The establishment has made no secret of the fact that they are not very impressed with Adam Kokesh’s planned Open Carry March on Washington DC this coming July 4.
But yesterday the situation devolved to a new low when Kokesh was arrested for….doing nothing.
The controversial talk-radio host of Adam Vs. the Man has been made a political prisoner.
A “political prisoner” is defined as:
A person who has been imprisoned for holding or advocating dissenting political views.
Regardless of your personal beliefs on whether marijuana should be legalized, if you believe that freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, what happened at the May 18 “Smoke Down Prohibition” event in Philadelphia is a clear-cut violation of Kokesh’s rights. While other people there were actually breaking the law and smoking in an act of civil disobedience, Kokesh was not – he was simply speaking.
Adam Kokesh is being charged with resisting arrest…Check out the video – all I see is a man with his hands up (and no marijuana in those hands either). You don’t have to be an expert on the law to see that he went with the officers peacefully.
Does this mean that only popular opinions are protected by the Constitution? Does this mean that the Constitution is no longer in effect for those who disagree with the current laws? Or is this something more sinister? Perhaps an attempt to prevent Kokesh’s planned march on July 4 for occurring?
According to his Facebook page, which is being updated by friends, Adam Kokesh is being held in a federal jail until he can appear before a judge on Monday. And things may get worse for him – watch the first 40 seconds of this video – it is the same as the video above, but a closer shot – do you see someone’s hand at Adam’s waist? Are they planting “evidence”? Don’t be surprised if you hear he had all manner of illegal substances in his possession – think critically because the information will be presented in the mainstream to paint the picture that the PTB want you to see, and this picture will very likely be at odds with the truth.
Activism is getting a lot more dangerous. Expect to see an example made out of Adam Kokesh. The Powers That Be would like to quell the Open Carry March before it happens and locking up the driving force for that protest is a clear cut way to do so. If we allow this to happen by doing nothing, then we are just as bad as the police who are “just following orders” who arrested him without cause and just as bad as the system that is charging him with resisting arrest despite video evidence that he did no such thing. Doing absolutely nothing is as dangerous an attack on freedom as the attacks being made by the government itself.
As a strategic move by the government, this one is a little better thought out than others because of the nature of the protest. Many conservatives that would be behind a demonstration for the Second Amendment might be offended by a demonstration in which the protesters smoke pot. You have to see through that to what this really is. It has absolutely nothing to do with the use of marijuana other than as a way to present Adam Kokesh as distasteful to those who have more conservative values. This is an effort to publicly silence those who resist and an attempt to make an example out of Kokesh to deter others from resisting.
So, what can you do about this?
Share information. The power of social media is an incredible thing. Use email, Twitter, Facebook, and any other platform that you have to help you share this information with others.
If you use Facebook, “like” Adam Kokesh’s page - it is being frequently updated by his supporters. They are publishing pertinent phone numbers and giving suggestions for activism.
Don’t let actions like this silence you. The entire purpose of this is to make people afraid to speak out against the government. But they can’t silence all of us. You can allow this to frighten you into submission or you can allow it to motivate you into resistance.
The Powers That Be have taken a gamble with this arrest. The results could go one of two ways. They know that those who love freedom are basically good, moral people. None of us wants to be arrested or disappeared into the depths of a federal detainment facility. They’re counting on that to keep us quiet. Alternatively, this might just cause a groundswell of resistance.
Make their gamble backfire. Help resistance to grow exponentially by sharing information about this unconstitutional act. Keep in mind that this has trampled on the right to free speech, the right to peaceful assembly, and possibly, the right to due process. Adam Kokesh is being held as a political prisoner to teach us all a lesson and to enforce their desire that we all be peaceful sheep to be herded along. If Adam Kokesh can be arrested for doing nothing more than disagreeing with the establishment, then so can you.
Think about the many outrages against personal freedoms in past years: big things like the Presidential and Congressional assaults on the Bill of Rights, Big Brother style surveillance, and the NDAA, down to simple things like people having their vegetable gardens forcibly ripped out of their front yards or going to jail for having the audacity to harvest and use rainwater.
This is NOT about the legalization of marijuana. This is about something we can all get behind - the legalization of freedom.
Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca
It appears that the human race and the UN in particular has learned nothing from our short but devastating history of inhabiting planet Earth. Not content with depleting and/or destroying the resources on the surface it seems the seabed is the latest target.
The prospect of a modern era ‘gold rush’ with the sea bed being the new frontier is moving closer by the day.
The United Nations has published its first plan for managing the extraction of so-called “nodules” – small mineral-rich rocks – from the seabed. A technical study was carried out by the UN’s International Seabed Authority – the body overseeing deep sea mining. It says companies can apply for licences and start mining from as soon as 2016.
The idea of exploiting the vast mineral reserves found in the sea bed is not new, it has been considered for decades, but new technology which would make the mining easier and safer, and the high cost of rare earth minerals seems to have provided the push needed to turn the drawing board ideas into reality.
Although experts from many different fields have highlighted the hazards that such mining would cause the UN seem hell bent on pushing through the proposal.
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) a division of the UN carried out a study and the report openly admitted that mining the seabed will cause:
“inevitable environmental damage”
Even with indications from the UN that environmental damage will occur, that biodiversity will be affected there has been a surge in applications for seabed mining licences from private and STATE OWNED companies. The licenses don’t come cheap, $500,000 each which allows the company to mine for 15 years. That of course is a drop in the ocean…no pun intended, against what these companies will earn from their pillage of the oceans.
One of the most recent applications that was granted, was to UK Seabed Resources, a subsidiary of the Lockheed Martin the US defense company.
Why these companies are interested is plain to see. A recent assessment of the eastern Pacific Ocean, an area called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone which covers an area of just under two million square miles concluded that that area alone contains around 27 billion tons of nodules. The licenses will cover the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.
With nickel, copper,cobalt and even gold contained in the rocks the lure is in some ways understandable, but at what cost?
The possibility of seabed mining has already provoked scientists to speak out against it. Biologists fear a loss of diversity and more importantly the possible disruption of the marine life food chain.
Many people rely on fish and other marine creatures as their main or only source of protein. Any disruption of the food chain would have disastrous consequences for millions of people who live in areas where livestock ownership is not possible either due to economics or the geography not supporting the raising of animals for food.
The UN set up the ISA to:
“encourage and manage seabed mining for the wider benefit of humanity-with a share of any profits going to developing countries”
It’s obvious that this is another way of saying they will pay compensation for the disruption that those living in coastal areas will suffer. Hubs will have to be built to off load the nodules and most likely processing plants to extract the valuables they contain. The spoil left after extraction will have to be dumped disposed of somewhere, most likely into the oceans, disrupting areas that were not licensed for extraction, further damaging the fragile marine eco-systems. It seems unlikely spoil will be dumped within licensed areas…it would quite literally muddy the waters and reduce extraction levels.
The ISA reports admits that:
“competency cannot be gained without actual mining on a commercial scale, but at the same time mining should not be allowed without prior demonstration of competence”
It doesn’t mention how that competency can be proven. We cannot continue to cripple the system that provides for us with impunity. Extracting much sought after resources from the sea bed may be a commercially viable option to those with billions of dollars to spend on the venture but to those that rely on the oceans for their livelihood and their food supply it could well be the straw that breaks the camels back.
Starvation is a great way to reduce to planets population. Agenda 21 wrapped up as a benefit to humanity. Nice touch.
Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
I’ve been covering the sheriffs of Colorado for some time now, especially in light of the fact that Colorado gun grabbers were pushing their agenda so hard following the Sandy Hook shooting. I first wrote about and have become friends with Hinsdale County Sheriff Ron Bruce, and his personal stand in his county against new gun laws. I covered Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he will not enforce the new state gun laws, saying they were “unenforceable” and arguing that they give a “false sense of security.” At the beginning of April, I wrote about Elbert County Colorado Sheriff Shayne Heap as he blasted Barack Obama using his state as political grandstand for gun control. Well now, these sheriffs are standing up to Governor John Hickenlooper and the Colorado legislature that has been controlled by Socialist Democrats and 54 of 62 Colorado Sheriffs are supporting the filing of a lawsuit against the new gun laws.
On Friday, the lawsuit was announced. The Denver Post reports:
At a news conference held at the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank, the sheriffs and representatives from the Colorado Farm Bureau, Women for Concealed Carry and members of Outdoor Buddies — a charitable organization for disabled individuals — explained their case Friday.
The lawsuit claims that the magazine bill, which limits gun magazines to 15 rounds, and the background check bill, which requires background checks for all transfers and sales of firearms, are unconstitutional.
The suit alleges the bills violate the 14th Amendment — plaintiffs claim aspects of the magazine bill are vaguely worded, which they believe would violate the 14th Amendment — the Second Amendment and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
“These bills do nothing to make Colorado a safer place to live, to work, to play, to raise a family,” said Weld County Sheriff John Cooke. “It should never have even gotten to this point in the first place.”
Gilpin County Sheriff Bruce Hartman believes the bills that were signed into law could have benefited from the input of the sheriffs. “In the past, (the legislature) has consulted sheriffs on DUI bills and many things like that,’” he said. “In this case, they did not wish to have our input. I think that is very obvious, and that’s disappointing.”
While there is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution, there seems to be some enforcement issues as well.
El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa said the laws are not only unconstitutional, but also confusing and unenforceable.
For example, the ban on magazines was discussed by its Democratic sponsors as applying only to those that hold more than 15 rounds, in response to mass-shooting incidents in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn.
But the law also outlaws any magazine that can be easily converted to hold more than 15 rounds, which applies to practically all magazines with a removable base plate that can be replaced with an after-market extender.
After July 1, the owners of such magazines cannot sell them, loan them or give them away. In effect, it means that even if they give their weapon to someone else for safekeeping — or, in the case of one wheelchair-bound plaintiff who spoke Friday, to hold momentarily as he gets in and out of his chair — they will be breaking the law.
The background-check requirement is also unduly burdensome, the sheriffs say. Maketa gave as an example a neighbor of his who, under the new law, would have to perform a background check on his fiancé if he left his firearm with her when he deploys with the military.
Maketa said, “It’s not a matter of whether I choose to enforce it or not. It’s unenforceable.”
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has given their support to the lawsuit. In a statement, Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said “The National Rifle Association, the many plaintiffs in this case, and the law-abiding gun owners in the state of Colorado know that the recently enacted gun control laws are unconstitutional.”
The Democrats want to make it about politics. They maintain the public is on their side, and say legislators carefully crafted the proposals that were signed.
“These laws were not constructed haphazardly,” said Democratic Sen. Mary Hodge, the sponsor of the magazine limit. “They were constructed to protect us from massacres like the ones we suffered in Aurora and Newtown.”
Some of the relatives of victims of the Colorado shooting criticized the sheriffs for filing the lawsuit and accused them of playing politics. “As a parent who lost my son Alex at the Aurora theater shooting, I ask these people to put themselves in my place,” Tom Sullivan said in a statement. “I do not understand why these politicians are picking guns over people.”
The problem that Senator Hodge and Mr. Sullivan don’t understand is that it is the Democrats and the gun control mentality of those who are most emotional in the issue that are playing with people’s lives and they are doing it in the arena of politics.
Democrats and gun grabbers have an agenda. The rest of us just want to be left alone and would like for them to follow the law, not make up new ones.
The lawsuit involves sheriffs from 54 of Colorado’s 64 counties, most representing rural, gun-friendly areas of the state.
The sheriffs have been calling on lawmakers in the state to listen to them and they have appealed to the Constitution, but the Socialist Democrats have taken over the legislature and are hell bent on helping to push the very agenda the leader of their party, Barack Hussein Obama, is attempting to force down the throats of the American people. I look forward to the outcome of this lawsuit.
Members of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus are the latest to join the many people raising concerns about GoogleGlass in a letter to Google CEO and co-founder Larry Page in which they request answers to eight pointed questions.
Many venues have preemptively banned Glass including a Seattle bar, casinos and strip clubs in Las Vegas and the entire state of West Virginia is trying to ban wearing Glass while driving, according to the Independent.
“Respect our customers privacy as we’d expect them to respect yours,” stated Seattle’s Five Point Café, becoming the first to ban Glass, according to Reuters. Some movie theaters may also join the trend.
Yet Google figures have been quick to dismiss any and all concerns.
“Criticisms are inevitably from people who are afraid of change or who have not figured out that there will be an adaptation of society to it,” Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said during a talk at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in April.
One of the questions posed by members of Congress in their letter concerned facial recognition capabilities.
Google claims that no facial recognition technology is built into the device and there are no plans to implement it “unless we have strong privacy protections in place.”
However, most readers are likely aware of the fact that the technology could indeed be rolled out silently or indeed built into the device without Google admitting it.
When Google can get out of an antitrust probe and investigations into theft of highly personaldata with less than a slap on the wrist, why would we trust them to be honest about Glass?
The members of Congress point to Google’s horrific privacy track record and ask, “we would like to know how Google plans to prevent Google Glass from unintentionally collecting data about the user/non-user without consent?”
Some of the many other important questions asked include:
What proactive steps is Google taking to protect the privacy of non-users when Google Glass is in use?
Would Google place limits on the technology and what type of information it can reveal about another person?
Given Google Glass’s sensory and processing capabilities, has Google considered making any additions or refinements to its privacy policy?
Would Google Glass collect any data about the user without the user’s knowledge and consent?
Is Google planning to make privacy a priority for future app developers?
“We request your responses to the above questions no later than Friday, June 14, 2013,” the members of Congress stated.
At a Google Glass event at the Google I/O conference, some of the questions were indirectly addressed.
“Privacy was top of mind as we designed the product,” Steve Lee, the product director for Glass, said.
“You’ll know when someone with Glass is paying attention to you. If you’re looking at Glass, you’re looking up,” Lee said, referring to the fact that the Glass display located right above the eye, according to ABC News.
“We are thinking very carefully about how we design Glass because new technology always raises new issues,” Google said in a statement. “Our Glass Explorer program, which reaches people from all walks of life, will ensure that our users become active participants in shaping the future of this technology.”
The future of the technology may not be all that bright.
“There are state wiretap laws that require consent of a user before they are recorded. Users may violate state wiretap laws while using Glass,” Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger, told ABC news.
It will be interesting to see if the members of Congress will publish Google’s specific answers to their probing and quite appropriate questions and concerns.
How the story actually put anyone in danger, even if the AP is lying about getting the story cleared by the government, is unclear.
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCY.TV from 7 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com
In the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson, and adopted by the British colonies in 1776, a clause appears that lays down a gauntlet of sorts, i.e., “when in the course of human events it becomes necessary…” Well, it seems that Dr. Andrew Wakefield has arrived at necessary crossroads and has issued challenges to British health authorities regarding the facts surrounding the MMR vaccine.
In Wakefield’s most recent video, he discusses how sentinel cases of autism were reported—as documented by Freedom of Information filings—long before he became aware of the situation or even before he co-authored The Lancet article that ‘attack dog journalist’ Brian Deer worked so diligently to have retracted, thereby disgracing Dr. Wakefield for reporting observations that were suspect with the MMR vaccine.
As a result of the British medical establishment’s apparent collusion to protect all vaccine programs, a course of action was taken to disenfranchise Dr. Wakefield; make him an exemplary professional scapegoat; but do nothing to prevent serious adverse vaccine events from occurring to infants, toddlers, and children.
Furthermore, Dr. Wakefield talks about how Dr. Maurice R Hilleman, MD, preeminent vaccine researcher at Merck & Company now deceased, came up with the mumps vaccine; the apparent collusion Hilleman used to get the mumps vaccine implemented in a state’s vaccine program and how it became ‘mainstreamed’; and why the mumps vaccine really is not efficacious. The last few minutes of this outstanding testimony may leave you speechless.
Nothing this writer could say would do Dr. Wakefield’s video presentation about the evidence of whatfactually happened in Britain regarding the MMR vaccine any justice. Therefore, I invite you to watch this 16 minute video of Dr. Wakefield laying out the facts and challenging British medical authorities to come clean about the MMR vaccine and autism in the United Kingdom. “Oh, what the hell!”
(Pictured: Artist Concept – Largest Meteoroid Ever Recorded Strikes Moon)
NASA reports:
For the past eight years NASA astronomers have been monitoring the moon for signs of explosions caused by meteoroids hitting the lunar surface.
Lunar meteor showers have turned out to be more common than anyone expected with hundreds of detectable impacts occurring every year.
They’ve just seen the biggest explosion in the history of the program. “On March 17, 2013 an object about the size of a small boulder hit the lunar surface in Mare Imbrium,” says Bill Cook of NASA’s Meteoroid Environment Office.
It exploded in a flash nearly ten times as bright as anything we’ve ever seen before.
Anyone looking at the moon at the moment of impact could have seen the explosion, no telescope required.
For about one second the impact site was glowing like a fourth magnitude start.
The 40 kilogram meteoroid measuring .3 to .4 meters wide hit the moon traveling at 56,000 miles per hour. The resulting explosion packed as much punch as five tons of TNT.
Cook believes the lunar impact might have been part of a much larger event.
“On the night of March 17 NASA and University of Western Ontario All Sky Cameras picked up an unusual number of deep penetrating meteors right here on earth,” he says.
These fireballs were travelling along nearly identical orbits between the earth and the asteroid belt.
Russia has deployed up to 50 naval warships – reportedly a large portion of their Pacific Fleet – to the Mediterranean Sea in an effort to bolster their influence in the region. Reports indicate they may soon send nuclear submarines to the region as well.
With tensions running high between Russia and the United States in recent weeks amid Syrian arms sales, the outing of a US spy in Moscow and a culture of distrust fomenting between the Putin and Obama administrations, could it be that West and East will once again face off in another Cold war? Or could it potentially go hot this time around?
Russia has previously warned that the middle east could very quickly turn to all-out war, including nuclear weaponry. Considering that neither Iran or Syria have nuclear weapons, they could only have been referring to Israel, the US, Russia and China.
Are we getting close?
According to the following report from Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, the Russians have resurrected their cold war Mediterranean naval fleet:
Warships of the Russian Pacific Fleet have reached the first time in decades, the Mediterranean Sea, a military spokesman said on Thursday. The U.S. also laid this week warships to the region.
“The task force has successfully crossed the Suez Canal and reached the Mediterranean,” citing Ria Novosti military Roman Martov. The warships are on their way to Cyprus, where they will enter the port of Limassol.
Among the warships, the destroyer Admiral Panteleyev, the amphibious warships Peresvet and Admiral Nevelskoi, the tanker Pechenga, and salvage tug Fotiy Krylov.You have the port of Vladivostok on 19 Leave in March to strengthen Russia’s Mediterranean fleet.
To use command currently belong to the large anti-submarine destroyer Severomorsk, the frigate Yaroslav Mudry, the Altai and rescue tug SB-921 and the tanker Lena from the Northern Fleet and the Baltic Fleet. In addition, the landing ship Azov comes from the Black Sea Fleet. Nuclear submarines could also reinforce the task force still, Admiral Viktor Chirkov had said on Sunday.
The Soviet Union from 1967 to 1992, a squadron of 30 to 50 ships in the Mediterranean. This was created during the Cold War the 6th To meet the U.S. Navy fleet. It seems that this squadron now resurrected.
Frank Drover is a co-editor and contributor for The Daily Sheeple, an alternative media hub for leading headlines, head lies, opinion, and commentary. Wake the flock up!
This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.TheDailySheeple.com.
The chickens have been in place a week now. The second and third laid eggs on day two. So for most of the week we have been collecting three eggs a day. Three very different eggs, large, a larger medium and medium.
The chickens are very friendly and follow you around when you are out the back. Everything you have has to be tested in case it is food and they peck everything at least once, including the baby. They reside very comfortably with the rabbit but evicted hime from his own home.
They can be quite intimidating for kids as they rush up to you all pleased to see you, if you shoo them away they run away but staying still just makes them stand by you looking expectantly up for food.
If you try and catch them they run away and they can run fast but they can easily be trapped as they come right up to you if you put your hand out. When caught they may squawk but they just stay there and don’t every try and attack you. No wonder people say chickens are ideal as dual purpose pets.
Moving the run around is a must but as it is heavy it is a two man job. A weeks worth of them browsing turning a grass patch into a completely barren patch. They need moved around daily really. As the back garden is sealed off I can let them out and they can wander where they want. Only thing is they are very nosey so if you leave the back door open they will be in looking for something else to eat.
The main bit of course is in the pudding or in this case the eggs themselves. Very tasty and a very much stronger yellow yolk. I won’t be buying any from the shops from now on. If I need more I’ll buy another bird.
All in all so far a very easy way to become self suffiicent. Doesn’t have to be expensive if you make your own coop but imo a very worthwhile investment no matter how much you spend.
Mike Kelly carried the frustration of Conservative America on his shoulders today as he grilled outgoing IRS Commissioner Steven Miller. Though his line of questions seemed like more of a “venting” session, someone in the House needed to do a little venting for Conservative Americans today.
Right-wing Americans are sick and tired of being made out to be second class citizens because we believe in the principles on which this country was built. Those of us who have ever dealt with the IRS, and felt that we were wronged, would view Kelly’s rant as mild but it’s a start. Kudos to Mike Kelly.
Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., seemed to capture the angst against the agency toward the end of the hour-long hearing, as he described the ways its agents are capable of ruining lives.
“You can put anybody out of business that you want. … When the IRS comes in there, you’re not allowed to be shoddy,” he said, suggesting the agency’s leadership was being held to a different standard now that it is coming under scrutiny.
“This is absolutely an overreach, and this is an outrage for all Americans,” he said.
When he finished, the committee room erupted in cheers and applause that lasted several seconds.
The hearing, though, was more than just venting.
While Democrats voiced concern that the latest scandal would be used to score “political points,” lawmakers on both sides of the aisle scolded the agency. And they made clear they’d be pressuring the IRS in the weeks to come on several points – namely, who was responsible and whether lawmakers were overtly lied to last year.
In a related story, Representative Kelly also released a statement today to inquire if “Auto Dealership Closures” were also political. The letter was co-signed by Rep. Jim Renacci (R-OH) and Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA). Here is Kelly’s statement with a link to the letter he co-signed:
The IRS’s now-confirmed targeting of conservative groups is a frightening reminder that no branch or department of the federal government is immune from overstepping legal and ethical boundaries. Oftentimes holding government accountable means having to dig for the truth, which is exactly what this letter is about. The Treasury Department’s Inspector General report from the aftermath of the auto bailouts indicated that ‘little or no documentation of the decision-making process to terminate or retain dealerships’ exists, making it ‘impossible in many cases’ to determine if decisions deviated from ‘supposedly objective criteria.’ In light of the department’s unthinkable breaches of public trust still being revealed by the IRS scandal, my colleagues and I have a duty to examine whether auto dealers across the country saw their businesses close as a result of similar political profiling.
Todays sunspot number is 198 and NOAA estimate the chance of an M-Class flare at 75% over the next 24 hours and 50% for an X-Class during the same period.
Sunspot AR1748 has once again unleashed a flare, this time a M3 class, not the largest we have seen from this sunspot but its position on the sun disc could make it the most geoeffective so far. You can see the video of the CME leaving the Sun here.
A minor geomagnetic storm is currently in progress from the CME impact of May 18th, that one caused by a large flare two days ago.
NOAA estimate a 75% chance of geomagnetic storms when the next CME hits on May 19th.
Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not be indicted within the 30 days even though that is the requirement under the Federal Speedy Trial Act. Prosecutors didn’t explain why they need more time, just that the indictment will not be going ahead on Monday as was previously expected.
Tsarnaev is charged with using a weapon of mass destruction in the Boston marathon bombing that killed 3 and injured 260.
Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
As a multitude of hazardous wireless technologies are deployed in homes, schools and workplaces, government officials and industry representatives continue to insist on their safety despite growing evidence to the contrary. A major health crisis looms that is only hastened through the extensive deployment of “smart grid” technology.
In October 2009 at Florida Power and Light’s (FPL) solar energy station President Barack Obama announced that $3.4 billion of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act would be devoted to the country’s “smart energy grid” transition. Matching funds from the energy industry brought the total national Smart Grid investment to $8 billion. FPL was given $200 million of federal money to install 2.5 million “smart meters” on homes and businesses throughout the state.[1]
By now many residents in the United States and Canada have the smart meters installed on their dwellings. Each of these meters is equipped with an electronic cellular transmitter that uses powerful bursts of electromagnetic radiofrequency (RF) radiation to communicate with nearby meters that together form an interlocking network transferring detailed information on residents’ electrical usage back to the utility every few minutes or less. Such information can easily be used to determine individual patterns of behavior based on power consumption.
The smart grid technology is being sold to the public as a way to “empower” individual energy consumers by allowing them to access information on their energy usage so that they may eventually save money by programming “smart” (i.e, wireless enabled) home appliances and equipment that will coordinate their operability with the smart meter to run when electrical rates are lowest. In other words, a broader plan behind smart grid technology involves a tiered rate system for electricity consumption that will be set by the utility to which customers will have no choice but to conform.
Because of power companies’ stealth rollout of smart meters a large majority of the public still remains unaware of the dangers they pose to human health. This remains the case even though states such as Maine have adopted an “opt out” provision for their citizens. The devices have not been safety-tested by Underwriters Laboratory and thus lack the UL approval customary for most electronics.[2] Further, power customers are typically told by their utilities that the smart meter only communicates with the power company “a few times per day” to transmit information on individual household energy usage. However, when individuals obtained the necessary equipment to do their own testing they found the meters were emitting bursts of RF radiation throughout the home far more intense than a cell phone call every minute or less.[3]
America’s Telecom-friendly Policy for RF Exposure
A growing body of medical studies is now linking cumulative RF exposure to DNA disruption, cancer, birth defects, miscarriages, and autoimmune diseases. Smart meters significantly contribute to an environment already polluted by RF radiation through the pervasive stationing of cellular telephone towers in or around public spaces and consumers’ habitual use of wireless technologies. In the 2000 Salzburg Resolution European scientists recommended the maximum RF exposure for humans to be no more than one tenth of a microwatt per square centimeter. In the United States RF exposure limits are 1,000 microwatts per centimeter, with no limits for long term exposure.[4] Such lax standards have been determined by outdated science and the legal and regulatory maneuvering of the powerful telecommunications and wireless industries.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ceased studying the health effects of radiofrequency radiation when the Senate Appropriations Committee cut the department’s funding and forbade it from further research into the area.[5] Thereafter RF limits were codified as mere “guidelines” based on the EPA’s tentative findings and are to this day administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
These weakly enforced standards are predicated on the alleged “thermal effect” of RF. In other words, if the energy emitted from a wireless antenna or device is not powerful enough to heat the skin or flesh then no danger is posed to human health.[6] This reasoning is routinely put forward by utilities installing smart meters on residences, telecom companies locating cellular transmission towers in populated areas, and now school districts across the US allowing the installation of cell towers on school campuses.[7]
The FCC’s authority to impose this standard was further reinforced with the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that included a provision lobbied for by the telecom industry preventing state and local governments from evaluating potential environmental and health effects when locating cell towers “so long as ‘such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions.’”[8]
In 2001 an alliance of scientists and engineers with the backing of the Communications Workers of America filed a federal lawsuit hoping the Supreme Court would reconsider the FCC’s obsolete exposure guidelines and the Telecom Act’s overreach into state and local jurisdiction. The high court refused to hear the case. When the same group asked the FCC to reexamine its guidelines in light of current scientific studies the request was rebuffed.[9] Today in all probability millions are suffering from a variety of immediate and long-term health effects from relentless EMF and RF exposure that under the thermal effect rationale remain unrecognized or discounted by the telecom industry and regulatory authorities alike.
Growing Evidence of Health Risks From RF Exposure
The main health concern with electromagnetic radiation emitted by smart meters and other wireless technologies is that EMF and RF cause a breakdown in the communication between cells in the body, interrupting DNA repair and weakening tissue and organ function. These are the findings of Dr. George Carlo, who oversaw a comprehensive research group commissioned by the cell phone industry in the mid-1990s.
When Carlo’s research began to reveal how there were indeed serious health concerns with wireless technology, the industry sought to bury the results and discredit Carlo. Yet Carlo’s research has since been upheld in a wealth of subsequent studies and has continuing relevance given the ubiquity of wireless apparatuses and the even more powerful smart meters. “One thing all these conditions have in common is a disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular communication,” Carlo observes. “When we were growing up, TV antennas were on top of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell phones and Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the street, integrated them into the environment, and that’s absolutely new.”[10]
In 2007 the BioInitiative Working Group, a worldwide body of scientists and public health experts, released a 650-page document with over 2000 studies linking RF and EMF exposure to cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, DNA damage, immune system dysfunction, cellular damage and tissue reduction.[11]
In May 2011 the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer categorized “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless cellphone use.”[12]
In November 2011 the Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), a national organization of medical and osteopathic physicians, called on California’s Public Utilities Commission to issue a moratorium on the continued installation of smart meters in residences and schools “based on a scientific assessment of the current available literature.” “[E]xisting FCC guidelines for RF safety that have been used to justify installations of smart meters,” the panel wrote,
“only look at thermal tissue damage and are obsolete, since many modern studies show metabolic and genomic damage from RF and ELF exposure below the level of intensity which heats tissues … More modern literature shows medically and biologically significant effects of RF and ELF at lower energy densities. These effects accumulate over time, which is an important consideration given the chronic nature of exposure from ‘smart meters.’”[13]
In April 2012 the AAEM issued a formal position paper on the health effects of RF and EMF exposure based on a literature review of the most recent research. The organization pointed to how government and industry arguments alleging the doubtful nature of the science on non-thermal effects of RF were not defensible in light of the newest studies. “Genetic damage, reproductive defects, cancer, neurological degeneration and nervous system dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, cognitive effects, protein and peptide damage, kidney damage, and developmental effects have all been reported in the peer‐reviewed scientific literature,” AAEM concluded.[14]
In his recent testimony before Congress, US Attorney General Eric Holder, the so-called highest law-enforcement officer in the land, responded to questions about the AP scandal.
Holder’s Justice Dept. had secretly subpoenaed and seized the phone records of Associated Press reporters.
Holder stated he didn’t know anything about anything, because he had recused himself from the issue and recused himself from the new internal DOJ investigation of the matter.
What?
Huh?
His own agency, the US Dept. of Justice, had spied secretly on reporters. But he, Holder, the head of that agency, decided to remain entirely ignorant about the whole fiasco, once he discovered the vague outline of what was going on.
This is like the manager of a car agency learning that 50 new cars in his lot have packets of heroin in their glove compartments, and immediately withdrawing to Bermuda for a fishing vacation.
The Congressional committee then asked Holder about the new internal DOJ investigation of itself vis-a-vis the AP scandal. Holder said he wasn’t absolutely sure about that either, because, again, he had recused himself.
This is like that car-agency manager sitting in his boat in Bermuda and putting a blindfold over his eyes and plugs in his ears.
Why did Holder recuse himself? Unasked, unanswered. That in itself is staggering.
Possibly, he recused himself because he might be a target of the ensuing investigation into the scandal. In other words, he needed to avoid the appearance of being in charge of his own agency, from which position he could, theoretically, let himself off the hook?!?!
In that case, his power is decimated. He’s a sitting duck. He’s nobody.
Some unit of the Justice Department is tasked with figuring out how and why the DOJ spied on reporters—and who is to say that unit is automatically free from political influence and corruption? Who is to say that unit will do an honest job and indict employees of the DOJ?
In other words, it’s a no-win situation. Doesn’t matter who, at the Dept. of Justice, does or doesn’t recuse himself. Holder could have kept his head in the game and pushed the internal investigation himself. But he didn’t.
He’s the village idiot. He doesn’t know anything about anything.
The press doesn’t gang up and attack him hard.
“Listen, Mr. Holder. We’re not buying your recusal or your ignorance. You’re the man in charge. You’re the boss. If you don’t know what’s going on, what good are you?”
“Mr. Holder, when exactly did you okay the secret seizing of AP reporters’ phone records? We know you did. When was it?”
“What? You never did okay the spying and seizing, Mr. Holder? You mean you, the boss, didn’t know what was happening on your watch? Your people feel no need to get your approval for a major op like this?”
“We’re camping out on your doorstep until we get some real answers.”
NONE of this has happened. The press has whined and complained, and that’s about it.
“I don’t know who put all those packets of heroin in the new cars, and I don’t want to know. Maybe somebody thinks I OKed it, and they’ll investigate me. So it’s my duty to remain as ignorant as I can about the whole thing, to preserve neutrality and integrity…”
Holder is saying that any knowledge he might have, but doesn’t, about the original plan to spy on reporters, about the actual spying, about the aftermath of the spying, and about the new internal investigation into the spying…any knowledge on these subjects could make him INFORMED, and therefore, better able to lie now to investigators, if he were so disposed, which of course he isn’t.
Right? Got it? Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Irrefutable logic. No problem. Let’s all take a nap.
Imagine if this happened. A few months after 9/11, the director of the CIA appears before 9/11 Commission and states the following:
“Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve intentionally kept myself entirely ignorant about what the Agency knew leading up to 9/11, what the Agency found out on the day of 9/11, and what the Agency has learned since 9/11. I exist in a pristine state about all these matters, because if you investigate me for malfeasance, I want to be able to say, unequivocally, that I haven’t been tainted by actual knowledge, which I could then twist to my own advantage. And I haven’t covered myself with lies, because I have no idea what the truth is. I trust you understand this. I trust you understand the sacrifice I’ve made in order to help you arrive at the truth. It has not been easy watching sports 24/7 and keeping myself from the news of the day. I have suffered. But I do it because I’m a patriot. You’re welcome.”
Holder actually believes we’re buying his act?
Well, I hate to say this, but he does. He thinks he can get over. He thinks he can slither through and around and over the press.
And he’s probably right, judging by what the press has and hasn’t done so far.
The man is a towering liar and fabricator. He’s all lies all the way up and down.
Can’t the committee before whom he’s testifying at least fall down laughing, because they’re seeing a man like them working his act?
“Wow, Eric, I thought I’d been witness to some major bullshit in my time, but you’re in another league. I’ve told some tall tales, but this, this pose of see no evil, it’s championship material. Really. You’ve taken me to school. I’m awed. Where do I sign up? I need what you’ve got. I really do. You’re pushing Bill Clinton for the heavyweight belt.”
Holder: “I can’t comment on that comment or anything else. I’m merely saying I have no knowledge or understanding of anything, and I’ve achieved this state of mind on purpose. Therefore, I’m clean. I’m a machine carefully built to specs of ignorance, a machine with no function. In that sense, I’m perfect.”
We may be seeing the greatest bureaucratic ploy in the history of the democracy.
Imagine a million bureaucrats like him. Each one defers to the other, who in turn expresses the same across-the-board Zero. At the end of it, the apparatus spits out a blank piece of paper and everybody goes home.
Yes, government is wonderful. It’s cosmically zen. It’s what we all want.
Life without life.
To top it off, Obama, at his press conference yesterday, said he has full confidence in Holder. Meaning: Obama is sure Holder will remain a blank slate.
“I have full confidence that the man who is running the Department of Justice isn’t running it. He’s staring at the wall. That’s what I want him to do.”
Recusal, the actual version, works like this. A lawyer who once represented a client suing a chemical company for damage is now an appeals judge. Another case involving the same company comes up for review. The judge backs out. He says, “I once went up against the company in court, so I won’t get involved now.”
What Holder is doing is from another planet. He’s found a way to take the Fifth without admitting he has anything to incriminate himself about.
“Mr. Jones, were you at the restaurant on the night of the murder?”
“I recuse myself from answering that question.”
“What?”
“I don’t want to give the impression that I have any knowledge about the murder.”
“But you’re on trial for the murder, sir.”
“Yes, and that in itself is prejudicial. Do you see? Aspersions about my character and actions have been cast. I wish to remove myself from the possibility of such accusations.”
“You can’t. That’s why you’re here. We suspect you of committing murder.”
“I recuse myself.”
“Are you invoking your Fifth Amendment rights?”
“Absolutely not. That would imply I have some knowledge about the crime. I reject that characterization.”
“You Honor, the witness is unresponsive. Please instruct him to answer my original question.”
“As a judge, I find the defendant’s posture of recusal interesting. I think we’ll let him go with a warning and a small fine. Three hours of community service in the White House, for which he’ll earn seven thousand dollars an hour. Court is adjourned.”
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
Two disturbing developments have occurred in the last couple of days that have gone relatively unnoticed compared to the recent IRS, AP, and Benghazi scandals.
First, the senate is debating an expansion of the already broad powers of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) so the U.S. can essentially engage any area in the world in the war on terror, including America. Which brings us to the second development: the Pentagon has recently granted itself police powers on American soil.
Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Sheehan told Congress yesterday that the AUMF authorized the US military to operate on a worldwide battlefield from Boston to Pakistan. Sheehan emphasized that the Administration is authorized to put boots on the ground wherever the enemy chooses to base themselves, essentially ignoring the declaration of war clause in the US Constitution.
Senator Angus King said this interpretation of the AUMF is a “nullity” to the Constitution because it ignores Congress’ role to declare war. King called it the “most astoundingly disturbing hearing” he’s been to in the Senate.
Even ultra-hawk John McCain agreed that the AUMF has gone way beyond its authority.
“This authority … has grown way out of proportion and is no longer applicable to the conditions that prevailed, that motivated the United States Congress to pass the authorization for the use of military force that we did in 2001,” McCain said.
Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent piece describing how this hearing reveals the not-so-secret plan to make the war on terror a permanent fixture in Western society.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that this war has no purpose other than its own eternal perpetuation. This war is not a means to any end but rather is the end in itself. Not only is it the end itself, but it is also its own fuel: it is precisely this endless war – justified in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism – that is the single greatest cause of that threat.
A self-perpetuating permanent war against a shadowy undefinable enemy appears to be the future of American foreign policy. How convenient for the war machine and tyrants who claim surveillance is safety.
But perhaps most disturbing of all of this is the military’s authority to police American streets as if it was in civil war. For all those still in denial that America is a militarized police state, this should be the ultimate cure to your delusion.
By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule: “Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.”
A law from 1878 called the Posse Comitatus Act was put in place to prevent the Department of Defense from interfering with local law enforcement. But now, the DoD claims they’ve had this authority for over 100 years.
“The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy,” said an unnamed defense official who also emphasized that all soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies “foreign and domestic” indicating that citizens are a threat to the Constitution.
Yet, the Constitution is a document that polices the government, not the people. In other words, the only people who can be “enemies” of the Constitution are those who took an oath to defend it. Therefore, only government officials can be an enemy the Constitution.
This follows a recent West Point study that sought to define the American people as “domestic enemies” in order to justify soldiers breaking their oath to corral pesky citizens.
The West Point Terrorism Center wrote that “conspiracy theorists” who worry that local law enforcement will be steadily replaced by federally-controlled law enforcement could potentially be a domestic enemy:
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.
So, as the US military claims to have the authority to be a “National Police” force, researchers who claim there is an agenda to do just that are now labeled as domestic terrorists?
Does this make any sense? Will oath takers see through these ridiculous interpretations and engage the real domestic enemy to the Constitution? Or will they just follow orders when the time comes to crack down on Americans?
About 60 people have been injured, five critically, after a head-on, rush-hour collision between two commuter trains near New York City, officials say.
Some 250 people were on the trains involved in Friday evening’s crash. No fatalities have been reported.
Officials said a train that left New York City’s Grand Central station en route to New Haven, Connecticut, derailed then was hit by another train.
Amtrak has suspended its service between New York and Boston.
Metro-North Railroad described it as a “major derailment”, just outside Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy said the front of one of the trains had been extensively damaged and its wheels were “sticking into the other train”.
One of the five people with the most serious injuries was described as being in a “very critical” condition.
Investigators are trying to find out what caused the crash, which came shortly after 18:00 local time (22:00 GMT).
Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
Vermont seemed more likely than ever to become the first US state to mandate the labeling of genetically modified food (GMO) after a bill passed the state house, though legislators worry about a lawsuit threat from biotech giant Monsanto.
Similar bills seeking to provide consumers with labels at the grocery store that highlight what products contain GMOs have recently failed. In California, a ballot initiative which bypassed Congress after receiving 850,000 signatures was defeated in 2012 after a large consortium of biotech companies including Monsanto spent some $50 million on an ad blitz against the legislation.
As RT reported in late April, a new federal bill which would mandate the labeling of GMOs, the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, was introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR). Though few expect such laws to pass on a national level, the bill was notable for its inclusion of a wider base of bipartisan support, with nine Senate co-sponsors and 22 cosponsors in the House.
Though sixty-four other countries, including EU members, China, Russia, Brazil, India and Japan already have existing regulations in place to label GMOs for consumers the issue is a highly contentious one in the US, both at the federal and state level.
According to Senator Boxer, more than 90 per cent of Americans support the labeling of genetically engineered products. Though the Food and Drug Administration requires the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives and processes it does not consider GMOs to be “materially” different as they cannot be tasted, smelled or identified by consumers by other means.
A demonstrator holds a sign during a rally in support of the state’s upcoming Proposition 37 ballot measure in San Francisco, California October 6, 2012. (Reuters / Stephen Lam)
Legally, part of the argument for labeling GMOs rests on the US Patent and Trademark Office determination that GMOs are in actually materially different and novel, at least for patents filed by the biotech companies that produce and sell these products.
As for Vermont’s bill, according to coverage by local public radio no state representatives had any opposition to transparency in food labeling, though some were concerned by a looming lawsuit by the biotech industry.
“Nobody else has passed a similar bill. They all seem to be waiting for Vermont to go first and lead the nation, ” said Representative Tom Koch (R-Barre).
“What they mean is they don’t want to risk their taxpayers’ money; they want us to risk Vermonters’ money. That is a $5 million to $10 million risk, and one I am not willing to take,” he added.
No representatives on Thursday argued against the concept of more transparent food labeling. The most frequent point of opposition voiced on the floor concerned a likely lawsuit from the biotech or food industries that the Attorney General’s Office estimates could cost the state more than $5 million.
Vermont’s legislation appears to have been watered down to partly guard against the threat of legal action taken by companies like Monsanto, exempting meat, milk and eggs from animals fed or treated with genetically engineered products, which would include GMO corn feed and the rBGH cattle hormone.
In the US genetically modified food is widely available. As much as 90 per cent of corn, sugar beet and soybean crops are genetically altered, and some 70 per cent of processed foods at a typical supermarket contain GMOs. Other common GMO items include tomatoes, potatoes and squash.
If passed by Vermont’s senate and signed into law, the new labeling requirements would likely not go into effect for another two years. Activists believe that the legislation stands a good chance, owing to its wide margin of support 107-37 in the house.
The so-called Monsanto Protection Act signed into law earlier this year caused such an outrage that people around the world are planning to protest the biotech company later this month. Now a United States senator is expected to try and repeal that law.
According to the Huffington Post, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) plans to introduce an amendment in Washington that would repeal Section 735 from the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013, a provision that has put St. Louis, Missouri-based Monsanto in the sights of environmentalists around the world.
Deep within the nearly 600-page spending bill, Section 735 includes language that lets biotech companies that experiment with genetically-engineered and genetically-modified crops test and sell lab-made products even if legal action is taken against them.
“The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards,” dozens of farmers wrote the House of Representatives before the bill was passed in March. “Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks.”
But despite pleas from agriculturalists around the world, both the Senate and House approved the spending bill — with Section 735 in tow — and the act was signed into law just days later by US President Barack Obama.
Since being passed in late March, the spending bill has attracted immense criticism from all different sectors, including small-time farmers, Tea Party activists and even members of Congress. According to Huffington Post, however, Sen. Merkley is expected to be the first lawmaker in Washington to walk into the Capitol with a plan to repeal the amendment. HuffPo reported on Thursday that Merkley is planning to introduce an amendment on a separate farm bill going up to vote shortly that will reverse the so-called ‘Protection Act.’
Should the prediction prove correct, it would suggest a change of heart for Sen. Merkley. According to the Vote Smart Project, Merkley was one of 73 senators that voted in favor of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act when it went up for vote on March 22. Only 26 senators voted ‘nay’ during that hearing, and the House approved it shortly thereafter.
Monsanto has called Section 735 “a positive step to ensure US farmers and our food chain are shielded from supply disruptions caused by litigation over procedural issues unrelated to sound science or the safety of biotech crops.”
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) told Politico earlier this year that he co-authored the language of the amendment along with Monsanto. Previously, Blunt received $64,250 from Monsanto to go towards his campaign committee between 2008 and 2012.
Demonstrations are scheduled in 36 countries on six continents later this month for anti-Monsanto activists to come together and protest the company.
Speaking to Bloomberg this week, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant said his critics exercise a “strange kind of reverse elitism” fueled by social media campaigns to condemn his company.
“Most of the people that become motivated to engage the political issues have become convinced that going down the road of genetically engineered foods is not the way to meet the needs of a food insecure population,” Grant said. “There is space in the supermarket shelf for all of us.”
The secretive Bilderberg Group has had more exposure in the past several years than it has since its founding in 1954. This is due mostly to the alternative media pushing the issue to the forefront.
What is the end game of this merger? It is possible to reverse-engineer the Google-Berg plan by sifting through open source information. In this article we will be connecting the dots to paint a picture of what is very likely the big picture plan of the Google-Bilderberg partnership.
This partnership entails the networking of powerful individuals who operate vast networks of influence. Among these include Banks, technology developers, CEO’s of corporations and Prime Ministers.
In his 2011 book How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance, Parag Khanna – Director of the Global Governance Initiative at the New America Foundation -outlines a vision for the future in which mega corporations, NGO’s and governments team up to govern the globe.
As the Asia Times reports“Apart from the usual government/institutional suspects, Khanna includes an array of extra players in the new rulers of the world, mostly powerful NGOs such as the Gates Foundation. These players are particularly fond of the global conference circuit – from the annual bash at in Davos of the World Economic Forum (WEF) to the seductively mysterious Bilderberg Group.”
An example of these individuals “fondness of the global conference circuit” is a 2009 meeting in New York at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Rockefeller Foundation. As to the secrecy of the meeting, a guest said, “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government.”
This is the backdrop to the Google-Berg merger. Governments are going broke. Globalist influences have broken down national borders. Tax exempt foundations and mega corporations are filling the gap.
These groups are essentially hijacking national government’s policies and advancing a top down, authoritarian system of control. In an interview with the Seattle Times, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was asked, “Some say the emergence of super rich philanthropies like the Gates Foundation has undermined the effectiveness of the U.N. and its member organizations, like the WHO.” Moon responded,
“On the contrary that is what we really want — contributions from the business community as well as philanthropies. We need to have political support, but it doesn’t give us all that we need. NGOs and philanthropies and many foundations such as Bill Gates Foundation — they’re taking a very important role…”
The Gates Foundation has successfully hijacked America’s national education policy. To demonstrate the intimate relationship that the Gates Foundation has with the Obama administration, this 2009 article points out that within the first four months of his Presidency, Obama appointed four high ranking officials from the Gates Foundation.
The Bilderberg conglomerate is tapping into this immense power to advance its objectives.
Planned-Opolis
What will the future look like under the direction of mega corporations and philanthropic organizations?
Parag Khanna and Ayesha Khanna write in Foreign Policy magazine, “As we move into the Hybrid Age, whoever has the capacity to mange the intersection of technology, capital, and identity can become a pole of power.”
As we have seen, tax exempt foundations and corporations like Google have taken on a powerful role in global affairs. Governments are increasingly taking a back seat to the influence of these groups. Some have charged that they are “monopolizing development.”
In joining with Bilderberg, Google is preparing to enter this “Hybrid Age” of advancing technology and rapidly changing geopolitical landscapes with its hands gripped tightly on the reigns of power. With this merger, the world is set to be shaped into a highly surveilled and planned system at the direction of unelected elitists.
In 2010 the Forum for the Future presented a vision of the future in which mega-cities are run by supercomputers and citizens lives are tightly controlled.
The Forum for the Future is backed by Bank of America, Sony, the City of London Corporation, PepsiCo UK, Time Warner, and Royal Dutch Shell. Each of these entities have representatives at the Bilderberg Group.
Their vision for the future was called “Planned-Opolis”:
These mega-cities will likely be based on an ongoing project in a South Korean city called New Songdo. The “U-City” will deploy so called “ubiquitous computing” technology that enables the monitoring of citizens 24/7 via pressure sensitive floors that track your walk to computer chips that are embedded everywhere in the environment. U-cities are described as places where “…all major information systems (residential, medical, business, governmental and the like) share data, and computers (e.g., RFID, smart cards and sensor-based devices) are built into the houses, streets, bridges and office buildings.”
Bill Gates’ Microsoft Corporation is playing a key role in developing technology for New Songdo. While a large portion of the technology is being developed in the U.S., it is being tested in South Korea where there are historically less traditional, ethical and social blockades to prevent its acceptance and use.
Are we headed to a Rollerball like future in which corporations have replaced countries? According to Parag and Ayesha Khanna we are indeed headed in that direction. In the Hybrid Age, mega coporations will provide advanced technology to their constituents and thus gain loyalty. As we stray away from broken governments to provide security and prosperity, these entities will fill the gap.
“Employees of Facebook or Google can spend their days on campuses that are effectively full-service communes; the same is happening in companies in Russia, India, and China. One day a corporate passport might afford them greater freedom of mobility than their national citizenship.”
In 2008 the Washington Post published an article titled “Washington’s Future, a History.” The Post gathered trends analysts, university heads and government officials to look into the future and develop potential scenarios.
The Post depicts a future in which small scale terror attacks and angry rioters plague the streets while implantable ID chips allow government workers to pass through checkpoints unmolested. Economic decline and cyber terrorism fracture the country. Bobbie Kilberg, president of the Northern Virginia Technology Council, told the Washington Post, “Basic functions of government will be outsourced.”
In the Post’s vision of the future, “Google LifeServices” provide the wealthy with employment at “work pods,” goods, and other services in one complex. Those who subscribe have access to,
“…entertainment and socializing… gathering goods, eating and working. The new subscription retailing was catching on in cavernous buildings, old big box stores that had been reconstituted as workspaces.
Here, people could spend a good chunk of their day, moving seamlessly from their work pod to take in a movie with a friend, choose the dinner items that would be delivered before they got home, and take care of the day’s errands, all while staying in constant touch with colleagues, and all for one monthly Google LifeServices subscription fee.”
The global elite are pushing the globe toward a dystopic future in which all aspects of life are in some way managed by their interests.
Humanity cannot afford to blindly accept this future, no matter how attractive the propaganda might seem. On June 6 the Bilderberg conference will commence. The future of humanity will be discussed by a handful of elites with agendas that will have a far reaching impact on all of our lives.
You may have heard of 76-year-old Vernon Hugh Bowman from Indiana who tenaciously took on Monsanto all the way to the Supreme Court over a patent infringement claim.
Since the Supreme Court upheld Monsanto’s end the other day, Bowman now owes $84,456 to the multi-billion GMO giant Monsanto.
It was a landmark case with currently unknown implications, especially for farmers whose fields are unwittingly contaminated with patented Monsanto seeds. You can read more details on the case here.
According to a fund-raising effort created by Garret John LoPorto, Bowman barely has enough to make ends meet, using run-down tractors and having tried using second-hand seeds from granaries.
The desire to help Bowman comes from people not wanting his family to live under the burden of the looming debt.
They want to show him that people will rally to help small farmers like him, that he hasn’t lost his support and that Monsanto has an increasing “groundswell” of enemies. The campaign has already received over $5,000 dollars in 48 hours and continues until July 11.
The effort was inspired by a website called UpRising where people share ideas and get together to create solutions and support.
Home
RSS Feed
Newsletter
Bookmark Us
Facebook
Twitter
A demonstrator holds a sign during a rally in support of the state’s upcoming Proposition 37 ballot measure in San Francisco, California October 6, 2012. (Reuters / Stephen Lam)
