Uncategorized

The hoax at the bottom of Autism and Alzheimer’s

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001QhuZciaLI3V9jLDcU5_Qw4sQpDcMO69ofrV2EEvW6T-I9cj333ndekeVHPWVrtiVyDPuTAPd8qPKIlNXqtKrPvyBRq6aKRsrFWuFjFJQg34%3D

The hoax at the bottom of Autism and Alzheimer’s

The hoax at the bottom of Autism and Alzheimer’s

by Jon Rappoport

March 22, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

For the medical cartel, Autism and Alzheimer’s are big, big business. Profits are soaring.

These two conditions are promoted as specific diseases. That’s where all the trouble starts.

If you read the Alzheimer’s and Autism definitions, which are the criteria for diagnosis contained in the psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), you find there are no physical tests of any kind.

No blood tests, no saliva tests, no urine tests, no genetic tests, no brain scans.

Instead, what you see are lists and menus of behaviors.

What does this mean?

First of all, it means researchers haven’t found the cause of these conditions. If they had, they would state it.

So how do you say you’ve located a specific disease if you don’t know the cause? Answer: you can’t.

Take four people who are 70 years old and are experiencing severe memory loss. You’re a researcher. You don’t know why these people have this problem. You can guess, you can talk about maybe-this or maybe-that, but you don’t know.

Therefore, you can’t say the cause of the memory loss in each case is the same. It might well be different for each person.

Should you make up a label like Alzheimer’s and slap it on all four people? Of course not. A single label means a single cause. Otherwise, why use the label?

But you don’t know the cause. No matter how many behavioral characteristics of memory loss you name, you don’t know the cause.

Therefore, you have no business applying a single label to those four people. That’s not science. It might be marketing for drugs, it might be a lot of things, it might be about obtaining grant monies, but it isn’t science.

Take four young children who have suddenly withdrawn from the world. Same principle applies. If you slap them with the Autism label, you’re lying. You don’t know the cause of that withdrawal in any of the children.

Now, if you were the parent of one of these children, and you noticed that soon after the child was stuck with multiple vaccines, he developed a fever and then he withdrew from the world, you would, indeed, know something vital.

But if you’re an unbiased researcher a thousand miles away from these four children, all you know, at the outset, is that they all withdrew.

In two cases, the cause might have been vaccination. In another case, it might have been severe and chronic malnutrition or a reaction to heavy metals in food. In another case, the child might have developed a brain lesion. There are a number of possibilities.

Why then slap all four children with the label Autism?

Just because they exhibit the same general characteristic? That’s patently ridiculous.

Let’s take this a step farther. Suppose you had a group of 500 children, all of whom withdrew and folded up after receiving a load of vaccine. You know these vaccines contain toxins. You know the toxins were injected. You know the toxins can cause neurological damage.

Well, what are you waiting for? These are cases of VACCINE DAMAGE. It’s not Autism caused by vaccine damage. It’s not Autism or Cd3syt or Vcti45 or any other arbitrary label. It’s not a disease or a disorder. It’s poisoning. Do you say a person who develops a severe and chronic problem after eating fish loaded with poison has a disease? Is it the fish-eating disease?

Of course, we know that exonerating vaccines keeps a giant industry from destruction. And we know that putting a disease label on people opens the door to enormous profits. Drug-company profits. “Well, we’re researching several promising medicines for Autism…”

You don’t hear, “We’re investigating remedies for vaccine poisoning and exposure to industrial pollutants.”

Alzheimer’s researchers are very fond of talking about “biomarkers” and “imaging.” They keep testing blood and the spinal fluid. But they don’t know enough to include the results of those tests in the official definition of Alzheimer’s.

And think about this: suppose one biomarker finally emerges as a common denominator in a study examining 5000 people who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s? Who is to say the cause of that biomarker is the same in all 5000 people? This is not a trivial point. It’s crucial.

If, for example, chemicals can cause genetic changes, and then cancer researchers hail “new genetic findings in investigating the cause of cancer,” at what level are they plugging into the true situation? If they keep ignoring the chemicals, how far are they going to get?

Researchers and the press keep promoting a fairy tale: “If we diagnose people who show the same behavioral factors with a single disease label, and if we keep examining these people for common biomarkers, we’ll find the cause of the disease.”

Well, look at the DSM. It contains 297 official disorders, all labeled. Many of these so-called disorders have been investigated for decades. And yet, not one disorder lists a specific across-the-board diagnostic test that can define it.

Taking all this to a conclusion, we have this: there is no reason to suppose that Alzheimer’s or Autism exists.

Damage exists. And there are cogent reasons to infer that, in different individuals, the causes are different.

Therefore, what we need are very capable and independent-minded health practitioners who can investigate one patient at a time and find out what really caused his/her problem.

That is why, when somebody tells me he’s found the cause of Alzheimer’s or Autism, and the cure, I know he’s on the wrong track. He failed to notice that these conditions don’t exist. Damage exists.

In the alternative field, I’ve read journal articles that begin: “New discovery may revolutionize the treatment of Alzheimer’s…”

The author of the article was bamboozled. He accepted the idea that Alzheimer’s was a single disease. His opening sentence should have read: “New discovery may revolutionize the treatment of that thing that doesn’t exist…”

Then he and everybody else would see the error.

Damage exists. Memory loss exists. Withdrawing from the world exists. Suffering exists. Pain exists. Finding what caused it in a single patient, one at a time, is a step toward healing.

And healing is what it’s supposed to be all about.

The correct metaphor here is the detective. Suppose he says, “Well, we have a murder, and we know that murder is caused by bullets. So we’ll find the bullets and that will constitute the solution to the case.”

The detective investigates each case on its own facts and merits. He brings a wealth of experience to his work. He knows patterns in murders. He knows what sometimes turns out to be the answer. He applies what he knows. He uses clues. He uses logic. He tries one avenue, and if it doesn’t pan out, he embarks on another avenue. He keeps looking. He provisionally uses generalities, but he also avoids them. This is called intelligence. It’s called discernment. It’s called caring about finding the truth.

If genuine healing were the objective, practitioners would approach so-called Alzheimer’s and Autism patients very differently.

The fact that most medical doctors don’t is, at the very least, criminal negligence.

Back in the 1990’s, I interviewed the mother of a boy who had been diagnosed with Autism. He wasn’t a case of vaccine damage, because he’d never been vaccinated.

His health practitioner, during an extensive conversation with the mother, did discover a forgotten head injury at the age of three. The boy was now 16.

The practitioner tried a course of hyperbaric oxygen treatments, based on the hypothesis that some brain cells were in an “idling state,” and had never awakened after the injury. The treatments helped somewhat. The boy became a bit more communicative.

The practitioner then shifted the boy’s diet several times, and in the process found out he was having a severe and chronic reaction to milk and other dairy products. So they were eliminated from the diet. After a month, the boy came a bit more out of his shell. His awkward physical movements lessened.

Supplementation with minerals produced further results. The boy’s speech cleared up gradually. He mumbled less. His spoke more forcefully.

At this point, for the first time, the boy was willing to undertake a light exercise program. After a month or so, it produced dividends. His muscle tone improved, and he enjoyed short runs. He’d return from these runs with fierce enthusiasm. He was happy that his coordination was increasing.

Several new supplement protocols were tried. One of them included a meal-replacement drink that he liked. He came further out of his shell. His mother began home schooling him. His writing was no longer a dense scribble. He could focus on his work.

The boy went through another series of hyperbaric oxygen treatments. This time the results were more visible. His face, which tended to be mask-like, relaxed. He became more animated.

The supplement regime was enhanced with a ginseng adaptogen and a different type of magnesium. The boy received several adjustments from a chiropractor, who had been trained in the original techniques of the art.

A month later, the boy’s communication with his parents and his neighbors reached a new level. He had recovered a significant part of his life.

I asked the practitioner whether he would apply that entire course of treatment across the board for all children diagnosed with Autism.

“Absolutely not,” he said. “I don’t do ‘across-the-board’ anything.”

When I told a doctor what happened to this boy, he said, “It wasn’t Autism to begin with. He was misdiagnosed. It was a head injury.”

“No,” I said. “Nothing is Autism.”

He stared at me and then he smiled. “I know where you’re going with this,” he said.

“So?”

“Yeah,” he said. “They don’t have a cause for Autism.”

“So they have no right to say it’s a disease with a single cause.”

He scratched his head and walked away.

There is yet another reason the medical cartel wants to maintain this fiction about Autism and Alzheimer’s. It’s about controlling the research, of course. Keeping a lid on the fact that chemicals and inserted genes in the food supply; water contaminated with chemicals, including fluorides; heavy-metal particles sprayed in the skies; radiation; vaccines; medical drugs; industrial pollution and dumping; and other factors have been producing the symptoms of what is being called Autism and Alzheimer’s.

Covering all that up is a major priority. One dirty hand washes another.

Sources: “Dementia of the Alzheimer’s Type Symptoms and Diagnosis,” psychtreatment.com; “DSM-IV Criteria Pervasive Developmental Disorders,” firstsigns.org.

Jon Rappoport

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. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

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. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Roundup more toxic than officially declared – new study

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php

Roundup more toxic than officially declared – new study

The most widely used herbicide in the world contains compounds more toxic than declared – new research shows
CRIIGEN PRESS RELEASE
Caen, France, Feb. 21st, 2013

In a new research(1) published in the highly ranked scientific journal Toxicology, Robin Mesnage, Benoit Bernay and Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, from the University of Caen, France, have proven (from a study of nine Roundup-like herbicides) that the most toxic compound is not glyphosate, which is the substance the most assessed by regulatory authorities, but a compound that is not always listed on the label, called POE-15. Modern methods were applied at the cellular level (on three human cell lines), and mass spectrometry (studies on the nature of molecules). This allowed the researchers to identify and analyse the effects of these compounds.

Context: Glyphosate is supposed to be the “active ingredient” of Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, and it is present in a large group of Roundup-like herbicides. It has been safety tested on mammals for the purposes of regulatory risk assessment. But the commercial formulations of these pesticides as they are sold and used contain added ingredients (adjuvants). These are often classified confidential and described as “inerts”. However, they help to stabilize the chemical compound glyphosate and help it to penetrate plants, in the manner of corrosive detergents. The formulated herbicides (including Roundup) can affect all living cells, especially human cells. This danger is overlooked because glyphosate and Roundup are treated as the same by industry and regulators in long-term studies. The supposed non-toxicity of glyphosate serves as a basis for the commercial release of Roundup. The health and environmental agencies and pesticide companies assess the long-term effects on mammals of glyphosate alone, and not the full formulation. The details of this regulatory assessment are jealously kept confidential by companies like Monsanto and health and environmental agencies.

Conclusion and consequences: This study demonstrates that all the glyphosate-based herbicides tested are more toxic than glyphosate alone, and explains why. Thus their regulatory assessments and the maximum residue levels authorized in the environment, food, and feed, are erroneous. A drink (such as tap water contaminated by Roundup residues) or a food made with a Roundup tolerant GMO (like a transgenic soya or corn) were already demonstrated as toxic in the recent rat feeding study (2) from Prof. Séralini team. The researchers have also published responses to critics of the study (3). This new research explains and confirms the scientific results of the rat feeding study.

Overall, it is a great matter of concern for public health. First, all authorizations of Roundup-type herbicides have to be questioned urgently. Second, the regulatory assessment rules have to be fully revised. They should be analyzed in a transparent and contradictory manner by the scientific community. Agencies that give opinions to government authorities, in common with the pesticide companies generally conclude safety. The agencies’ opinions are wrong because they are made on the basis of lax assessments and much of the industry data is kept confidential, meaning that a full and transparent assessment cannot be carried out. These assessments are therefore neither neutral nor independent. They should as a first step make public on the Internet all the data that underpin the commercial release and positive opinions on the use of Roundup and similar products. The industry toxicological data must be legally made public.

Adjuvants of the POE-15 family (polyethoxylated tallowamine) have now been revealed as actively toxic to human cells, and must be regulated as such. The complete formulations must be tested in long-term toxicity studies and the results taken into account in regulatory assessments. The regulatory authorisation process for pesticides released into the environment and sold in stores must urgently be revised. Moreover, since the toxic confidential adjuvants are in general use in pesticide formulations, we fear according to these discoveries that the toxicity of all pesticides has been very significantly underestimated.

This study was conducted in the University of Caen with the structural support of CRIIGEN in the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER www.ensser.org <http://www.ensser.org > ).

Contact: criigen; phone +33 (0)231565684 (France). www.criigen.org <http://www.criigen.org >
—-
Notes:
(1) Mesnage R., Bernay B., Seralini G-E. (2013, in press). Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicology http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2012.09.006
(2) Seralini G. E., et al. (2012). Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (11): 4221-4231.
(3) Seralini G. E., et al. (2013). Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chemical Toxicology

Uncategorized

The fatal flaw in the human-machine interface

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001T68Z-93cJFYKFEQ4742eNo4O0XE0pLUyHvz3b0wuAoTLlBUatTQgQbRhJCF7UjFA1RHYu4qX46w-DPze0Kc19sVmr1S5qBUq6WRDr22-ig4%3D

The fatal flaw in the human-machine interface

The fatal flaw in the human-machine interface

by Jon Rappoport

March 21, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

There is a great deal of research going on in the area of artificial intelligence (AI) merging with the brain.

Exuberant cheerleaders like Roy Kurzweil are quite confident that we are approaching a moment when a computer will exhibit all the power of the human brain.

The definition of “power” in this context is fuzzy. But Kurzweil and others are sure we’re about to uncover the “algorithm” that underlies all brain activity.

They couldn’t be more wrong. Neuroscience has barely scratched the surface of understanding how the brain operates. Cracking the code is not on the horizon.

This fact reflects a much deeper problem. PR is not science. Predictions about what is imminent are not the same thing as verified research results.

PR is not information.

In exactly the same way, were a human-computer interface with awesome capability endowed with access to a hundred galaxies of stored data, it would run up against the problem of vast chronic misinformation in those cosmic warehouses.

This is not something that can be deleted with a program or a committee tasked with making corrective changes.

For example, and this is just one area, medical science is so rife with fraud, at so many levels, as I’ve demonstrated over and over again for the past 10 years, that it would take humans decades to expose a significant part of it. And AI wouldn’t even know where or how to begin looking, because…who would set the parameters of such an investigation?

There is an inherent self-limiting function in AI. It uses, accesses, collates, and calculates with, false information. Not just here and there or now and then, but on a continuous basis.

Think about all the entrenched institutions and monopolies in our society. Each one of them proliferates false information like a Niagara.

No machine can correct that. Indeed, AI machines are victims to it. They in turn emanate more falsities based on the information they are utilizing. I’m sure someone can make a little model of the exponential expansion of this disaster.

Each and every false datum generates a wider and wider stream of lies, and the streams, becoming rivers, overlap and produce exceptionally large numbers of contaminated eddies, polls, and rapids.

When personal computers entered the marketplace, people began a clamor about the Age of Information.

There were cultural reasons for this enthusiasm. They could all summed up by the fact that we are living in a technological society, and technology walks hand in glove with information.

But as the messianic postulations and predictions reached new heights, and the drive began to marry machine and human brain, the gaping holes and rips in the utopian fabric of dreams loomed up for any intelligent person to observe.

When a corporation or government expands to a certain size, it dedicates itself to survival, not of its principles, not of its original mission, but of Itself as an entity. Therefore, it spins lies.

As Dr. Peter Breggin and I discussed on his radio show yesterday, when it comes to the newly announced federal brain-mapping project (B.A.M.), the scientists will very rapidly begin drowning in their own ignorance about the very organ they are investigating.

But that won’t do. This billion-dollar project is supposed to produce results, and the project must survive. Therefore, the researchers will cook up models to demonstrate their progress. These models will make assertions which are patently false.

Pharmaceutical companies will develop new drugs based on the false assertions about the brain, knowing full well they are operating in swamp of deception, and caring not one whit about it.

It is the same with the vaunted AI-human brain interface. It will gobble up and deploy untold numbers of lies already told by other institutions to defend and protect their own survival.

The complexity, on various levels, of false information will make the heralded AI-brain collaboration resemble an intelligence agency:

It lies about other lies, and then it lies about that.

The mathematics are packed with functions that automatically spiral out realities even Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter would find frivolous and repellent.

The field of information theory is about handling quantity of data and making that data readable. It’s not about the quality of the data.

AI can work successfully in engineering projects, but when the human interface is added, we are no longer merely talking about engineering. The whole purpose of the interface is supposed to be about somehow making humans better.

How can that happen when the hugely expanded access to data runs into billions or trillions of bits of false information?

I’ve been making notes for my second, more advanced logic course. The purpose of the course is to provide better ways of handling the flood of information we deal with every day. The first challenge is going beyond the rules and principles of classical logic, in order to analyze the quality of the data we are digesting and using.

There is no pat system for doing that. Certainly, accepting data based on the notion that “recognized authorities” are reliable would be a disaster. But that is exactly where the human-AI interface is heading, like a team of horses being driven toward the edge of a cliff.

The human-AI engineers are already fatally compromised. In journalistic terms, they are the mainstream reporters obeying the parameters laid down by their editors and corporate owners. They write their stories inside a bubble of illusory context. They go back, again and again, to the same sources, and those sources are permanently biased against popping the bubble and journeying out to where the truth exists.

Actually, an AI machine could write most of the articles that appear on the front page of the NY Times every day. It would save time and cut expenses. But the result would be the same: absurdly limited context, false information, deception, fatuous presumption of authority.

If, instead, you want to look for a program that would discount such a presumption and would reject institutional secrecy, a program that would undertake a relentless investigation of the quality of data, there is a potential candidate.

It’s called a human being. And it’s not a program.

Jon Rappoport

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. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

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. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Chinese Eugenics Factory Collects “Genius” DNA To Breed “Enhanced” Peop le | ExplosiveReports.Com

http://explosivereports.com/2013/03/20/chinese-eugenics-factory-collects-genius-dna-to-breed-enhanced-people/

Chinese Eugenics Factory Collects “Genius” DNA To Breed “Enhanced” People

Gallery

depositphotos_4408149-DNA-abstract

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
March 20, 2013

According to a leading evolutionary biologist, the Chinese are engaging in a massive breeding operation with the aim of ultimately creating a breed of cognitively enhanced individuals. And what’s more, the China-based eugenics factory recently bought up a large genome research institute in the United States, giving the Chinese access to the DNA of Americans.

In a recent interview with Vice magazine, evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller admits to have donated his DNA to an endeavor headed up by the world’s largest genetic research institution based in China’s Shenzhen province. Miller, by his own admission, is one of 2000 “brainiacs” selected by IBG Shenzhen for their transhumanist project. Asked how the company goes after potential DNA-contributors, Miller answers:

“They seem mostly interested in people of Chinese and European descent. They’re basically recruiting through a scientific conference, through word of mouth. You have to provide some evidence that you’re as smart as you say you are. You have to send your complete CV, publications you’ve produced, standardized-test scores, where you went to college… stuff like that.”

After the described recruiting process, the candidates apparently are informed by e-mail. Miller:

“I just got an email a couple of days ago saying that they’d almost finished doing the sequencing for the BGI Cognitive Genetics Project, the one I gave my genetics to, and that the results would be available soon.”

According to Miller the DNA samples were collected mostly from “geniuses” of Chinese and European descent. He also stated outright that the purpose of the entire operation is to use the DNA collected in order to create a new breed of smarter, cognitively enhanced people for the Chinese state. Miller expands by stating that in the Chinese view these sort of state-approved interventions are desirable

In response to the question how the Chinese are planning to use the “genius” DNA collected in a pratical way, Miller explains the process:

“Any given couple could potentially have several eggs fertilized in the lab with the dad’s sperm and the mom’s eggs. Then you can test multiple embryos and analyze which one’s going to be the smartest. That kid would belong to that couple as if they had it naturally, but it would be the smartest a couple would be able to produce if they had 100 kids. It’s not genetic engineering or adding new genes, it’s the genes that couples already have.”

Miller also stresses that such a breeding program is designed to be successful over a prolonged period of time. He also acknowledges that the Chinese may be motivated by economics to breed “smarter people”.
“Even if it only boosts the average kid by five IQ points, that’s a huge difference in terms of economic productivity, the competitiveness of the country, how many patents they get, how their businesses are run, and how innovative their economy is.”

Miller also takes the liberty of speaking for the Chinese people when it comes to the state’s top-down transhumanist program underway, claiming in so many words that the Chinese people are fine with these interventions. Contrasting US attitudes to such eugenic interventions to Chinese ones, Miller asserts:

“We have ideological biases that say, “Well, this could be troubling, we shouldn’t be meddling with nature, we shouldn’t be meddling with God.” I just attended a debate in New York a few weeks ago about whether or not we should outlaw genetic engineering in babies and the audience was pretty split. In China, 95 percent of an audience would say, “Obviously you should make babies genetically healthier, happier, and brighter!” There’s a big cultural difference.”

These words are from the mouth of an academic, deemed by Chinese eugenicists to be a genius. If this man is a precursor to the envisioned “ubermensch”, then God help all of mankind. If you figure the breeding program to be unethical but safely far away, figure again. The Chinese genetic breeding programs have now been expanded to the United States. Just two days ago, BGI Shenzhen announced having completed the takeover of the US-based Genome research institute “Complete Genomics”. According to the press release, the takeover was “the first time a Chinese company has successfully acquired a US public company”.

Chinese state-sponsored genetic engineers are now expanding their operations to the US. On its own website, Complete Genomics boasts that “Our human genome sequencing technology, which is based on our proprietary DNA nanoarrays and ligation-based read technology, is superior to existing commercially available whole human genome sequencing methods in terms of quality, cost and scale.”

Wonderful, isn’t it? This superior technology is now in the hands of a professed eugenic institution from China, dead set on creating “enhanced” people. The notion to create, through genetic interference, socalled enhanced people (physically) isn’t just on the mind of Chinese geneticists gone wild. It’s on the mind of the global elite. In an article titled The Populations Problem written in October 2012 by Herman Daly, a former World Bank luminary and current professor at the University of Maryland, the suggestion is made that climate change should prompt the scientific community to genetically design smaller human beings. Breeding smaller human beings, Daly asserted, “could be the simplest way of increasing metabolic efficiency (measured as number of people maintained by a given resource throughput).” Daly:

“(…) human organisms might be genetically redesigned to require less food, air, and water. Indeed smaller people would be the simplest way of increasing metabolic efficiency (measured as number of people maintained by a given resource throughput). To my knowledge no one has yet suggested breeding smaller people as a way to avoid limiting births, but that probably just reflects my ignorance. We have, however, been busy breeding and genetically engineering larger and faster-growing plants and livestock. So far, the latter dissipative structures have been complementary with populations of human bodies, but in a finite and full world, the relationship will soon become competitive.”

The professor, by the way, is wrong in asserting that the suggestion is his to claim. Earlier that year professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University S. Matthew Liao wrote a paper in which he proposes a plethora of human engineering possibilities to “help humans consume less”. One of Liao’s proposals states that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, “less resource-intensive children”.

The Chinese may launch their eugenics operations for economic reasons, history teaches us that such breeding programs always co-exist with population reduction initiatives- under whatever pretext they are being pushed.

About these ads

March 20, 2013 Leave a Reply

Uncategorized

James Holmes, and how the CIA hid their mind-control program

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001dDyPakhdhuqTpIuWqA7bWj4cbZ77k2jee0p5cdBPciQUp3H6v_GYTg8MDxK1zkswx06NNQ0X-T7uYCXVhIC8wukxdOuPurMEqZnjltOEaZw%3D

James Holmes, and how the CIA hid their mind-control program

James Holmes, and how the CIA hid the MKULTRA mind-control program

by Jon Rappoport

March 20, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Back in the early 1990s, I interviewed John Marks, author of Search for the Manchurian Candidate. This was the book that exposed the existence of the infamous CIA MKULTRA program.

I bring up this interview now, because James Holmes may well be on the receiving end of MKULTRA, as his lawyers try to navigate an insanity plea in the Aurora massacre case.

Holmes will be given “truth drugs” to “refresh his memory” about his state of mind at the time of the killings. If that sounds absurd, it is. I wrote a piece the other day detailing how such drugs are often given to produce extreme terror in patients. In other words, the drugs don’t elicit the truth. They’re used as threats to force the patient/suspect to confess to whatever his torturers want him to confess to.

John Marks related the following facts to me. He had filed many Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests to the CIA for documents relating to their mind-control program. He got nothing back.

Finally, as if to play a joke on him, someone at the CIA sent Marks 10 boxes of financial and accounting records. The attitude was, “Here, see what you can do with this.”

I’ve seen some of those records. They’re very boring reading.

But Marks went through them, and lo and behold, he found he could piece together MKULTRA projects, based on the funding data.

Eventually, he assembled enough information to begin naming names. He conducted interviews. The shape of MKULTRA swam into view. And so he wrote his book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate.

He told me that three important books had been written about MKULTRA, and they all stemmed from those 10 boxes of CIA financial records. There was his own book; Operation Mind Control by Walter Bowart; and The Mind Manipulators by Alan Scheflin and Edward Opton.

Marks continued to press the CIA for more MKULTRA information. He explained to me what then happened. A CIA official told him the following: in 1962, after ten years of mind-control experiments, the whole program had been shifted over to another internal CIA department, the Office of Research and Development (ORD).

The ORD had a hundred boxes of information on their MKULTRA work, and there was no way under the sun, Marks was told, that he was ever going to get his hands on any of that. It was over. It didn’t matter how many FOIA requests Marks filed. He was done. The door was shut. Goodbye.

The CIA went darker than it ever had before. No leaks of any kind would be permitted.

In case there is any doubt about it, the idea of relying on the CIA to admit what it has done in the mind-control area, what it is doing, and what it will do should be put to bed by John Mark’s statements. The CIA always has been, and will continue to be, a rogue agency beyond the reach of the law.

Since it is the agency with the most experience using “truth drugs,” when James Holmes is put on ice at a Colorado mental hospital, to go through what the judge has permitted—a “narcoanalytic review” to test Holmes’ state of mind—it’s probable that CIA people will be on hand to advise.

The Colorado in-house psychiatrists know nothing about the use of truth drugs. They especially don’t know how to employ those drugs to produce just enough terror in the patient to get him to admit to Anything.

To give you an idea of how far the CIA, the US military, and its allied academics will go in MKULTRA “research,” here is what I wrote in 1995 about several human experiments. My information was based on the three key books I mentioned above, as well as Martin Lee’s classic, Acid Dreams:

“Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane University, as early as 1955, working for the Army, gave patients LSD while he had electrodes implanted deep inside their brains.”

“In the mid-1950’s, Paul Hoch, M.D., a man who would become Commissioner of Mental Hygiene for the State of New York, then a laborer in the field for the CIA, gave a ‘pseudoneurotic schizophrenic’ patient mescaline. The patient had a not-unfamiliar heaven-and-hell journey on the compound. But Hoch followed this up with a transorbital leucotomy [aka lobotomy]… Hoch also gave a patient LSD, and a local anesthetic, and then proceeded to remove pieces of cerebral cortex, asking at various moments whether the patient’s perceptions were changing.”

People need to understand how the history of mind control and psychiatry are interwoven, and how the madmen and murderers within these “professions” are content to use torture “in the name of science.”

From a current naturalnews article by Dr. Peter Breggin (“Never again! The real history of psychiatry”) we get insight into one aspect of that history:

“[Before World War 2, in America], organized psychiatry had been sterilizing tens of thousands of Americans. For a time in California, you couldn’t be discharged from a state hospital unless you were sterilized. In Virginia the retarded were targeted. American advocates of sterilization went to Berlin to help the Nazis plan their sterilization program. These Americans reassured the Germans that they would meet no opposition from America in sterilizing their mentally and physically ‘unfit’ citizens.

“While the murder of mental patients was going full swing in Germany, knowledgeable American psychiatrists and neurologists didn’t want to be left out. In 1942, the American Psychiatric Association held a debate about whether to sterilize or to murder low IQ ‘retarded’ children when they reached the age of five. Those were the only two alternatives in the debate: sterilization or death.

“After the debate, the official journal of the American Psychiatric Association published an editorial in which it chose sides in favor of murder (“Euthanasia” in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1942, volume 99, pp. 141-143). It said psychiatrists would have to muster their psychological skills to keep parents from feeling guilty about agreeing to have their children killed.”

Jon Rappoport

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. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

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. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Aspartame is linked to Leukemia and Lymphoma in new Landmark Study on Humans | Consciousness TV

http://worldtruth.tv/aspartame-is-linked-to-leukemia-and-lymphoma-in-new-landmark-study-on-humans/

ASPARTAME IS LINKED TO LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA IN NEW LANDMARK STUDY ON HUMANS

As few as one diet soda daily may increase the risk for leukemia in men and women, and for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men, according to new results from the longest-ever running study on aspartame as a carcinogen in humans. Importantly, this is the most comprehensive, long-term study ever completed on this topic, so it holds more weight than other past studies which appeared to show no risk. And disturbingly, it may also open the door for further similar findings on other cancers in future studies.

The most thorough study yet on aspartame – Over two million person-years

For this study, researchers prospectively analyzed data from the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for a 22-year period. A total of 77,218 women and 47,810 men were included in the analysis, for a total of 2,278,396 person-years of data. Apart from sheer size, what makes this study superior to other past studies is the thoroughness with which aspartame intake was assessed. Every two years, participants were given a detailed dietary questionnaire, and their diets were reassessed every four years. Previous studies which found no link to cancer only ever assessed participants’ aspartame intake at one point in time, which could be a major weakness affecting their accuracy.

One diet soda a day increases leukemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphomas

The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:

– 42 percent higher leukemia risk in men and women (pooled analysis)
– 102 percent higher multiple myeloma risk (in men only)
– 31 percent higher non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk (in men only)

These results were based on multi-variable relative risk models, all in comparison to participants who drank no diet soda. It is unknown why only men drinking higher amounts of diet soda showed increased risk for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Note that diet soda is the largest dietary source of aspartame (by far) in the U.S. Every year, Americans consume about 5,250 tons of aspartame in total, of which about 86 percent (4,500 tons) is found in diet sodas.

Confirmation of previous high quality research on animals

This new study shows the importance of the quality of research. Most of the past studies showing no link between aspartame and cancer have been criticized for being too short in duration and too inaccurate in assessing long-term aspartame intake. This new study solves both of those issues. The fact that it also shows a positive link to cancer should come as no surprise, because a previous best-in-class research study done on animals (900 rats over their entire natural lifetimes) showed strikingly similar results back in 2006: aspartame significantly increased the risk for lymphomas and leukemia in both males and females. More worrying is the follow on mega-study, which started aspartame exposure of the rats at the fetal stage. Increased lymphoma and leukemia risks were confirmed, and this time the female rats also showed significantly increased breast (mammary) cancer rates. This raises a critical question: will future, high-quality studies uncover links to the other cancers in which aspartame has been implicated (brain, breast, prostate, etc.)?

There is now more reason than ever to completely avoid aspartame in our daily diet. For those who are tempted to go back to sugary sodas as a “healthy” alternative, this study had a surprise finding: men consuming one or more sugar-sweetened sodas daily saw a 66 percent increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (even worse than for diet soda). Perhaps the healthiest soda is NO SODA AT ALL.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.naturalnews.com
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23097267
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16507461
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418

Uncategorized

The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001-uqe82qIMgmC0_DD79D2nqIF3BHjQSwbvuDOCSF5iQK-DP9NCogYsciosoPtq-MLO3j2VvvvvAvDEtk2IOel4VvaCyYNUhJyPPNJ9CVMMUI%3D

The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture

The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture

By Jon Rappoport

March 18, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

In 2002, author Martin Lee wrote an article for Common Dreams: “Truth Serum and Torture.”

It could have been written yesterday, because now a Colorado judge has stated that, if James Holmes pleads not guilty by reason of insanity to the Aurora murders, state psychiatrists can subject him to drugs that will “help him remember his state of mind” at the time of the shootings. The drugging will reveal whether he really was insane that night last summer at the Aurora theater.

Well, when it comes to so-called truth drugs like sodium pentothal, sodium amatyl, scopolamine, mescaline, LSD, and hypnotic benzodiazepines, where are the pros with real experience?

At run-of-the-mill psychiatric wards? No. Those hacks in the Colorado state hospital system have rarely if ever tried out the drugs for the purpose of getting at the truth.

But the CIA has up-to-date interrogators around, and thousands of pages of MKULTRA (mind control) literature, that constitute the best experience in this dark art.

Therefore, it’s highly probable the CIA or their independent contractors will be sitting in on James Holmes’ drug-induced sessions, supervising them, giving advice. It’s the Ghostbusters motto: “Who ya gonna call?”

Martin Lee points out that, even before the CIA was created, its forerunner, the OSS, tried out a cannabis extract as a truth serum. This was back in the 1940s. Lee goes on to trace US intelligence-agency and military “leadership” in truth-drug testing.

In 1947, the US Navy Project Chatter, borrowing from Nazi studies, moved on to experiments with mescaline as a truth drug.

Shortly after its inception, in the late 1940s, the CIA used drugging with sedatives, plus hypnosis, to extract secrets from agents. This method, and barbiturates alternated with amphetamines, were soon rolled up into the infamous and overarching MKULTRA mind-control program, with its hundreds of sub-projects. MKULTRA was all about developing chemical means of eliciting truth from prisoners, along with creating unconscious assassins.

In the 1950s, the CIA employed LSD in Operation Artichoke. People don’t know or forget that, while LSD failed to qualify as a reliable truth serum, its use in very high doses produced extreme terror in people being interrogated. It was this effect, as straight-out torture, the CIA capitalized on. The idea was simple. Demand the truth and threaten with extreme-dose LSD as the alternative.

We shouldn’t discount the possibility that James Holmes, once he enters an insanity plea, and is sent away to a secure hospital for psychiatric eval, will be given drugs that produce the kind of mad panic that will convince him to say, in court, exactly what his handlers want him to say.

Back in 2002, Martin Lee wrote that William Webster, former head of the CIA and FBI, was recommending the use of truth drugs on terrorism suspects under US detention. This statement spurred a significant amount of media coverage at the time.

But in the ensuing years, very few people have bothered to ask the key question: Why should we assume that waterboarding and isolation tanks and sleep deprivation are the only torture methods the CIA/military are employing on these prisoners? What about the drugs?

In particular—because no drug has ever been found to reliably elicit the truth—what about the use of drugs to produce panic and wild terror, as a way to force people to tell what they know, or confess to what they’re told to.

It’s obvious, given the history, that US interrogators have, in fact, been using these drugs on detained terrorism suspects.

Lee ends his prescient article with a chilling quote from former CIA chief of counterterrorism, Vince Cannistraro, that reflects directly the James Holmes situation in 2013:

“Once you’ve used [truth drugs] for national security cases, then it becomes a standard. Sodium pentathol is not that effective, and so you have to use something stronger, It’s a short skip and a hop to LSD, or something worse.”

These drugs are certainly being used in national security cases. Therefore, as Cannistraro predicts, they are now entering the mainstream as the standard. The astonishing statement from the court judge in the James Holmes case, ordering his truth-drug interrogation, couldn’t be a clearer signal:

full-speed ahead in chemically inducing a suspect to give up his right not to incriminate himself;

forget the fact that such truth-drug interrogations are notoriously unreliable;

forget the damage suspects can incur from the effects of the drugs;

and most of all, forget the fact that, although truth drugs don’t work reliably, they can be used to create such terror that the suspect will do or say anything to escape more dosing.

Many people have observed that James Holmes already looks like a man who has been heavily drugged, while in custody.

Whatever Holmes knows about what happened last summer at the Aurora theater; whatever he doesn’t know; whatever role he played or didn’t play; whether he was in the theater doing the shooting or was the patsy set up by professionals to take the fall for the murders…

All of this can be twisted, on strong enough drugs, to cause him to say anything his handlers want him to say in court.

The psychiatrists who are working on Holmes will need advice on methods. They’ll go to, or be approached by, the people who have the track record, the history, the experience: the CIA.

And once that move is made, it will be very much like saying the Holmes case has national-security implications.

In so far as the Aurora murders have been used to try to snuff out the 2nd Amendment, the case is definitely the gun-grabbers’ version of national security. They want no mistakes in Holmes’ performance.

They want him to enter a plea of non-guilty by reason of insanity. Then they want him, after his stay in a mental hospital for”testing and observation,” to come back to court, and state that is now aware he killed and wounded many people. Then the State will dispose of him one way or another and he will never again see the light of day.

Naïve people place false barriers between the practice of psychiatry, institutional confinement, coerced admissions of guilt, torture, brain-twisting drugs, and the CIA’s MKULTRA. They swim together in the same stream far more often than Americans want to admit, or want to know about.

This horrendous stream flows through the James Holmes case.

Other than using drugs to force him to follow orders, what possible value can this “narcoanalytic review” have in a court of law? Think about it. If Holmes enters an insanity plea, thus triggering the ensuing truth-drug interrogation, he’ll already be stating he is crazy. So the drugs will be administered to a crazy man, on the premise that can he recall correctly, or reveal correctly, his state of mind at the time he committed murders.

Is there any defense lawyer in the country who couldn’t cast doubt on the reliability of such evidence?

No, the Holmes case is now being used to put straight-out drug-torture of defendants, in order to gain confessions, into the mainstream of American legal practice.

There is one more long-shot factor here. It’s nearly unthinkable, but it should be mentioned. Many people have found evidence that the Aurora murders were staged. Without recounting the details, suppose there is one more piece of stagework left: the truth drugs used on Holmes are shown to have created brain damage.

If Holmes’ lawyers claim that the prosecution irreparably destroyed their client, they can move for a mistrial.

Can you imagine the uproar, chaos, and destabilization that would result from a declaration of a mistrial, a no-verdict in the case, and Holmes walking out of prison? Or his remand to a psychiatric facility as a permanently damaged person—but without a guilty verdict?

Jon Rappoport

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. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

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. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Radioactive solar blast to hit Earth

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/radioactive-solar-blast-to-hit-earth/

RADIOACTIVE SOLAR BLAST TO HIT EARTH

WND-TV

NASA tracks particles moving at 900 miles per second

Published: 12 hours ago

130317sunflare

A burst of radioactive solar particles has erupted from the Sun, streaking toward Earth at 900 miles per second, NASA has announced.

The event, called a coronal mass ejection, or CME, while not occurring as frequently as solar flares, is still a common phenomenon. This time, however, rather than projecting out into space, it’s headed straight for Earth.

Given the direction and speed of the CME, Science World Report explains, mild to moderate effects may be felt as soon as Sunday.

When a CME strikes the Earth, the traveling body of solar energetic particles can – on rare occasion – causes a significant enough geomagnetic storm to disrupt the Earth’s magnetosphere. Results may include stronger aurorae around the Earth’s magnetic poles, disruption of radio transmissions and even damage to satellites and electrical transmission facilities, which could cause power outages.

Discover just how vulnerable the U.S. is to a catastrophic, electromagnetic event and what can be done to prepare with F. Michael Maloof’s “A Nation Forsaken” from WND Books!

NASA’s Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory and ESA/NASA’s Solar and Heliospheric Observatory reportedly observed the event, while experimental research models have measured its relative speed.

Ut_HKthATH4eww8X4xMDoxOjBrO-I4W8play_button.png

NASA’s models predict two of its space instruments, the Spitzer and MESSENGER spacecraft, will be affected by the solar blast, and the space agency has alerted mission scientists to take steps preventing particle radiation from damaging on-board instruments.

The Spitzer Space Telescope is an infrared space observatory launched in 2003 that has returned stunning photos of distant galaxies to Earth and became the first telescope in history to visually identify planets in other solar systems.

MESSENGER, an acronym of MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging, was launched in 2004 and became the first spacecraft ever to orbit the planet Mercury.

Uncategorized

There was a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001u8SjZbUCyfM-_HEVZmksEjen98kmjbUVGN6_Y8i_Bw8zbF6hcFguSGEDSBlvGCV48-_XdGjJPVgnYHXl2Mw5jy5rxiiEiS3hUDQwLPIr29c%3D

There was a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold

There WAS a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold

by Jon Rappoport

March 17, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

The relentless Brad Friedman of TheBradBlog ran this story down and broke it. There was, indeed, a recount of the Prop 37 vote.

Prop 37, the ballot measure that would have mandated labeling of all GMO food sold in California, went down to defeat last November, under suspicious circumstances.

So a small group, headed by Tom Courbat, former senior budget analyst for LA County, decided to challenge the vote.

In California, any voter can do that, if they’re willing to pay for it. And they have to pay for the recount county by county. They pick the counties they want to start with, they contact the county registrars, and they’re told what the price is. It’s different in each county.

So the group picked Orange and Sierra Counties. They paid the fee. The votes were recounted, and there was no appreciable change in the numbers.

The group decided Fresno County should be next. That’s when trouble came and whole thing blew up. The county clerk in Fresno, in charge of all voting processes, is Brandi Orth.

As The Brad Blog reveals, Orth came up with a staggering price for a vote recount. Here are a few of the details:

Orth stated there would be an up-front fee, due before the recount even started, of $18,000.

The cost per DAY of doing the recount? $4,000. This included five vote counters who would each be paid $46 an hour—to sit and count. Then there would be a three-person executive staff, each of whom would be paid an astonishing $92 an hour.

Note: In Orange County, the Prop 37 recount didn’t cost $4,000 a day. The fee? Only $600 a day!

But here is the best part. As Tom Courbat, the leader of the Prop 37 recount group, spoke with Fresno County Clerk, Brandi Orth, he suddenly learned he was being charged for the phone conversation—and also for Orth’s staff “getting ready” for a recount!

Understand this. No recount had begun. Courbat hadn’t given the green light for a recount. But, he was informed, he was already $4000 in the hole.

Courbat estimated a vote recount in Fresno County was going to cost his group $78,000 by the end of three weeks worth of work. They didn’t have the money

The Fresno County recount was toast. And with it went any chance (even if one assumes a recount would be honest) that Prop 37 could be fairly reviewed in California.

At this point, I ran down a few facts about Fresno County. It’s the number-one county in the US for agricultural production; in 2007, $5.3 billion. Major employers? Kraft Foods, Del Monte Foods, Foster Farms, Zacky Farms, Sun-Maid. A local outfit, David Sunflower Seeds, is owned by the giant ConAgra.

Beginning to form a picture? Fresno is Big Agriculture, and the last time I looked, Big Ag isn’t rushing to support GMO labeling. They love Monsanto, crime boss of the GMO world.

Brandi Orth, who blocked the recount, was installed as Fresno county clerk a mere 10 months before Prop 37 went up before California voters. This happened, as The Brad Blog points out, because the previous county clerk, Victor Salazar, suddenly announced his retirement with three years left on his contract.

Who picked Orth as the new county clerk? The five members of the Fresno board of supervisors. I noticed that two of them, Phil Larson and Debbie Poochigian, were members of the Fresno County Farm Bureau.

That’s quite interesting, because in the run-up to the November Prop 37 vote, the Farm Bureau was one of the organizations that signed on to a large NO on 37 print ad.

Let’s recap. The recount on the Prop 37 vote is stopped cold in Fresno County (a major center of Big Ag), because the county clerk, Brandi Orth put up absurd, incredible, and arbitrary obstacles. Orth was selected for her job, in the first place, by a board of supervisors on which, at the very least, two of the five members were opponents of Prop 37.

Does the California state government and, in particular, the state attorney general’s office give this foul-smelling situation even a sniff? No.

Does the California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, who is in charge of all voting in the State, budge from her office and investigate, or better yet, go down to Fresno and personally install a fair and equitable and affordable recount of Prop 37? Of course not. She moves right along to other matters.

What does that tell you?

The stink from the blocked vote-recount goes all the way from Fresno up to the capital city of Sacramento and back down again.

Naturally, the major media give this story no play. They remain silent.

As I’ve detailed in other articles, there are many reasons to reject the truth of the original Prop 37 vote in California, as well as any election in the State. But after these revelations, if you accept California vote-counts as real, you should check your sanity.

Source: The Brad Blog, “Forget About Fresno: How One CA County Clerk Stopped Prop 37’s Oversight ‘Recount'”

Jon Rappoport

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. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

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. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

CowboyByte.com » LaPierre : “Let the Elitists Who Scorn You Be Damned”

http://cowboybyte.com/20018/lapierre-to-cpac-let-the-elitists-who-scorn-you-be-damned/

LaPierre : “Let the Elitists Who Scorn You Be Damned”

screen-shot-2013-03-15-at-7.25.42-pm.png

screen-shot-2013-03-15-at-7.25.42-pm.png

hoyerpacv

Based on Wayne LaPierre’s speech today at CPAC today, it’s abundantly clear that this is a man, who, in the face of harsh criticism and never ending ridicule, only grows more passionate and unwavering in his defense of Americans’ Second Amendment freedom.

“In their distorted view of the world, they are smarter than we are. They are special and more worthy than we are. They know better than we do,” the NRA chief said, referring to political elites and liberal media. Although freedom-loving Americans are the ones being labeled as “crazy” in the the gun control debate, LaPierre argued that insanity has consumed the media and political class in Washington.

Continue reading →

Share Article Save to Instapaper