge ruled the government can claim the legal right to assassinate Americans without any charge or trial while never explaining the legal basis, engage in widespread illegal surveillance (which is dramatically increasing) and indefinitely detain Americans.”

Ruppert continues by stating, “If those aren’t violations of individuals’ civil liberties and constitutional rights, I don’t know what is.”

Yet, while Perliger defines three different branches of the “far-right” – racist/white supremacy movement, anti-federalist movement, and fundamentalist movement – the author lumps the three different branches into one, all while conveniently ignoring pertinent facts that might not back up his claims.

Perliger’s paper notably lacks mention of the fact that a great many “racist/white supremacy” organizations are themselves either partially or even entirely staffed by law enforcement agents of government intelligence. Likewise, Perliger entirely conflates race-based movements (also likely infiltrated and controlled by government agencies) with what he labels the “Christian Fundamentalist” movement. This, as Madison Ruppert points out, is described with a complete lack of understanding (intentional or otherwise) as to what “fundamentalism” actually is.

Yet, the “anti-federalist” movement (itself a variety of movements mixed together to provide an easier category for Perliger and his readers), is the most interesting when evaluating the West Point paper. According to Perliger, this “movement” is centered around a belief in a “New World Order,” and the recognition of the “corrupted and tyrannical nature of the federal government and its apparent tendency to violate individuals’ civilian liberties and constitutional rights.”

In this regard, Perliger writes,

The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.

In further summarizing the “anti-federalist” viewpoint, Perliger writes,

The anti-federalist movement’s ideology is based on the idea that there is an urgent need to undermine the influence, legitimacy and practical sovereignty of the federal government and its proxy organizations. The groups comprising the movement suggest several rationales that seek to legitimize anti-federal sentiments. Some groups are driven by a strong conviction that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order,” (NWO) in which the United States will be embedded in the UN or another version of global government. The NWO will be advanced, they believe, via steady transition of powers from local to federal law-enforcement agencies, i.e., the transformation of local police and law-enforcement agencies into a federally controlled “National Police” agency that will in turn merge with a “Multi-National Peace Keeping Force.” The latter deployment on US soil will be justified via a domestic campaign implemented by interested parties that will emphasize American society’s deficiencies and US government incompetency. This will convince the American people that restoring stability and order inevitably demands the use of international forces. The last stage, according to most NWO narratives, involves the transformation of the United States government into an international/world government and the execution and oppression of those opposing this process.

Indeed, anyone even faintly aware of historical and current events would be hard-pressed to argue with the so-called “anti-federalists” in their analysis.

Regardless, in light of the recent push for citizen disarmament, the paper tellingly states,

Linda Thompson, the head of the Unorganized Militia of the United States details the consequence of this global coup: ”This is the coming of the New World Order. A one-world government, where, in order to put the new government in place, we must all be disarmed first. To do that, the government is deliberately creating schisms in our society, funding both the anti-abortion/pro-choice sides, the antigun/pro-gun issues…trying to provoke a riot that will allow martial law to be implemented and all weapons seized, while ‘dissidents’ are put safely away”. The fear of the materialization of the NWO makes most militias not merely hostile towards the federal government but also hostile towards international organizations, whether non-profitable NGOs, international corporations, or political institutions of the international community, such as the UN.

Perliger, of course, does not attempt to challenge any of Thompson's claims as they are presented in this short quotation nor does he attempt to debunk any of the claims made by the “anti-federalist” communities that he so concisely repeats in the statement above. While, admittedly, it is not a stated goal of the author’s study to defend his position and debunk those of his subjects, one would also be justified in concluding that Perliger does not attempt to defend his case simply because disproving the claims made by the “anti-federalist” activists as he presents them would impossible for him to do in a convincing manner.

Yet the purpose of the paper is not to provide legitimate information about these groups as much as it is to terrify the reader – West Point and other military trainees – into believing that anyone who rightly supposes that their government is overstepping its bounds, violating their rights, or moving forward in otherwise unconstitutional directions is a conspiracy-obsessed, right-wing, racist fanatic who is intent on killing military, police, and minorities.

Unfortunately for the author, however, a careful reading of his own argument causes it to fall apart at the seams.

After postulating numerous reasons for the alleged violence of “far-right” groups ranging from political, socio-economic, geographical, and operational possibilities, Perliger attempts to turn to the actual numbers.

At first, Perliger’s presentation of thousands of violent attacks per year (using 2010 statistics) is quite shocking since such attacks are not known to the general public and the mainstream media has not seized upon them at every available opportunity as one would expect. The actual level of violence in its own right, whether reported or not, would be concerning to say the very least.

These numbers would be an even more concerning situation if they demonstrated that such attacks were on the rise.

Unfortunately for the government argument, however, this is not the case as even Perliger has to admit when he says, “Hence, in periods during which many streams of terrorism have shown improvement in their operational capabilities and, as a result, an increase in their tendency to engage in mass casualty attacks, the violent American far right shows stagnation, at least in terms of its ability to enhance the harm it generates.”

For instance, while the term “right-wing violent attack” might conjure images of lynchings, executions, or mass terror attacks, the statistics, even those presented by Perliger, tend to show a different reality. Indeed, the type of “attack” referenced in Perliger’s study is entirely unclear in terms of just what would constitute a “right-wing violent attack.”

Indeed, when examining Perliger’s statistics, one can easily see that well over half of the “attacks” being described are actually proxy “attacks” (loosely defined term) against property, “foiled attacks” (which are wildly undefined, especially since the overwhelming majority of any foiled terrorist attack in the United States has been directed by the FBI), “heavy damage to property,” and “cross burnings.”

Likewise, with so many acts of property damage and racial symbols being later determined to have been directed by the “victims” themselves, one must also call these numbers into question since they are left unclear in the study.

Of those attacks designed to cause “mass casualties,” the Oklahoma City Bombing was no doubt included in the statistics, an obvious government-run false flag operation.

Yet, even among the 42% of “attacks” described as involving “specific human targets,” the incidents are not necessarily connected with any political, racial, or religious origin. As with any attempt at methods of divide and conquer, there is the very real possibility that any violent attack leveled against any individual of minority status or non-right-wing political ideology is thus considered to be a “specific human target” attack. Under such loosely defined rules of categorization, since the incidence of “specific human targets” were overwhelmingly one on one or (at most) two on one altercations, a simple shoving match between two individuals in which one could be remotely considered right wing, racist, or religious could then be delineated as a violent right-wing attack.

Since Perliger easily allows his own political bias to appear during the course of the paper and, since much of his political theory is based upon Israeli political scientist Ehud Sprinzak’s Iceberg model of the structure of political movements, it is apparent that Perliger’s own methodology is likely devised in a manner that would allow even the most distant and unrelated events seem directly related to the core of political ideology Perliger has set in his sites.

Such a concern is only compounded by the fact that one of Perliger’s main sources for his paper is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a notorious race-baiting organization that routinely accuses anyone who disagrees with the company line in regards to government policy as racist and potentially violent and dangerous. Not far behind, of course, is the citation of the Anti-Defamation League, an organization of similar race-based incredibility.

In the end, Perliger’s report is nothing more than just another cog in the wheel of a military-industrial complex on overdrive in its attempt to brainwash new military recruits into believing that a terrorist lurks behind every bush. More importantly, these new recruits are being trained that such terrorists are no longer shadowy Muslims hiding in caves in Afghanistan, but good ol’ boys, gun owners, and average American citizens that will eventually have to be dealt with.

Sheriffs Against Obamacie

The great usurper of the Constitution, President Obama, is seeking to obliterate the Second Amendment and subsequently, he is coming after your guns. Obama is not coming after your guns in one fell swoop, although he would like to.Inch by inch, Obama believes that gun confiscation is a cinch.

 He is employing the principle of incrementalism. Under this communist despot, Americans will see registration and prohibition today, followed by confiscation tomorrow.

Democide, defined as murder by government, in the 20th century, accounted for 262,000,000 deaths. Nearly everyone of these mass murders by government was preceded by gun control and gun confiscation. Logic, wisdom and historical precedent would indicate that Americans would be foolish to ever surrender any of the Second Amendment rights to the federal government.

I am one of a growing group of Americans who believes that what I have dubbed Obamacide (i.e. the continual takedown of the Constitution and replacing it with Marxist Communist ideals), will be followed by democide which will be perpetrated against the American people by the minions who represent and serve the bankers who have hijacked our government.

A Pro-American Message From An Unlikely Source

Former California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a man of very limited acting skills, recently returned to the big screen as Sheriff Ray Owens, a tough law man who leads a band of an inexperienced small town police officers who face the daunting task of stopping a ruthless drug cartel leader from reaching the US-Mexico border.

As an aside, some men gracefully age and understand the importance of choosing age appropriate activities, hobbies and vocations. Apparently, Schwarzenegger does not possess that kind of introspective awareness. This “grandpa on steroids” approach to reliving his days as an action hero, was very comedic, but only in a very tragic way. More to the point,

Schwarzenegger’s character portrays one of America’s last remaining heroes, the County Sheriff. You might be wondering about the name of Schwarzenegger’s newest action movie? Never mind, you would be better off saving your money and buying some more ammunition.

 The only saving grace of this very bad movie lies in the expressed belief that the County Sheriff is America’s last line of defense in a community and that the federal government, if not always corrupt, is always incompetent.

America’s Last Remaining Heroes

The County Sheriff is the indeed the last line of defense against a tyrannical government which is undeniably hell-bent on destroying the Second Amendment for very nefarious purposes. Here are some very poignant examples



In response to the national gun-control/confiscation debate, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County in Kentucky stated in a recent press conference that his power as sheriff, charged with upholding the Constitution, constitutes his most important to the citizens of Jackson county and that Peyman is unconcerned with the hidden, and often illegal agendas of state and federal agents. Peyman further explained that

 “I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave. And it doesn’t matter what new laws Obama passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.”



Illinois Clark County Sheriff, Jerry Parsley, posted a message from the Clark County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page this past Thursday explaining his mission to protect the Constitution. “It’s a given to me; the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. The amendment is about a free state’s ability to defend itself from an oppressive government. When a government won’t or can’t defend its citizens, they have a God-given right to protect themselves. To me it’s simple.”

The Utah Sheriffs’ Association has written a strongly worded letter to President Obama on the issue of gun control. Part of the letter reads, “No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them.”

In Oregon’s Josephine County, Sheriff Gil Gilbertson said Wednesday that a lot of sheriffs are standing up and demanding the Constitution – especially the Second Amendment – be followed.



Frank Deming, the Johnson County Sheriff is sounding off against President Barack Obama’s new gun control proposals. Denning discussed the mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut, but says he sees nothing in the proposed measures that could prevent similar incidents in the future. “Logic dictates to us that armed individuals; whether armed private individuals or hired security personnel, are the answer to prevent future tragedies in those places that we have inadvertently made free-fire zones with the totally useless ‘No Guns Allowed’ signs,” Deming continued.



In Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole sent an open letter to residents saying he did not believe the federal government had the right to tell the states how to regulate firearms. He said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate which he felt violated constitutional rights, specifically the Second Amendment.

I  received a recent email from Sheriff Richard Mack, former Graham County, AZ. Sheriff, who successfully challenged the Brady Bill before the Supreme Court. Mack’s email detailed for me his efforts, as an Oathkeeper, to remind Sheriffs across the country to uphold the Second Amendment.

Even A Governor “Gets It”

In Mississippi, Governor Phil Bryant, urged the Legislature to make it illegal to enforce any executive order by the president that violates the Constitution.

“If someone kicks open my door and they’re entering my home, I’d like as many bullets as I could to protect my children, and if I only have three, then the ability for me to protect my family is greatly diminished,” Bryant said. “And what we’re doing now is saying, ‘We’re standing against the federal government taking away our civil liberties.’” At least one politician is not on the take.

Evil Never Takes a Holiday

MA. Representative, the Democidal David Linsky, has filed a bill which, among other things, forces gun owners to undergo mental health background checks, acquire liability insurance, pay an additional 25% tax on all forms of ammunition, and requires firearms categorized as “assault weapons” to be stored outside of their homes and only at government approved storage depots. In my estimation, this is only an intermediate step with the final destination being the nearly complete destruction of the Second Amendment followed by gun confiscation.



Of course this man shipped guns into Mexico in an attempt to undermine the Second Amendment under Operation Fast and Furious.



This woman allowed the murder of Ambassador Stevens by refusing the Ambassador’s request for additional protection following his gun running into Syria on behalf of the CIA in this Middle East version of Fast and Furious in which tens of thousands have already been murdered.



This man oversaw Operation Fast and Furious which resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry, 40,000 Mexicans last year and 300 Americans.  This man also oversaw the stand down orders which could have prevented Ambassador Stevens death/assassination. And this man wants to disarm you while he is responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands human beings.

Yesterday, I purchased a gun and some ammunition. I have drawn my line in the sand. I stand for the Constitution and in particular, the Second Amendment. As the President continues to commit Obamacide, I have decided that I will not obey. I will not follow Obama’s gun control policies as issued by 23 illegal and unconstitutional executive orders. I will not submit to ANY form of federal tyranny committed against the Constitution.

And in my role as a journalist, I refused to be silenced as I will continue to publicly decry the criminal communist takeover of this country by this creation of the modern-day version of the Weathermen Underground terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorne and their puppet-in-chief, Barak Hussein Obama.



If we submit to this unconstitutional and illegal authority, we will become vulnerable like never before in our nation’s history. I would encourage everyone to write today to their local sheriff and demand that he defend the Constitution and in particular, the Second Amendment against unwarranted federal government interference. I would encourage you to act as if your life depends on it, because it does.

Idle NO MORE, 1st Nations Resistance Movement Across Canaca

“A study was done of all band audits ever done to look for evidence of corruption. Less than three percent of all of those audits ever found anything that could even be close to an individual purposely taking money for their own purposes and mismanaging it. That’s a lower corruption rate than all of the municipalities, provinces and Canada put together. So who is the corrupt ones here? It’s not First Nations!” - Miq’Maq lawyer Pam Palmater

Idle No More is an indigenous resistance movement that has taken hold in centres across Canada. It has featured a number of flash mobs and Round dances in public places like shopping malls and traffic intersections. The movement has mostly been peaceful, although there have been a few road and rail blockades.

The focus is on pieces of legislation that the founders of the movement, four Saskatchewan women named Nina Wilson, Sylvia McAdam, Jessica Gordon & Sheelah McLean, saw as further undermining First Nations sovereignty.

The movement got a boost when on December 11, Theresa Spence, Chief of the beleaguered Northern Ontario First Nation of Attawapiskat, started a hunger strike to call attention to long-standing frustrations within the First Nations Community and to force the Canadian Prime Minister and the Queen’s Representative in Canada, Governor General David Johnston, to meet with First Nations leaders.



As of January 10, 2013, the Prime Minister has agreed to meet with First Nations leaders, although the Governor General has not, except in a ‘ceremonial’ capacity.

The fact is, a nation-to-nation partnership formed between the Indigenous First Nations and European settlers which made it possible for the territory to be opened up for exploitation by settlers. Treaties between the British Crown and First Nations were at the heart of this arrangement. However, subsequent generations of settler governments took advantage of the arrangement, and have yet to live up to these agreements signed in good faith by the keepers of the land, the First Nations.

Given these realities at the core of our society in the Western Hemisphere, it is crucial that these fundamental issues be grappled with before the cause of social justice can be meaningfully addressed.

This installment of the Global Research News Hour focuses on the movement spreading throughout Canada and the world known as IDLE NO MORE.

Guests include Sociologist, writer and Indigenous activist Robert Animiiki Horton, and Professor of Globalization Studies Anthony Hall. They discuss the challenges facing the movement, advice for non-Indigenous supporters, and some of the historical and legal backdrop to this resurging resistance.

Daryl Hannah Arrested Protesting Filthy Tar Sands

Supermarket Secrets Designed To Influence You

Activist Post If you love reading about natural health, you may already be a little suspicious of every food on your grocer’s shelves. At this point, you are likely a label reader, you check produce stickers to see how far your vegetables have traveled, and you are on the lookout for food items you know, or at least suspect, may have genetically-modified ingredients. But, are you aware of all the many supermarket secrets that could be working against your physical and financial health – aside from you feeling things like nasty effects of pesticides smothered on your produce? Selling food is a business—from the subsidized soy and corn producers to the shelf-space in the grocery stores. And like any business, the primary concern is making money. Here are just a few ways that many grocery stores put your health and your budget to the test. You decide which of these supermarket secrets are acceptable, and which methods seem to be less than ethical practices: 1. Shrinking Packages Over the past several years, containers and food packages have gotten smaller. Whether they are trying to make up for losses in a bad economy, or if it’s just greed—food manufacturers are selling you less and they are selling these smaller packages at the same price! They’ll shrink the product (but not the price) for a while and then when they add a few ounces back, they can market it as “20% more!” 2. Expired Food in the Deli That prepared food you buy from the deli comes off the shelves of the store, and they aren’t picking the freshest options. Instead, they’ll choose the foods that are closest to their expiration date, saving themselves money. A better bet: cooking for yourself. 3. Eye-level Shelves are Prime Real Estate Food companies pay for product placement. The little-known companies and local food producers are often on the very top shelf or way down at floor level because they can’t afford to be right in the middle, where companies pay a stiff price to be closer to your eyes and hands. 4. Suspicious lighting Your grocer may be making their wares look more attractive with colored bulbs. In most cases this is actually against the law, but is reportedly difficult to enforce. Red lights over the meat counters or green lights over the vegetables can make the food look better and make you spend more. 5. Dirty produce There are no restrictions on who can fumble through the produce section. But not only are you taking home produce that’s been handled by other customers, it was put out there by store employees, the person who unpacked the box, and even the person who picked it. There’s no telling who has touched the produce or where their hands have been. So, if you need a snack and opt for something quick out of the produce department (smart thinking!), be certain you wash it thoroughly—even if it’s organic. Other Supermarket Secrets You Probably Don’t Know About Here are a few other supermarket secrets you probably don’t know about: Freezing Food – Did you know that what you think is fresh could be months old? After being kept in a freezer for months to prevent aging, breads are finally thawed to put on display. This is known as “parbaking”. Similarly, meat is frozen before reaching the supermarket, but then thawed to look fresh in the market’s freezer. The problem? This opens a wider door for bacterial exposure and growth. Think twice before stocking up on meat, only to freeze it. Avoiding Mondays – Deliveries to supermarkets don’t typically happen on weekends. This means that stuff purchased on Mondays is likely several days old. Wednesday is generally when supermarket shelves are stocked with fresh products. Use-By Date – While it’s scary to think about, you could actually see the same products you saw months ago, with a new use-by date sticker on it. The manufacturer use-by date can’t be changed, but retailers can add their own use-by date sticker numerous times until the product is sold. Grocery stores need those profits! The “Cold Line” - There is something called a “cold line,” also known as the “load limit,” where eggs are kept. The cold line is a colored line in the dairy section painted on by manufacturers. If you see eggs stacked above this line, know that these eggs can sweat, igniting possible bacterial growth.

Portland, Or Fluoride Opponents Vow To Launch Citizen Referendum

Ross William Hamilton/The OregonianDemonstrator China Starshine held up signs outside of City Hall where the Portland City Council opened public testimony on Commissioner Randy Leonard's plan to fluoridate the area's drinking water in Portland last week. The Portland City Council voted 5-0 on Wednesday to approve the measure.

 

A group calling itself Clean Water Portland announced immediately after the Portland City Council voted 5-0 to add fluoride to the region's drinking water that it would challenge the decision with a citizen referendum.

Unlike an initiative, which opponents earlier called for, a referendum has the potential to suspend the city's ordinance, which technically takes effect in 30 days even though Portland officials don't plan to add fluoride to the region's water until 2014.

"If the petition qualifies for the ballot, the effective date of the ordinance is suspended until a public vote," said Andrew Bryans of the city auditor's office. The group needs to collect nearly 20,000 valid signatures to push the measure.

More

Continuing coverage of the efforts to fluoridate Portland's drinking water.

Kim Kaminski, a spokeswoman for Clean Water Portland, said around 11 a.m. that she expected to file paperwork with Portland's auditor "within the hour." However, city clerks still needed to file their own paperwork before that could happen, meaning the referendum won't get off the ground until this afternoon at the earliest.

Clean Water Portland says it has 125 volunteers to gather signatures and expects to have more than 25 paid signature gathers by the end of the week.

Opponents in August originally announced they would push an initiative to ask voters to ban fluoride in drinking water in 2014.

A referendum also would put the question to voters in 2014. But fluoride opponents wouldn't have to collect as many signatures. They'd have to do it in 30 days, however. If they're successful, they'd stop the city's ordinance from going into effect, blocking city officials' efforts to plan for fluoridation.

There's another reason opponents switched from an initiative to a referendum.

Commissioner Randy Leonard, fluoride's chief proponent on the City Council, announced after opponents said they would launch an initiative that he would take action to put fluoride in the region's water before opponents could get the ban on the ballot.

Portland voters have rejected fluoride at the ballot box three times, most recently in 1980.

Boycott Natural Brands That Betray Consumers With GMO Labels

It's time to defeat evil in the food industry and stop the vicious betrayal of consumers by so-called "natural" brands. They're all conspiring right now to funnel millions of dollars into a disinformation campaign to try to defeat ballot measure 37, the "GMO labeling" initiative in California (http://www.naturalnews.com/036833_GMO_labeling_YES_on_37_California.h...).

Effective immediately, NaturalNews is issuing a global boycott on the following brands:

• Kashi (owned by Kellogg, which has contributed $612,000 to defeat Proposition 37) - Kashi cereals contain GMOs!

• Silk soymilk (owned by the nation's largest dairy, Dean Foods, which has contributed $253,000 to the effort to kill Proposition 37)

• Larabar (owned by General Mills, which has contributed $520,000 to defeat proposition 37)

• R.W. Knudsen (owned by Smucker, which has contributed $387,000 to defeat proposition 37)

• Santa Cruz Organic (also owned by Smucker, which has contributed $387,000 to defeat proposition 37)

• Cascadian Farm (owned by General Mills, which has contributed $520,000 to defeat proposition 37)

• Muir Glen (also owned by General Mills, which has contributed $520,000 to defeat proposition 37)

Boycott these brands -- the BETRAYORS of the food industry. Help make sure their betrayal of consumers costs them huge market share. Remember: When it comes to evil food companies, if you ignore them (by not buying their toxic products) they will go away.

This is all detailed in a release just issued by the Cornucopia Institute:

Agribusinesses Owning Natural / Organic Brands Betray Customers: Fund Attack on GMO Labeling Proposal in California
Proposition 37, a citizen's initiative on the ballot on November 6 in California, would mandate clear labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients on food packages. It has become a battleground pitting consumer and farmer advocates against multi-billion-dollar agribusiness corporations.

Recent polling indicates almost 70% of citizens support informational labeling. And a flood of new contributions to fight the measure has rolled in from the biotechnology industry and food manufacturers, totaling over $23 million, according to the California Secretary of State. This dwarfs the approximately $3 million contributed by proponents of GE labeling.

"Consumers might be surprised to find out that brands hiding under 'natural' façades are in fact owned by multi-billion-dollar corporations that are contributing bushel baskets of cash to defeating Proposition 37," says Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm and Food Policy at The Cornucopia Institute. (www.cornucopia.org)

Mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food in California is viewed as a watershed event by many industry observers, as many companies will find it logistically or economically difficult to produce foods with labels identifying GE for California while producing a different product line of foods for the rest of the country.

"Just as we've observed in Europe, where labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is mandatory, we fully expect that when given a choice, consumers will choose organic or non-GMO products," said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector of Wisconsin-based Cornucopia. "And the industrial food lobby is fully cognizant of this -- that's why they're fighting like hell against this grassroots effort."

To make it easier for shoppers to identify and support organic brands whose corporate owners support Proposition 37, and avoid buying brands owned by companies that financially contributed to opposing the "Right to Know" campaign, The Cornucopia Institute has developed a guide for consumers. (http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/08/prop37/)

"If the food and biotech industries are so proud of their pervasive genetically manipulated crops, why are they so afraid, and so desperately opposed to labeling it?" asked Arran Stephens, founder of Nature's Path, North America's largest certified organic cereal and granola brand with manufacturing plants in the US and Canada.

Besides Nature's Path, those who have contributed in support of Proposition 37 include venerable organic manufacturers such as Dr. Bronner's, Nutiva and Lundberg rice. These companies are all independently-owned businesses that avoid GMOs and are committed to supporting organic agriculture.

"Food companies are required by law to label 'contains peanuts' if included in their product. People deserve the same for GMOs. Our customers want to know if any product contains GMOs," says John Roulac, founder and CEO of Nutiva, an organic food company.

On the other side, joining Monsanto and the giant food lobby group Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) in donating money to the effort to defeat the ballot initiative, are multi-billion-dollar, multi-national companies including General Mills, Dean Foods, Kellogg and Pepsico. These companies own brands that are misrepresented to consumers as independent, value-driven businesses.

Biotechnology corporations and corporate agribusinesses have collectively donated millions of dollars to defeat Proposition 37. Monsanto alone has donated $4.2 million, while food giants Pepsico and Coca Cola have each donated more than $1 million.

"Consumers are increasingly interested in 'voting with their forks,' and many want to support companies that share their values," says Vallaeys. "But consumers may not realize that many organic and 'natural' brands are owned by the very same corporations that are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars each, or even millions, in an effort to scuttle Proposition 37 in California," she adds.

For example, Kashi is owned by Kellogg, which has contributed $612,000 to defeating Proposition 37. Last year, The Cornucopia Institute published a study, Cereal Crimes (http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/10/natural-vs-organic-cereal/), which revealed that the popular, "natural" Kashi GoLean cereal brand, unbeknownst to its customers, contains genetically engineered ingredients.

In what The Cornucopia Institute characterizes as "creating a façade," nowhere on the Kashi website or packaging is it disclosed that the company is owned by Kellogg, rather than the "small band of passionate people" featured on the Kashi website.

Another example is Silk soymilk, which carries the "Non-GMO Project Verified" seal on its products but is owned by the nation's largest dairy, Dean Foods, which has contributed $253,000 to the effort to kill Prop. 37. Dean Foods also owns the Horizon Organic brand. Both Silk and Horizon profess to consumers that the brands oppose GMOs.

"Talk is cheap," adds Vallaeys. "Consumers should not only know whether there are GMOs in their food, but also whether their hard-earned dollars are supporting companies that then turn around and invest those profits in the effort to sell-out their right to know."

The Cornucopia Institute, which developed the funding guide (http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/08/prop37/), stresses that the organization is not against corporate involvement in organics.

"We welcome corporate involvement in the organic food industry, but only when the parent company subscribes to the values that the organic food movement is based on," says Kastel. "We have a problem with the duplicity of corporations that hide under a 'holier-than-thou' marketing brand and then undermine the very values of the organic movement."

"For example, when Kellogg donates money to the Organic Trade Association, the Kashi brand appears on the OTA website. But when the same company donates to the effort to defeat Proposition 37, Kellogg will do everything in its power to make sure that its Kashi customers, who seek wholesome and natural foods, do not associate the Kashi brand with a corporate contributor to the effort to kill Proposition 37," adds Kastel.

The same is true for the R.W. Knudsen and Santa Cruz Organic brands, owned by Smucker, and the Cascadian Farm, Larabar and Muir Glen brands, owned by General Mills. These corporate brand owners have donated $387,000 and $520,000, respectively, to defeating Proposition 37.

By using Cornucopia's Proposition 37 funding guide, consumers can invest their food dollars in organic and non-GMO companies that are truly committed to supporting sustainable agriculture.

"Hiding the truth about our food is pervasive, unethical, and only done for money," says Michael Potter, CEO of Eden Foods, an organic food manufacturer that financially contributed to support Proposition 37. "Let this [Prop. 37] be the beginning of an end to it."

Who is supporting GMO labeling?
For the record, those contributing funds to help pass proposition 37 include Nature's Path (my No. 1 favorite cereal company), Dr. Bronner's, Nutiva and Lundberg rice. In the info realm, supporters include Dr. Mercola, the Organic Consumers Association, NaturalNews (through numerous contributions to the IRT), and many others.

Did Anonymous Take Interpol Site Down?

New Lawsuit Challenges Unconstitutional Animal Terrorism

A new lawsuit challenges the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act as unconstitutional because it has given activists reason to fear that they could be prosecuted as “terrorists” for non-violent civil disobedience, protests, and First Amendment activity.

The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of 5 longtime animal rights activists. The activists say the vague wording of the law, and the corporate-led campaigns against animal rights activism, have made them alter their own advocacy.

The landmark case has implications for all social justice movement, beyond the animal rights activists targeted. It sets a dangerous precedent for labeling anyone who effectively threatens corporate profits a “terrorist.” As the Occupy Wall Street Movement grows rapidly, and has begun reclaiming foreclosed homes from banks and shutting down ports, this lawsuit couldn’t come at a more pressing time. And with the impending passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, the dangers of this parallel legal system for “terrorists” has become strikingly clear.

The lawsuit seeks to strike down the law for violating the First and Fifth Amendments [read the criminal complaint in Blum v. Holder]. Specifically, it argues that the law is unconstitutional for 3 reasons:

It is so broad that it has had a chilling effect on free speech. The law hasn’t outlawed animal rights activism, but it has made activists think twice about using their rights. This was the primary point I raised in my Congressional testimony against the law in 2006, and since then the political climate has become even more toxic. The first use of the law was based on activists allegedly chalking slogans on the sidewalk and wearing bandanas. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is an attempt by corporations to use the power of fear in order to silence their opposition.

The language is so vague that people can’t decipher what is illegal. The law’s criminalization of “interfering with” the operations of an animal enterprise, or causing a “loss of profits,” leave activists wondering if they could be labeled a terrorist for a successful lawful campaign. This is compounded by the law’s emphasis on “tertiary targeting”: it not only protects animal enterprises,” but any business that does business with an animal enterprise. When politicians, the courts, lawyers, and national organizations cannot agree on the meaning of this law, it is dangerously over broad.

It singles out animal rights activist because of their political beliefs and their effective advocacy. Meanwhile, violence by anti-abortion extremists is not being labeled as terrorism. For more on this: “If Sarah Palin Were an Animal Rights Activist, She’d Have Already Been Convicted of ‘Terrorism.” Singling out groups of people because of their political beliefs, and restricting their First Amendment rights, is antithetical to a healthy democracy.

FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Are Terrorists

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.

This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they “illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm… and videotaped conditions of animals.”

The animal activists caused “economic loss” to businesses, the FBI says. And they also openly rescued several animals from the abusive conditions. This was not done covertly in the style of underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front — it was an act of non-violent civil disobedience and, as the FBI agent notes, the activists distributed press releases and conducted media interviews taking responsibility for their actions.

Based on these acts — trespassing in order to photograph and videotape abuses on factory farms — the agent concludes there “is a reasonable indication” that the activists “have violated the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 18 USC Section 43 (a).”

Cyber Warfare 'And Hacktivists

In recent years, a new form of activism has cropped up on the Internet. With their numerous 'leaks' and 'ops', groups like WikiLeaks and its 'hacktivism' off-shoot known as 'Anonymous', have achieved major mainstream media exposure. With V for Vendetta's character 'V' as inspiration, youths the world over are rallying behind the idea that "something is terribly wrong with this country" and are letting everyone know via anonymous protests, online hacktivism against groups and organizations they see as part of the problem, or the support of the revolutions taking place in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere.

The rise of Internet hacktivism comes with a price however...